3 ms·

The result of the research is very valuable. It helps predict the attributes of future novel strains. In reality, infectious success and malignancy are highly

The result of the research is very valuable. It helps predict the attributes of future novel strains. In reality, infectious success and malignancy are highly anti-correlated, strongly. The combined Virus (which probably has existed in a very similar form in the wild somewhere!!) is actually a lot less dangerous than the two sources. Also: Both Viruses have become a lot less dangerous to the world population because of immunity.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> It helps predict the attributes of future novel strains. Prove it.
creato 4y ago
Why is that valuable? It takes weeks if not days to synthesize a vaccine for a new strain. It then takes months if not years, and massive investment, to test it for safety and efficacy. How the hell does shortening the weeks part of this at the expense of potentially requiring a new expensive test, in case the experiment leaks, make any sense?
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Creating a vaccine was not the purpose of this research. The problem with new variants is that it takes months to know how virulent and how transmissible it is. Such research enables better prediction from the point of detecting and sequencing such variants. We know now that Omicron's spike protein is responsible for the better transmission and better immunological evasion. If we see a new variant with Omicron's spike protein, but modified, we can first of all tell it's going to be better at evasion. If there are changes in parts that are highly selected, it's probably more transmissive. If that part is less selected-for (there are ways to tell from the sequence) we have a clue that it is probably a little less transmissive. We also know that the spike protein is less associated with the virulence. Which means researchers have to keep looking for what makes the Virus deadly. This could lead to more effective vaccines and antibody treatments or even antiviral agents. Knowing which protein to target is half the game.
  - addingadimensio 4y ago
    “Such research enables better prediction from the point of detecting and sequencing such variants.” It’s good because the researchers word salad said it was good OK
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

MichaelCollins 4y ago

> It helps predict the attributes of future novel strains. Prove it.

creato 4y ago

Why is that valuable? It takes weeks if not days to synthesize a vaccine for a new strain. It then takes months if not years, and massive investment, to test it for safety and efficacy. How the hell does shortening the weeks part of this at the expense of potentially requiring a new expensive test, in case the experiment leaks, make any sense?

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Creating a vaccine was not the purpose of this research. The problem with new variants is that it takes months to know how virulent and how transmissible it is. Such research enables better prediction from the point of detecting and sequencing such variants. We know now that Omicron's spike protein is responsible for the better transmission and better immunological evasion. If we see a new variant with Omicron's spike protein, but modified, we can first of all tell it's going to be better at evasion. If there are changes in parts that are highly selected, it's probably more transmissive. If that part is less selected-for (there are ways to tell from the sequence) we have a clue that it is probably a little less transmissive. We also know that the spike protein is less associated with the virulence. Which means researchers have to keep looking for what makes the Virus deadly. This could lead to more effective vaccines and antibody treatments or even antiviral agents. Knowing which protein to target is half the game.
- addingadimensio 4y ago
  “Such research enables better prediction from the point of detecting and sequencing such variants.” It’s good because the researchers word salad said it was good OK
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]