41–50 of 585 posts
Agreed that the risk:reward ratio here would be worth it. This sounds super promising. That being said, how is it known that having had the mutated strain provides immunity to the dangerous strain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a virologist - well I have published many papers in this area. I have a PhD in molecular microbiology and have been a tenured professor (I now work in the biotech sector). This is not intended to be a scientific paper, but a layman’s summary of the idea so non-technical people can understand the idea. It is not risky to go looking for a naturally attenuated virus. This is the first step that needs to happen.
It would probably be helpful to mention that at the start or end of the post. Clear, non-inflated credentials/background with links. (I sometimes see this in italics at the top)
> More than 50% of the people infected with SARS-CoV-19 are asymptomatic (i.e. they have no illness). Note: asymptomatic at the time of testing. They may still develop symptoms over time. https://www.icelandreview.com/sci-tech/is-icelands-coronavir... https://twitter.com/cmyeaton/status/1246196001775460358
I have posted this again as dang asked me to put it up again. Happy to answer questions about the idea, but I am most interested in find collaborators to make it happen ASAP.
From the comments on your site: > One thing is certain with the current situation is we need to take some risks if we are going to solve it quickly. Looking for quick answers in a crisis is really risky. There is a natural push to try to get things back to normal as soon as possible, but developing an attenuated vaccine (even with a potential strain already in existence), takes a lot of time and testing. I certainly…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A country without other options might be more interested in the idea? I imagine that many first world countries would be too worried about the potential liabilities.
I suspect even the first world will be interested in options like this after a few more months of social isolation.
It is worth comparing this to things like SARS. The distribution of SARS symptoms would be pretty narrow - everyone gets really sick. So the variance for SARS is small compared to Covid-19. The same could be observed for influenza or rhinoviruses.
The problem with a "milder" Covid-19 is that it might still have the same massive variance in symtpom severity. It might kill less people, but it would still be morally bankrupt to let it spread. In fact, it might be preferable to not reduce the mean severity, but just decrease the variance so it never gets nasty enough to kill without being immuno-compromised.
So how are we gonna deal this increased liver damage then, if we are actually gonna use this less pathogenic branch of the virus as a quasi-vaccine?
Is there way to reengineer this virus so that it would be less kidney/liver damaging?
You say > The reason why is immunity to respiratory viruses (like corona) doesn’t last long – 6 months to 2 years. I haven’t read anything like this before. It seems like you’re extrapolating from the flu vaccine, which doesn’t last because the flu mutates too quickly. Coronavirus mutate much slower and the thought is that we’ll likely only need one vaccine. Have we actually found any less deadly strains? My understa…
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00798-8 > If humans do develop immunity, how long does it last? > That’s another big unknown. Immunity is short-lived for the coronaviruses that cause common colds; even people who have high levels of antibodies against these viruses can still become infected, says Stanley Perlman, a coronavirologist at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. > The evidence is more equivocal fo…
More likely, viral load, immune system strength, overall age and the genetics of the person infected are what determines if the infection is fought off before any symptoms are shown