4 ms·
There's a spectrum... The zoonotic virus would need to have some rare "talent" to start with. Then there is the ominous "breeding" part, which many people descr
by bayesian_horse 4y ago
There's a spectrum... The zoonotic virus would need to have some rare "talent" to start with. Then there is the ominous "breeding" part, which many people describe as reckless or evil. In any case this isn't done in Humans but rather some kind of humanized model (and it's not clear that could work at all). Which is why it is quite a coincidence or accident that this process would end with a virus so well adapted to Humans that it is able to cause a pandemic. It's like winning a chess tournament after training for a Marathon.
It's only plausible if you know very little about biology. Very few people who know a lot about viruses believe that this is possible and even those usually say the zoonosis hypothesis is more likely.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago> It's only plausible if you know very little about biology. Not trolling, series question: what would these same ppl say about the monkey pox outbreaks? Why now? Why so random?
- bayesian_horse 4y agoAs far as I know the experts say they don't know all that much. Also the awareness of such issues has shifted a lot...
- peteradio 4y ago> Gain-of-function research is medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products. This may include an altered pathogenesis, transmissibility, or host range. Isn't the goal to end up with an infectious agent? I don't understand why it seems so implausible that they would succeed? Why would someone give a lab money for a truly impossible task?
- bayesian_horse 4y agoA virus that is optimized for mice or bats doesn't normally work well in Humans. If a bat virus somehow evolves in a lab into a pandemic in Humans, without essentially breeding the virus in Human subjects, that would be somewhat of an accidental development because the viral particles aren't specifically selected for that reason.
- uoaei 4y agoSomething tells me those scientists were more interested in the effects on humans than on mice, and do their best to modify their analogues (ie "humanize" them) to achieve comparable results.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoSomething tells me you know virtually nothing about biology, medicine or the experiments involved. It's really not that simple.