5 ms·

> A virus being engineered to be an order of magnitude less virulent seems unlikely to say the least. From what I gathered it’s not suggesting specific genetic

by holler 6y ago

> A virus being engineered to be an order of magnitude less virulent seems unlikely to say the least. From what I gathered it’s not suggesting specific genetic traits were engineered, but rather that they were experimenting and one of those experiments could have accidentally been released(?).

sudosysgen 6y ago
Yes, but is the theory is that one experiment, in the context of a gain analysis, was made in order to see how the virus might evolve to be much less severe? Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? I don't doubt that an accidental release is feasible, though very very unlikely, but why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place?
- holler 6y ago
  Good question! But I just write javascript :) very interesting stuff
- onetom 6y ago
  maybe to be safe and minimize the consequence of accidents? maybe you can still arrive to the same conclusion, regardless of suppressing or amplifying a trait?
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? To better understand the mechanisms that make it weak or strong? Plus, why would it have to be "made weaker" as opposed, accidentally made weaker? If they were experimenting they would have all sorts of varieties/results... it's not like every experiment to make it stronger would make it stronger... surely some could fail and make it weaker!
- auggierose 6y ago
  If you do research you try all sorts of things. That much should be obvious. I guess you never did research.
- exdsq 6y ago
  I read that viruses, as a whole, are trending to be less severe because highly lethal viruses kill the host faster than it can spread. They could be researching ideas like this.
- curiosity42 6y ago
  If I were to make a great bio weapon that would do the maximum damage, I will have these attributes: 1. Spread it easily; 2. Don't kill the ones who spread it most easily (the young); 3. Be lethal enough to overwhelm the system. And so I have the Covid-19. Of course it is all post-fact analysis. but it also answers your question of why would an experiment make a less sever virus in the first place - to address the biggest problem of an infectious agent as a bioweapon, i.e. a virulent virus ends up killing too many too fast to be highly infective and 'effective'.
  - murgindrag 6y ago
    And if I were to make a bioweapon, I would think about long-term impact. (1) Millions disabled is far worse than millions dead. (2) Attacks can come in multiple pieces. The first virus might do damage to make people especially vulnerable to the second virus. If I can protect my population against the first one /or/ the second, my people are safe. My opinion is it's just a matter of time before we see bioweapons, and we should be ready. If not before COVID19, then now. Our vulnerability is very obvious. We should treat this as an emergency prep drill, and make sure businesses can operate remotely, kids can learn remotely, we have PPE, and the infrastructure is in place for essential work. That also wouldn't collapse the economy.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      Infectious bioweapons are a horrible idea in a highly connected world for the reason we can all plainly see: they don’t respect national borders. It is an old-fashioned notion of a weapon that only made sense when there was little exchange between the citizens of states in opposition, like the U.S. and USSR. China, for whom international trade is a crucial part of their strategy, would not work on an infectious disease weapon unless they simultaneously developed a vaccine to protect their own people. The fact they are not currently vaccinating their population, or even in the lead in developing a vaccine, is extremely strong proof that COVID-19 did not originate as a Chinese bioweapon candidate.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Just looking at it from an effect perspective, it’s clear that the much more virulent variant was much easier to keep under control.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  > Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? You're presuming it was for gain analysis. What if the intention was different? What if you were ultimately considering the virus for bio-warfare and wanted to hide that intention? If we're going to explore theories this fits the evidence, or is at least possible.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Why do you think it's very, very unlikely? Accidental releases of viruses from labs have happened quite regularly. It's a serious concern. The UK was first introduced to the uselessness of Imperial College and their epidemiological modelling by an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001 amongst livestock. It resulted in mass killing (by humans) of animals. Eventually the epidemic disappeared, amongst great acrimony and disaster for farmers. In 2007 foot and mouth appeared again. This time, the virus was traced to the source of the outbreak. It came from a lab in Pirbright where the virus had been stored for research. Two government orgs were connected by pipes, and the pipes had been allowed to rust due to a budget dispute over which org should pay for repairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-m... There's a long history of biolabs leaking and being found to be dangerous. It's not at all unlikely given this shoddy history. https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-long-history-of-accidental-laboratory-releases-of-potential-pandemic-pathogens/ https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-long-histo... the New York Times (8/5/19) reported: “Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns” https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/reports-of-incidents-at-bioterror-select-agent-labs/14140483/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/reports... "Hundreds of bioterror lab mishaps cloaked in secrecy" https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/23/undisclosed-cdc-lab-incidents/86305700/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/23/undisclosed-cd... Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday they have identified 34 incident reports involving bioterror pathogens mishandled at CDC labs that were “inadvertently” not disclosed in 2014 to congressional investigators who had asked for the information Oh and here's one from December 2019: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03863-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03863-z Chinese institutes investigate pathogen outbreaks in lab workers
- Natsu 6y ago
  > why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place? Wouldn't that make it seem safer to study?

