3 ms·

The concern is that it is much much easier for those who would cause harm to use this information than for those who would use it to create defenses. With such

The concern is that it is much much easier for those who would cause harm to use this information than for those who would use it to create defenses. With such an asymmetry it makes sense to restrict access. Only if the numbers are fairly comparable. If the number of "good" scientists looking to defend is much larger than the number of bad scientists, you're still probably better off publishing.

pragmatic 15y ago
No. That doesn't make sense. See my comment above. You have to guarantee 100% effective vaccines with 100% distribution.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  You have to guarantee 100% effective vaccines with 100% distribution. This is false. A vaccine can effectively stop a virus with far fewer than 100% actually receiving the vaccination. First, depending on the type of vaccine, the immunity may be communicated to other people through contact. Other people in the household, work, school, etc. are contaminated with the attenuated virus (in such a vaccination, as with the Salk polio virus). Second, with a sufficient portion of the population immune, they act as firebreaks interfering with the transmission of the virus through the population. This is called "Herd Immunity" [1]. According to the linked article, for example, smallpox is effectively stopped with 83%-85% of the community vaccinated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
hackinthebochs 15y ago
The issue is how hard is it to make a vaccine vs how hard is it to create a pandemic strain. Seeing as we haven't got a permanent vaccine against flu yet, I don't think the odds are in our favor. We would have to vaccinate against the particular proteins that allow it to be airborne. I don't think we have that kind of technology to specify precisely what our immune system latches onto.

3 ms·

The concern is that it is much much easier for those who would cause harm to use this information than for those who would use it to create defenses. With such

by angelbob 15y ago

pragmatic 15y ago
No. That doesn't make sense. See my comment above. You have to guarantee 100% effective vaccines with 100% distribution.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  You have to guarantee 100% effective vaccines with 100% distribution. This is false. A vaccine can effectively stop a virus with far fewer than 100% actually receiving the vaccination. First, depending on the type of vaccine, the immunity may be communicated to other people through contact. Other people in the household, work, school, etc. are contaminated with the attenuated virus (in such a vaccination, as with the Salk polio virus). Second, with a sufficient portion of the population immune, they act as firebreaks interfering with the transmission of the virus through the population. This is called "Herd Immunity" [1]. According to the linked article, for example, smallpox is effectively stopped with 83%-85% of the community vaccinated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
hackinthebochs 15y ago
The issue is how hard is it to make a vaccine vs how hard is it to create a pandemic strain. Seeing as we haven't got a permanent vaccine against flu yet, I don't think the odds are in our favor. We would have to vaccinate against the particular proteins that allow it to be airborne. I don't think we have that kind of technology to specify precisely what our immune system latches onto.