That's a dangerous gamble which cannot be put back in the box in the event that it fails to be less dangerous. Like throwing a enormous amounts of sulfur in the

That's a dangerous gamble which cannot be put back in the box in the event that it fails to be less dangerous. Like throwing a enormous amounts of sulfur in the atmosphere to take out CO2. It's the sort of decision that would have to be taken by isolated group or nation on behalf of the rest of humanity despite potentially catastrophic unintended consequences. Maybe the result will be that it's a "less dangerous than Delta collective immunizer", but I wouldn't be thrilled if it's an intended variant (even if a lab leak isn't much more reassuring). I'm also unclear how such researchers could come to the conclusion that it is less dangerous and more contagious with humanized mice considering it is the result (AFAIU) of it contaminating and replicating in the airways rather than the lungs. I'd be curious for someone more informed than me (an ecologist with very superficial understanding of viruses and studies in mice), but if I'm correct that lung vs. airway contamination isn't quite replicable in humanized mice vs. humans, intentional "alter and release" seems dubious.