3 ms·

If one thought that a more infectious but less severe coronavirus was economically advantageous, how long would it take to breed in laboratory mice? Obvious you

If one thought that a more infectious but less severe coronavirus was economically advantageous, how long would it take to breed in laboratory mice? Obvious you couldn't announce making it, but if it happened to spread, that's good for the world, right?

p_l 5y ago
No, because more infectious but less severe virus is actually going to kill more people and cause more disruption economically even without deaths. For the former, essentially you're dealing with multiplying lower chance of death with much higher infection rate, resulting in bigger count of deaths (and other events like hospitalisations, isolation, etc., which increase economic disruption).
- trenchgun 5y ago
  But if it's really mild though, then it can be a Christmas gift.
- saalweachter 5y ago
  Also you could really only develop a strain that was more infectious/less deadly in mice, using mice. Once you jump it back to humans it's a new roll of the dice on whether it's more or less deadly and infectious.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    I generally agree. But it seems possible to know a priori that it wouldn't adversely affect the lungs, which is the primary cause of death/damage.
    - p_l 5y ago
      Except lungs are, arguably, a minor (just most visible) issue with COVID. We're going to deal with long history of disablement caused by how COVID attacks neural tissue, for example, something I think might be more disastrous long term (1918 flu was similar, with some historic effects like Aktion T-4)
      - dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Got a cite to share?
        jwozn 5y ago
        There's this: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1139035/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1139035/v1 But, also this: https://twitter.com/andrew_croxford/status/1476209804666601472 https://twitter.com/andrew_croxford/status/14762098046666014...
        dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Your cite says this: "Despite extensive distribution of SARS-CoV-2 in the body, we observed a paucity of inflammation or direct viral cytopathology outside of the lungs." Ah, and I see the tweet is trying to dispel fear that was worked up around this. Got it.
      - nradov 5y ago
        You haven't provided any evidence of a link between the 1918 flu and the Nazi Aktion T-4 mass murder program.
        p_l 5y ago
        Essentially, a significant portion of "invalids" in Germany that Nazi targeted first were people impacted by 1918 flu, specifically those who were exposed to it in prenatal stage. This contributed towards the Aktion T-4 program, and one of the common long term effects of the flu was among the targeted diseases, outside of just increased disability counts in German population due to 1918 flu. Reasonable starting point for looking further: https://twitter.com/pookleblinky/status/1332873432468492288 https://twitter.com/pookleblinky/status/1332873432468492288
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  I'm sorry I didn't clarify, but obviously some level of lower severity would be a social win. If cornona was only as severe as a flu or a cold, we wouldn't have lockdowns.
  - cpwright 5y ago
    Determining that it is only severe as the flu will take time and the flu is not a monolithic entity. Beyond that, even if rationally it is no worse than the flu, there is going to be a non-trivial segment of people and their elected representatives that are going to demand we contain COVID spread even if the cost outweighs the benefits in the opinion of many others.
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  It's a hard call to make either way, because you have to make an assumption about how many of the currently uninfected people will eventually get infected with, say, Delta (or any other variant) in order to calculate the tradeoff. If a more infectious variant just gets to people faster, but Delta (or whatever other variant) was going to get to them eventually, then that changes the tradeoff. A better argument against it would be that there is a huge unknown, and the very uncertainty about something which cannot be undone, is a reason not to do it.
- incrudible 5y ago
  > No, because more infectious but less severe virus is actually going to kill more people and cause more disruption economically even without deaths. Besides the "short term overload" aspect, this doesn't have much weight if both viruses ultimately end up infecting the majority of the population.
DebtDeflation 5y ago
I see I'm not the only one who has had that thought. Ethical issues aside, assuming that you could ensure the variant was extremely mild and that infection with it conferred immunity to all other variants, there is an argument to be made in favor of it.
- cplusplusfellow 5y ago
  You could almost consider this to be a version of a vaccine, but acquired via natural contact with other carriers rather than injected into your body.

p_l 5y ago

No, because more infectious but less severe virus is actually going to kill more people and cause more disruption economically even without deaths. For the former, essentially you're dealing with multiplying lower chance of death with much higher infection rate, resulting in bigger count of deaths (and other events like hospitalisations, isolation, etc., which increase economic disruption).

trenchgun 5y ago
But if it's really mild though, then it can be a Christmas gift.
saalweachter 5y ago
Also you could really only develop a strain that was more infectious/less deadly in mice, using mice. Once you jump it back to humans it's a new roll of the dice on whether it's more or less deadly and infectious.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  I generally agree. But it seems possible to know a priori that it wouldn't adversely affect the lungs, which is the primary cause of death/damage.
  - p_l 5y ago
    Except lungs are, arguably, a minor (just most visible) issue with COVID. We're going to deal with long history of disablement caused by how COVID attacks neural tissue, for example, something I think might be more disastrous long term (1918 flu was similar, with some historic effects like Aktion T-4)
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      Got a cite to share?
      - jwozn 5y ago
        There's this: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1139035/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1139035/v1 But, also this: https://twitter.com/andrew_croxford/status/1476209804666601472 https://twitter.com/andrew_croxford/status/14762098046666014...
        dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Your cite says this: "Despite extensive distribution of SARS-CoV-2 in the body, we observed a paucity of inflammation or direct viral cytopathology outside of the lungs." Ah, and I see the tweet is trying to dispel fear that was worked up around this. Got it.
    - nradov 5y ago
      You haven't provided any evidence of a link between the 1918 flu and the Nazi Aktion T-4 mass murder program.
      - p_l 5y ago
        Essentially, a significant portion of "invalids" in Germany that Nazi targeted first were people impacted by 1918 flu, specifically those who were exposed to it in prenatal stage. This contributed towards the Aktion T-4 program, and one of the common long term effects of the flu was among the targeted diseases, outside of just increased disability counts in German population due to 1918 flu. Reasonable starting point for looking further: https://twitter.com/pookleblinky/status/1332873432468492288 https://twitter.com/pookleblinky/status/1332873432468492288
dr_dshiv 5y ago
I'm sorry I didn't clarify, but obviously some level of lower severity would be a social win. If cornona was only as severe as a flu or a cold, we wouldn't have lockdowns.
- cpwright 5y ago
  Determining that it is only severe as the flu will take time and the flu is not a monolithic entity. Beyond that, even if rationally it is no worse than the flu, there is going to be a non-trivial segment of people and their elected representatives that are going to demand we contain COVID spread even if the cost outweighs the benefits in the opinion of many others.
rossdavidh 5y ago
It's a hard call to make either way, because you have to make an assumption about how many of the currently uninfected people will eventually get infected with, say, Delta (or any other variant) in order to calculate the tradeoff. If a more infectious variant just gets to people faster, but Delta (or whatever other variant) was going to get to them eventually, then that changes the tradeoff. A better argument against it would be that there is a huge unknown, and the very uncertainty about something which cannot be undone, is a reason not to do it.
incrudible 5y ago
> No, because more infectious but less severe virus is actually going to kill more people and cause more disruption economically even without deaths. Besides the "short term overload" aspect, this doesn't have much weight if both viruses ultimately end up infecting the majority of the population.

DebtDeflation 5y ago

I see I'm not the only one who has had that thought. Ethical issues aside, assuming that you could ensure the variant was extremely mild and that infection with it conferred immunity to all other variants, there is an argument to be made in favor of it.

cplusplusfellow 5y ago
You could almost consider this to be a version of a vaccine, but acquired via natural contact with other carriers rather than injected into your body.