Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding, if a novel virus mutates to be more infectious, it has to pay for it in other regards evolutionary speaking. Like it won't be as virulent or it won't be able to multiply as efficiently. Isnt that why most airborne viral disease tend to have Mild/moderate symptoms?Well the fear is always how infectious these things are. These novel diseases don't tend to be as infectious as the common cold or flu, but the fear that people in the CDC/WHO is eventually we're gonna have the wrong animal cross with the wrong human and create something like SARS that spreads as easy as a common cold. That's why novel outbreaks are so hyped up and so dangerous, you don't know what you're dealing with until you do. So far these high mortality infections are only human-human in very close proximity, but all it takes is wrong place wrong time and that changes.
It's also important to note that unlike previous pandemics, we have international cooperation and global government agencies that watch over these novel outbreaks and can clamp down on them in ways that we couldn't back in the 20th century. But in the same breath, we didn't have massive hubs of near instantly global travel to major population centers during previous pandemics.
The most deadly types are usually transmitted through very close physical intimate contact or blood to blood exposure like hiv.
I mean yes a lot of people will still die but it won't be a civilization ending thing. I don't think any natural viruses are capable of that at least in our modern setting.
But I'm no expert.