4 ms·
A huge problem I see with this is that already circulating coronaviruses cause immunities as short as 3 months. While the SARS virus seems to cause much longer
by patall 7y ago
A huge problem I see with this is that already circulating coronaviruses cause immunities as short as 3 months. While the SARS virus seems to cause much longer immunity (same for MERS), this may be linked to the strong symptomes that people have, thus may be due to a stronger immune reaction. Asymptomatic cases and people with mild symptoms may therefore be immune only for a short time. If this is the case, any herd immunity strategy will achieve not much but endanger many many people.
- danieltillett 7y agoThis is the exact problem my idea solves. Please take some time to read through the whole proposal again. I know this sound snarky, but yours is a really common response that has been addressed.
- NyxWulf 7y agoI did read through your entire proposal, this is a legitimate question, and is not address in your proposal. It is definitely not the problem your proposal is aimed at solving. The question posed is would an attenuated virus create a much short immunity reducing efficacy of the overall approach. It seems like the only answer can be we don't know, we'd have to look at that.
- danieltillett 7y agoYes it could create a shorter immunity, but the idea is to use the attenuated strain to drive the dangerous strain to extinction. More fundamentally there are many questions that are unknown, but doing nothing until they are all answered it a choice that has a very high cost.
- patall 7y agoExactly. His whole proposal is based on the assumption that an attenuated strain imuunizes enough people long enough. This has been possible in other diseases. But for example not the common cold, and not only because many different virus belong to that category. So yes, I read your proposal. No, this is not addressed.