3 ms·

Mortality and R0 will be inversely correlated viruses that excel at killing the host will be contained by the hosts dying rather than infecting many others. Al

Mortality and R0 will be inversely correlated viruses that excel at killing the host will be contained by the hosts dying rather than infecting many others. Also the natural selection on viruses would result in them evolving into less deadly forms because those would be the ones that get more wide spread. Other factors like long incubation and infectiousness are also often inversely correlated the incubation period is the time when the virus replicates while remaining mostly asymptomatic which often means for airborne viruses it’s also a period when the host isn’t particularly infectious.

ignoramous 7y ago
What's the possibility of creating such a virus in a lab?
- dogma1138 7y ago
  Fairly low while we can snip a few genes here and there the technology isn’t there. When it will be it can also be used to easily create a cure if you can assemble viruses like legos it would be also incredibly easy to create inhibitors and anti bodies with the same technology. This is also what we are doing atm basically playing a huge game of “Perfection” by trying to find anything that would fit one of the “holes” on the virus, our cells or those which open up during its assembly process like its viral protease.
- pen2l 7y ago
  I fear that now that we have witnessed the economic turmoil it can inflict on any community where this virus is released, there are entities out there who have taken notice and will explore this as a means to future warfare.
  - sergiomattei 7y ago
    I believe it's the opposite now. This virus has shown the widespread economic impact and unpredictability that the uncontrolled spread of a virus can unleash on the world. After this, I'm sure no superpower will want to take a chance releasing a weaponized pathogen: it might just come bite them back in the ass.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- sndean 7y ago
  It may just be my better understanding of bacteria, but I think it'd be significantly easier to engineer bacteria as a bioweapon where, largely, you are the one doing the spreading, via something like a crop duster. I've heard a firsthand account from a guy who worked at Vector [0], that they had difficulty controlling viruses [1]. Accidental releases of weaponized bacteria also happened [2], but in that case they could prophylactically treat with antibiotics. That said, this was done using 1970's-1980's technology. I'm sure there's some more sophisticate bioweapons that are possible now. Maybe viruses are a more reasonable chassis. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_prog... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_smallpox_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_smallpox_incident [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak
  - rolph 7y ago
    bacteria are able to survive outside a host body, and exploit a wide range of resource compared to virus. virus is good for control in the case of accidents such as a biowar implement crashes somehow and spills virus, the environment will destroy it quickly, the cleanup is simple compared to a bacterial agent, eg anthrax in spore form lasts many years-->
feral 7y ago
Someone always says this. And yet here we are with a virus that has an r0 much higher than flu, and is ~10 times more lethal. That the two things are correlated in certain modeling scenarios does not mean you can't end up something that both spreads and kills.
- rbritton 7y ago
  Influenza R0 has varied historically between 0.9 and 2.8 [0], where covid-19 is typically quoted as having an R0 around 2.3-2.5. It’s not substantially different in that regard. Lethality estimates also suffer from being based on bad data. “Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes.” [1]. For that reason, the CFR in the US at least has been around 1%, but the IFR could actually be significantly lower. [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19545404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19545404/ [1]: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
  - feral 7y ago
    Otoh, the epidemic in the US is likely growing exponentially, and that encourages the current CFR to underestimate the actual CFR as new cases haven't had time to die. In terms of estimating the IFR, it's hard; estimates are about 0.7, much higher than flu. Your link says 'mean R0 1.3: range 0.9 to 2.1'. Compared to the mean R0 of flu, this disease spreads substantially more and is more lethal, hence is a good counterpoint to the flawed argument of the post that I was replying to.
- dogma1138 7y ago
  Stop comparing this to the seasonal flu, it's also quite likely that 3-4 years down the line when population wide antibody studies would be completed the CFR/IFR will drop by a factor of 10.

ignoramous 7y ago

What's the possibility of creating such a virus in a lab?

dogma1138 7y ago
Fairly low while we can snip a few genes here and there the technology isn’t there. When it will be it can also be used to easily create a cure if you can assemble viruses like legos it would be also incredibly easy to create inhibitors and anti bodies with the same technology. This is also what we are doing atm basically playing a huge game of “Perfection” by trying to find anything that would fit one of the “holes” on the virus, our cells or those which open up during its assembly process like its viral protease.
pen2l 7y ago
I fear that now that we have witnessed the economic turmoil it can inflict on any community where this virus is released, there are entities out there who have taken notice and will explore this as a means to future warfare.
- sergiomattei 7y ago
  I believe it's the opposite now. This virus has shown the widespread economic impact and unpredictability that the uncontrolled spread of a virus can unleash on the world. After this, I'm sure no superpower will want to take a chance releasing a weaponized pathogen: it might just come bite them back in the ass.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
sndean 7y ago
It may just be my better understanding of bacteria, but I think it'd be significantly easier to engineer bacteria as a bioweapon where, largely, you are the one doing the spreading, via something like a crop duster. I've heard a firsthand account from a guy who worked at Vector [0], that they had difficulty controlling viruses [1]. Accidental releases of weaponized bacteria also happened [2], but in that case they could prophylactically treat with antibiotics. That said, this was done using 1970's-1980's technology. I'm sure there's some more sophisticate bioweapons that are possible now. Maybe viruses are a more reasonable chassis. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_prog... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_smallpox_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_smallpox_incident [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak
- rolph 7y ago
  bacteria are able to survive outside a host body, and exploit a wide range of resource compared to virus. virus is good for control in the case of accidents such as a biowar implement crashes somehow and spills virus, the environment will destroy it quickly, the cleanup is simple compared to a bacterial agent, eg anthrax in spore form lasts many years-->

feral 7y ago

Someone always says this. And yet here we are with a virus that has an r0 much higher than flu, and is ~10 times more lethal. That the two things are correlated in certain modeling scenarios does not mean you can't end up something that both spreads and kills.

rbritton 7y ago
Influenza R0 has varied historically between 0.9 and 2.8 [0], where covid-19 is typically quoted as having an R0 around 2.3-2.5. It’s not substantially different in that regard. Lethality estimates also suffer from being based on bad data. “Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes.” [1]. For that reason, the CFR in the US at least has been around 1%, but the IFR could actually be significantly lower. [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19545404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19545404/ [1]: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
- feral 7y ago
  Otoh, the epidemic in the US is likely growing exponentially, and that encourages the current CFR to underestimate the actual CFR as new cases haven't had time to die. In terms of estimating the IFR, it's hard; estimates are about 0.7, much higher than flu. Your link says 'mean R0 1.3: range 0.9 to 2.1'. Compared to the mean R0 of flu, this disease spreads substantially more and is more lethal, hence is a good counterpoint to the flawed argument of the post that I was replying to.
dogma1138 7y ago
Stop comparing this to the seasonal flu, it's also quite likely that 3-4 years down the line when population wide antibody studies would be completed the CFR/IFR will drop by a factor of 10.