3 ms·

Stupid idea: create artificial virus that spreads faster than natural one but without negative health effects. Nobody would admit that, but that could potentia

Stupid idea: create artificial virus that spreads faster than natural one but without negative health effects. Nobody would admit that, but that could potentially be most efficient way to combat a future global pandemic (assuming people keep sabotaging the system by not cooperating).

bediger4000 5y ago
I dunno, nobody even does this for computer viruses, which have a lot less ethical downside.
- halpert 5y ago
  The FBI did something similar once: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2021/04/14/fbi-hacks-into-hundreds-of-infected-us-servers-and-disinfects-them/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2021/04/14/fbi-hacks-into-h...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kuhewa 5y ago
Hard for it to spread faster than a respiratory bug unless it has some symptoms - coughs etc. The version of that idea that is feasible is intentional innoculations, which is basically a live attenuated vaccine.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  Well, a virus can be contagious without symptoms. COVID in particular starts spreading before symptoms suggesting you could have respiratory virus without people even being aware they are infected. And we know most people are not even aware they were sick or they had only mild symptoms. The issue with COVID is that some people are hit hard and a lot of people develop hard to detect complications. If you could modify the virus to avoid complications and avoid hitting some people very hard, you could have pretty effective way to innoculate population. The thing you are after is a virus that has same basic spike protein for your immune system to recognize and only enough mechanism to multiply itself.
  - kuhewa 5y ago
    Yes, COVID replicates in the nose quite a bit pre-symptoms but for it to out-compete the actual very fit active strains, which are turning your upper respiratory tract into a virus factor, it would be difficult to ensure no symptoms. Also, of course you are only a few mutations away at any one time from an unpredictably virulent version; there is no guarantee that the trajectory of viral evolution is toward less virulence. > The thing you are after is a virus that has same basic spike protein for your immune system to recognize and only enough mechanism to multiply itself. The version of that that is feasible is a viral vector vaccine e.g., ChAdOx1.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    But a virus can't replicate itself. It has to hijack (and kill) the hosts cells in order to replicate.
snowwrestler 5y ago
There are limits to how fast a virus can spread from person to person, and how quickly it can spread through a population. An intentional policy of inoculation is faster. That’s why vaccination works to reduce the incidence of even very contagious diseases like measles. Human logistics can pretty easily outrun the disease. It’s also easier to control dosage with inoculation, and therefore control for side effects. A naturally reproducing virus, even one that begins benign, can infect different people with varying severity, and change via mutation over time.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  That's why I mentioned populations sabotaging the system. I know this might sound like a radical idea, but vaccinations can only be effective when people are actually getting vaccinated.
- mrjangles 5y ago
  It took over a year and a half to come close to vaccinating everyone. Omicron infected the world in something like 2 months. Your statement that "An intentional policy of inoculation is faster" is clearly wrong. Not saying this is a good idea though.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    In the U.S. there have been about 75 million cases reported (this includes Omicron), while about 211 million people have received a full dose of vaccine.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      This has nothing to do with your statement on how fast we are able to deploy a vaccine vs infect population with a virus. Obviously, vaccine is preferable IF people were getting vaccinated. Also, it is normal for viruses to infect vaccinated people. The point of most vaccines is not to protect any single person, it is to protect the population. This happens by making it difficult for the virus to find a new host. When enough people are not vaccinated the virus is perfectly "happy" to mostly spread through unvaccinated population and hit the vaccinated population in the process. Think about this way: imagine a town densely built with wooden houses. Any fire would quickly consume entire town. Now imagine replacing 25% of wooden houses with brick houses. The fire will still consume entire town and it will still consume most or all of the brick houses. Does this mean that brick houses spread fire as readily as wooden ones?
postalrat 5y ago
Seems to be the one of the most efficient ways to combat a virus.
stirfish 5y ago
Someone wrote a worm that went around patching the vulnerabilities that another worm was using. This fix made things worse, as this second worm was using more of the network as it spread than the worm it was trying to eradicate. I'm worried that we'll make a super fast spreading but mild virus, then it'll mutate.
jjeaff 5y ago
It seems implausible to me that we could engineer a virus that was able to replicate in humans prolifically enough to be spread person to person but not cause any damage. My understanding is that viruses replicate by hijacking human cells and I don't think those cells survive the ride. Feeling sick is usually your immune system reacting and killing off the virus. If it didn't react at all, the virus would eventually kill enough cells to kill the host. The only way to not get sick from a viral infection is for your immune system to react quickly before the virus spreads too much, which would kill the virus before the host had enough of it to start shedding it and become infective to others.

