RS> Yes, there are survivors in the Flinders Ranges.

BG> And if they manage to breed, would it be reasonable
BG> to expect that their offspring will also be immune?

RS> Thats complicated. If the ones who didnt die didnt die because
RS> of their genetics, they are genetically different and dont die
RS> when exposed to the virus, and those genes arent recessive etc,
RS> then yes, you will get offspring which dont get killed by the virus.

BG> So in decimating the rabbit population, we're unintentionally
BG> breeding a super race of virus-resistant rodents.

Yes, thats always a risk. That is in fact why we get antibiotic resistant
infectious diseases too. Or insecticide resistant cockroaches etc.

RS> If on the other hand it isnt a genetic difference that causes a
RS> percentage to survive, say its the age they are exposed to the virus
RS> or something like that, then in that case you dont get immunity passed.

BG> Sure, but if it's anywhere near as virulent as reported
BG> by the hysterical local media, I can't see any individuals
BG> from a particular infected colony surviving, unless they
BG> have actually somehow become (or are already) immune.

Thats not how viruses work. You almost never get a 100% kill rate
even with the most virulent viruses. You dont even get 100% kill
rate with HIV which is one of the highest kill rates around.

That does not mean that you necessarily get the population
immune to the virus forever after tho. Like I say, it
depends on what causes the survivors to survive.
@EOT:

---