27 ms·

From what I understand: Gene deletions are expected to some extent as a result of natural mutations. The author is hypothesising that there should already exi

From what I understand: Gene deletions are expected to some extent as a result of natural mutations. The author is hypothesising that there should already exist natural virus particles ("in the wild") with key genes deleted that render it harmless to humans, and that these harmless strains may also be spreading in the population. We could possibly identify harmless virus particles with wide-ranging testing of asymptomatic people, and statistically identify what genes (or what parts of the genome) are important for disease. The author's concept is that this would have potential as a vaccine. It's similar in concept to the polio vaccine, or giving cowpox to prevent smallpox infection. In my opinion, the author is making several hypothetical leaps of logic that don't make this feel like a workable plan. The author proposes to test 50,000 people and use this to identify safer strains: in my opinion that wildly underestimates what would be needed for this to have a chance of working. Since the virus looks to be harmless in the vast majority of people it infects, it will be difficult and dangerous to distinguish strains that are genuinely harmless.

danieltillett 6y ago
First two paragraphs I have no issue with. Third no. I am not arguing this at all. Fourth is pure opinion. Fifth the same, but as a counter argument sequencing 10,000 strains has found 69 candidate attenuation strains and that was without even trying. Sixth no. It is actually quite easy to distinguish a harmless strain from a normal pathogenic strain as we can use the high morbidity rate as a proxy for danger.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  You've identified 69 strains (assuming no errors or false positives) Saying they are candidate attenuation strains is like saying sugar is a candidate treatment. [Edited after reconsidering, because it's worse than that:] Saying they are candidate attenuation strains is like saying drinking bleach is a candidate treatment. They are highly likely to still be extremely harmful.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    I can't make any sense of these comparisons. If, hypothetically, you have identified a strain that has had no severe outcomes even in a large cohort of people with known risk factors, then that strain is most likely harmless. Of course we don't have this kind of data (yet), but the principle is valid.
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      My understanding is that the "69 candidate strains" have been identified at least 1 time in the population. 1 is not a large cohort.
      - danieltillett 6y ago
        This is why it is a good idea to read the entire post before commenting. The process of checking each candidate strain requires going into the local community where the index case was found and looking for more cases.
        throwaway2245 6y ago
        So you're agreeing that my interpretation was correct.
        danieltillett 6y ago
        No
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        Of course, but every case number starts at one and grows from there, if only you start looking for more cases. Right now, we're not looking, but we should be. That's the point.
  - danieltillett 6y ago
    Oh so brave to be using a throwaway account to attack someone. Do you understand what the word candidate means? These 69 strains COULD be attenuated, but until we actually check into this we don’t know. The only way to find out is to actually investigate. How could it possible be harmful to check the clinical history of the patient that was infected with these deletion strains?

danieltillett 6y ago

First two paragraphs I have no issue with. Third no. I am not arguing this at all. Fourth is pure opinion. Fifth the same, but as a counter argument sequencing 10,000 strains has found 69 candidate attenuation strains and that was without even trying. Sixth no. It is actually quite easy to distinguish a harmless strain from a normal pathogenic strain as we can use the high morbidity rate as a proxy for danger.

throwaway2245 6y ago
You've identified 69 strains (assuming no errors or false positives) Saying they are candidate attenuation strains is like saying sugar is a candidate treatment. [Edited after reconsidering, because it's worse than that:] Saying they are candidate attenuation strains is like saying drinking bleach is a candidate treatment. They are highly likely to still be extremely harmful.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  I can't make any sense of these comparisons. If, hypothetically, you have identified a strain that has had no severe outcomes even in a large cohort of people with known risk factors, then that strain is most likely harmless. Of course we don't have this kind of data (yet), but the principle is valid.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    My understanding is that the "69 candidate strains" have been identified at least 1 time in the population. 1 is not a large cohort.
    - danieltillett 6y ago
      This is why it is a good idea to read the entire post before commenting. The process of checking each candidate strain requires going into the local community where the index case was found and looking for more cases.
      - throwaway2245 6y ago
        So you're agreeing that my interpretation was correct.
        danieltillett 6y ago
        No
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      Of course, but every case number starts at one and grows from there, if only you start looking for more cases. Right now, we're not looking, but we should be. That's the point.
- danieltillett 6y ago
  Oh so brave to be using a throwaway account to attack someone. Do you understand what the word candidate means? These 69 strains COULD be attenuated, but until we actually check into this we don’t know. The only way to find out is to actually investigate. How could it possible be harmful to check the clinical history of the patient that was infected with these deletion strains?