3 ms·

virus spread is O(n^2) vaccination is O(n) if you want to beat the virus, seems the answer is to genetically engineer a weak variant with a bigger reproductio

by a-dub 6y ago

virus spread is O(n^2) vaccination is O(n) if you want to beat the virus, seems the answer is to genetically engineer a weak variant with a bigger reproduction and let it rip? common cold with the covid-19 spike protein?

reedjosh 6y ago
I would prefer not to consent to a possibly dangerous 'weaker' version of COVID. This idea would completely take choice away and experiment on the human populace.
- a-dub 6y ago
  it's a last resort, it's true... but with variants mutating, i think we have to ask ourselves how much of a existential threat does this thing pose to the species. moreover, what's the difference if vaccines become mandatory anyhow? all the vaccines do is expose humans to the spike protein... if anything, hacking the virus seems safer than hacking the human body to produce the spike protein. i suppose it's hard to stop, where you can halt a vax campaign. i don't believe it would be impossible to establish a safety profile for a modified virus that is on par with those of the vaccines. or everyone could just stay home for a month...
  - reedjosh 6y ago
    > i think we have to ask ourselves how much of a existential threat does this thing pose to the species. I'd say not as great a threat as setting the dangerous precedent of experimenting on an unwitting populace.
    - a-dub 6y ago
      under normal circumstances, sure. but iff this thing poses an existential threat, the ethics calculus changes. i'd like to know if real virologists think that we're facing an existential threat.
anoonmoose 6y ago
what could possibly go wrong?
_ph_ 6y ago
That wouldn't work as viruses don't compete for a limited resource (as long as they don't kill all infected). So unlike animals, where one species eats the food of the other and can drive it to extinction, this won't work.
- pertymcpert 6y ago
  Variants do compete for non-immune hosts.
s_dev 6y ago
>seems the answer is to genetically engineer a weak variant with a bigger reproduction and let it rip? A weaker varient of a disease often just is the vaccine. As for letting her rip? I'd imagine the concern is future mutations that the vaccine can't surpress with it bouncing between people.
- a-dub 6y ago
  yes but we are unable to vaccinate fast enough. virus is n^2, vaccine is n you cannot beat exponential growth with linear growth
  - varajelle 6y ago
    Where did you get that virus is n^2 ? If I'd have to guess, I'd say it is O(R^n)
    - a-dub 6y ago
      it's tempting to think that, but no, in the simple non-mutating case, the exponent is fixed. the growth rate is exponential but the exponent does not grow with spread. they say the exponent ranges from 2-5 for covid, and drops with mitigation methods. that seems to clearly put it in n^2 to me. that said, the mitigations do cause the exponent to fluctuate... and in countries where people are willing to cooperate it has dropped below 1 and the epidemic has been mitigated. it is possible that this is actually a case calling where asymptotic analysis is inappropriate and in fact you have to resort to the raw data and measurement. now that i think of it though, if you allow for mutations that are more infectious, then the exponent is not fixed and increases with spread... yikes.
      - varajelle 6y ago
        I'm somehow still not convinced by your explanation. What exactly is N and what exactly is this measuring. I thought that N was a time period, and that the equation is something like Infected count = O(R^t) But apparently you mean that N is the number of infection? And what are you measuring? ??? = O(n^R) Where the ??? is also linear with the amount of people vaccinated?

by a-dub 6y ago

reedjosh 6y ago

I would prefer not to consent to a possibly dangerous 'weaker' version of COVID. This idea would completely take choice away and experiment on the human populace.

a-dub 6y ago
it's a last resort, it's true... but with variants mutating, i think we have to ask ourselves how much of a existential threat does this thing pose to the species. moreover, what's the difference if vaccines become mandatory anyhow? all the vaccines do is expose humans to the spike protein... if anything, hacking the virus seems safer than hacking the human body to produce the spike protein. i suppose it's hard to stop, where you can halt a vax campaign. i don't believe it would be impossible to establish a safety profile for a modified virus that is on par with those of the vaccines. or everyone could just stay home for a month...
- reedjosh 6y ago
  > i think we have to ask ourselves how much of a existential threat does this thing pose to the species. I'd say not as great a threat as setting the dangerous precedent of experimenting on an unwitting populace.
  - a-dub 6y ago
    under normal circumstances, sure. but iff this thing poses an existential threat, the ethics calculus changes. i'd like to know if real virologists think that we're facing an existential threat.

anoonmoose 6y ago

what could possibly go wrong?

_ph_ 6y ago

That wouldn't work as viruses don't compete for a limited resource (as long as they don't kill all infected). So unlike animals, where one species eats the food of the other and can drive it to extinction, this won't work.

pertymcpert 6y ago
Variants do compete for non-immune hosts.

s_dev 6y ago

>seems the answer is to genetically engineer a weak variant with a bigger reproduction and let it rip? A weaker varient of a disease often just is the vaccine. As for letting her rip? I'd imagine the concern is future mutations that the vaccine can't surpress with it bouncing between people.

a-dub 6y ago
yes but we are unable to vaccinate fast enough. virus is n^2, vaccine is n you cannot beat exponential growth with linear growth
- varajelle 6y ago
  Where did you get that virus is n^2 ? If I'd have to guess, I'd say it is O(R^n)
  - a-dub 6y ago
    it's tempting to think that, but no, in the simple non-mutating case, the exponent is fixed. the growth rate is exponential but the exponent does not grow with spread. they say the exponent ranges from 2-5 for covid, and drops with mitigation methods. that seems to clearly put it in n^2 to me. that said, the mitigations do cause the exponent to fluctuate... and in countries where people are willing to cooperate it has dropped below 1 and the epidemic has been mitigated. it is possible that this is actually a case calling where asymptotic analysis is inappropriate and in fact you have to resort to the raw data and measurement. now that i think of it though, if you allow for mutations that are more infectious, then the exponent is not fixed and increases with spread... yikes.
    - varajelle 6y ago
      I'm somehow still not convinced by your explanation. What exactly is N and what exactly is this measuring. I thought that N was a time period, and that the equation is something like Infected count = O(R^t) But apparently you mean that N is the number of infection? And what are you measuring? ??? = O(n^R) Where the ??? is also linear with the amount of people vaccinated?