bediger4000 5y ago

I dunno, nobody even does this for computer viruses, which have a lot less ethical downside.

halpert 5y ago
The FBI did something similar once: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2021/04/14/fbi-hacks-into-hundreds-of-infected-us-servers-and-disinfects-them/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2021/04/14/fbi-hacks-into-h...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

kuhewa 5y ago

Hard for it to spread faster than a respiratory bug unless it has some symptoms - coughs etc. The version of that idea that is feasible is intentional innoculations, which is basically a live attenuated vaccine.

lmilcin 5y ago
Well, a virus can be contagious without symptoms. COVID in particular starts spreading before symptoms suggesting you could have respiratory virus without people even being aware they are infected. And we know most people are not even aware they were sick or they had only mild symptoms. The issue with COVID is that some people are hit hard and a lot of people develop hard to detect complications. If you could modify the virus to avoid complications and avoid hitting some people very hard, you could have pretty effective way to innoculate population. The thing you are after is a virus that has same basic spike protein for your immune system to recognize and only enough mechanism to multiply itself.
- kuhewa 5y ago
  Yes, COVID replicates in the nose quite a bit pre-symptoms but for it to out-compete the actual very fit active strains, which are turning your upper respiratory tract into a virus factor, it would be difficult to ensure no symptoms. Also, of course you are only a few mutations away at any one time from an unpredictably virulent version; there is no guarantee that the trajectory of viral evolution is toward less virulence. > The thing you are after is a virus that has same basic spike protein for your immune system to recognize and only enough mechanism to multiply itself. The version of that that is feasible is a viral vector vaccine e.g., ChAdOx1.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  But a virus can't replicate itself. It has to hijack (and kill) the hosts cells in order to replicate.

snowwrestler 5y ago

There are limits to how fast a virus can spread from person to person, and how quickly it can spread through a population. An intentional policy of inoculation is faster. That’s why vaccination works to reduce the incidence of even very contagious diseases like measles. Human logistics can pretty easily outrun the disease. It’s also easier to control dosage with inoculation, and therefore control for side effects. A naturally reproducing virus, even one that begins benign, can infect different people with varying severity, and change via mutation over time.

lmilcin 5y ago
That's why I mentioned populations sabotaging the system. I know this might sound like a radical idea, but vaccinations can only be effective when people are actually getting vaccinated.
mrjangles 5y ago
It took over a year and a half to come close to vaccinating everyone. Omicron infected the world in something like 2 months. Your statement that "An intentional policy of inoculation is faster" is clearly wrong. Not saying this is a good idea though.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  In the U.S. there have been about 75 million cases reported (this includes Omicron), while about 211 million people have received a full dose of vaccine.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    This has nothing to do with your statement on how fast we are able to deploy a vaccine vs infect population with a virus. Obviously, vaccine is preferable IF people were getting vaccinated. Also, it is normal for viruses to infect vaccinated people. The point of most vaccines is not to protect any single person, it is to protect the population. This happens by making it difficult for the virus to find a new host. When enough people are not vaccinated the virus is perfectly "happy" to mostly spread through unvaccinated population and hit the vaccinated population in the process. Think about this way: imagine a town densely built with wooden houses. Any fire would quickly consume entire town. Now imagine replacing 25% of wooden houses with brick houses. The fire will still consume entire town and it will still consume most or all of the brick houses. Does this mean that brick houses spread fire as readily as wooden ones?

postalrat 5y ago

Seems to be the one of the most efficient ways to combat a virus.

stirfish 5y ago

Someone wrote a worm that went around patching the vulnerabilities that another worm was using. This fix made things worse, as this second worm was using more of the network as it spread than the worm it was trying to eradicate. I'm worried that we'll make a super fast spreading but mild virus, then it'll mutate.

jjeaff 5y ago

It seems implausible to me that we could engineer a virus that was able to replicate in humans prolifically enough to be spread person to person but not cause any damage. My understanding is that viruses replicate by hijacking human cells and I don't think those cells survive the ride. Feeling sick is usually your immune system reacting and killing off the virus. If it didn't react at all, the virus would eventually kill enough cells to kill the host. The only way to not get sick from a viral infection is for your immune system to react quickly before the virus spreads too much, which would kill the virus before the host had enough of it to start shedding it and become infective to others.