by holler 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

Yes, but is the theory is that one experiment, in the context of a gain analysis, was made in order to see how the virus might evolve to be much less severe? Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? I don't doubt that an accidental release is feasible, though very very unlikely, but why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place?

holler 6y ago
Good question! But I just write javascript :) very interesting stuff
onetom 6y ago
maybe to be safe and minimize the consequence of accidents? maybe you can still arrive to the same conclusion, regardless of suppressing or amplifying a trait?
coldtea 6y ago
>Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? To better understand the mechanisms that make it weak or strong? Plus, why would it have to be "made weaker" as opposed, accidentally made weaker? If they were experimenting they would have all sorts of varieties/results... it's not like every experiment to make it stronger would make it stronger... surely some could fail and make it weaker!
auggierose 6y ago
If you do research you try all sorts of things. That much should be obvious. I guess you never did research.
exdsq 6y ago
I read that viruses, as a whole, are trending to be less severe because highly lethal viruses kill the host faster than it can spread. They could be researching ideas like this.
curiosity42 6y ago
If I were to make a great bio weapon that would do the maximum damage, I will have these attributes: 1. Spread it easily; 2. Don't kill the ones who spread it most easily (the young); 3. Be lethal enough to overwhelm the system. And so I have the Covid-19. Of course it is all post-fact analysis. but it also answers your question of why would an experiment make a less sever virus in the first place - to address the biggest problem of an infectious agent as a bioweapon, i.e. a virulent virus ends up killing too many too fast to be highly infective and 'effective'.
- murgindrag 6y ago
  And if I were to make a bioweapon, I would think about long-term impact. (1) Millions disabled is far worse than millions dead. (2) Attacks can come in multiple pieces. The first virus might do damage to make people especially vulnerable to the second virus. If I can protect my population against the first one /or/ the second, my people are safe. My opinion is it's just a matter of time before we see bioweapons, and we should be ready. If not before COVID19, then now. Our vulnerability is very obvious. We should treat this as an emergency prep drill, and make sure businesses can operate remotely, kids can learn remotely, we have PPE, and the infrastructure is in place for essential work. That also wouldn't collapse the economy.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Infectious bioweapons are a horrible idea in a highly connected world for the reason we can all plainly see: they don’t respect national borders. It is an old-fashioned notion of a weapon that only made sense when there was little exchange between the citizens of states in opposition, like the U.S. and USSR. China, for whom international trade is a crucial part of their strategy, would not work on an infectious disease weapon unless they simultaneously developed a vaccine to protect their own people. The fact they are not currently vaccinating their population, or even in the lead in developing a vaccine, is extremely strong proof that COVID-19 did not originate as a Chinese bioweapon candidate.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
Aeolun 6y ago
Just looking at it from an effect perspective, it’s clear that the much more virulent variant was much easier to keep under control.
chiefalchemist 6y ago
> Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? You're presuming it was for gain analysis. What if the intention was different? What if you were ultimately considering the virus for bio-warfare and wanted to hide that intention? If we're going to explore theories this fits the evidence, or is at least possible.
thu2111 6y ago
Why do you think it's very, very unlikely? Accidental releases of viruses from labs have happened quite regularly. It's a serious concern. The UK was first introduced to the uselessness of Imperial College and their epidemiological modelling by an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001 amongst livestock. It resulted in mass killing (by humans) of animals. Eventually the epidemic disappeared, amongst great acrimony and disaster for farmers. In 2007 foot and mouth appeared again. This time, the virus was traced to the source of the outbreak. It came from a lab in Pirbright where the virus had been stored for research. Two government orgs were connected by pipes, and the pipes had been allowed to rust due to a budget dispute over which org should pay for repairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-m... There's a long history of biolabs leaking and being found to be dangerous. It's not at all unlikely given this shoddy history. https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-long-history-of-accidental-laboratory-releases-of-potential-pandemic-pathogens/ https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-long-histo... the New York Times (8/5/19) reported: “Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns” https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/reports-of-incidents-at-bioterror-select-agent-labs/14140483/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/reports... "Hundreds of bioterror lab mishaps cloaked in secrecy" https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/23/undisclosed-cdc-lab-incidents/86305700/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/23/undisclosed-cd... Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday they have identified 34 incident reports involving bioterror pathogens mishandled at CDC labs that were “inadvertently” not disclosed in 2014 to congressional investigators who had asked for the information Oh and here's one from December 2019: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03863-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03863-z Chinese institutes investigate pathogen outbreaks in lab workers
Natsu 6y ago
> why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place? Wouldn't that make it seem safer to study?