91–100 of 160 posts
Predictable negativity from the comments here ignores that over one million people die of malaria per year. Not using what we can against something this horrible is a choice, too. And one that has the greater of consequences. It's easy to poke holes in things from the sidelines. That action is actively causing us to drag our feet and kill a lot of people. It should also be noted that mosquitoes are not depended on as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd much prefer the (theoretical) gene drive. Bad outcomes for gene drive are either that it doesn't work, or the mosquitoes go extinct in nature and cause more ecological issues by their absence. The worst problem is fixable by keeping live specimens for reintroduction. In fact, since malaria is the target and not the mosquitoes, reintroduction might be a good idea after malaria becomes extinct. Bad outcomes for the…
The fungus doesn't affect other insects - this was part of the test. So the worst case is that it becomes uncontrollable and wipes out the mosquitoes.
Predictable negativity from the comments here ignores that over one million people die of malaria per year. Not using what we can against something this horrible is a choice, too. And one that has the greater of consequences. It's easy to poke holes in things from the sidelines. That action is actively causing us to drag our feet and kill a lot of people. It should also be noted that mosquitoes are not depended on as…
People do not take issue with doing something against malaria but with the proposed method. How could it be stopped if something went wrong? It's not like a chemical agent that you just stop applying when you notice adverse effects. This is a living thing. Living things can procreate, mutate, enter new niches and the only deciding factor is the rate of reproduction. Life doesn't optimize for killing malaria-carrying…
Perhaps there might be a higher level question at hand here. What level of caution is appropriate when the deliberate choice of inaction has a price tag of six digits of lives attached? What level of risk and potentially unforeseen consequences are we willing to accept? This is not an idle question. It's a critical question for informing a decision-making framework that rests on calculation. Which we need here - I th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps there might be a higher level question at hand here. What level of caution is appropriate when the deliberate choice of inaction has a price tag of six digits of lives attached? What level of risk and potentially unforeseen consequences are we willing to accept? This is not an idle question. It's a critical question for informing a decision-making framework that rests on calculation. Which we need here - I th…
For something like this? An extreme amount. There are other options (a vaccine is already being tested) that can't mutate into a pathogen that kills off more people than the thing it was supposed to cure. Let's finish vetting those out completely before we move to what can only be described as the unstable nuclear option.
Approaches like insisting on fully and completely explore all the ideas that are readily palateable before we try to understand the potentials and risks of others seems like making policy primarily based around personal ick-factor. Which is great when choosing what to have for dinner, but maybe somewhat less than ideal when every delay means thousands more dead people.
Also, vaccines can run horribly off the rails. One cannot mutate into a pathogen, as you say, but tainted vaccines are a known risk. There may be unknown long-term risks or other things that haven't been fully studied. No approach is risk-free in this arena, and we do a disservice to humanity when we pretend otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course having 3000 species of spiders to choose they needed to play with the cool funnel-web spider. One of the most deadly spiders for humans. Wise choice. Atracotoxins. Stuff extremely toxic for a particular kind of animal: primates, causing pulmonary and cerebral edema in humans. Fortunately for mosquitoes, atracotoxins are relatively weak as insect killer. Big spiders rely in their fangs to subdue the prey. My…
you realise this is a carefully-controlled scientific experiment and not the latest Telsa model rollout, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For something like this? An extreme amount. There are other options (a vaccine is already being tested) that can't mutate into a pathogen that kills off more people than the thing it was supposed to cure. Let's finish vetting those out completely before we move to what can only be described as the unstable nuclear option.
To be clearer, the question of what level of caution is appropriate is one that cannot depend on the approach being considered. It needs to to be one that can be applied evenly across the whole of the solution-space. Approaches like insisting on fully and completely explore all the ideas that are readily palateable before we try to understand the potentials and risks of others seems like making policy primarily based…
You literally just defeated your own logic. The reason we do medical trials and "delay" is to ensure the vaccines aren't "tainted" as you put it, and to ensure that there are no delayed side effects.
But... you want to rush an alternative option that could kill literally millions, because waiting could mean thousands die??
That strain also kill some rice grubs.
The controlled installations in the picture look pretty piss-poor, such that GMO is already in the wild by now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clearer, the question of what level of caution is appropriate is one that cannot depend on the approach being considered. It needs to to be one that can be applied evenly across the whole of the solution-space. Approaches like insisting on fully and completely explore all the ideas that are readily palateable before we try to understand the potentials and risks of others seems like making policy primarily based…
>but maybe somewhat less than ideal when every delay means thousands more dead people. You literally just defeated your own logic. The reason we do medical trials and "delay" is to ensure the vaccines aren't "tainted" as you put it, and to ensure that there are no delayed side effects. But... you want to rush an alternative option that could kill literally millions, because waiting could mean thousands die??
I do not think it reasonable to rush through any thing, option, or approach in this arena. I do not suggest or advise any actions of the sort in any way, shape, or form. I do think it's worth taking the time to ensure that risks are handled properly. I think it's worth having a uniform framework for identifying what those risks are and reasoning about them to enable planning. I also think we should consider carefully the potential benefits of exploring multiple possibilties, against the chance that the most pleasing and lowest risk ones do not pan out.
Again, please accept my apoligies for being unclear. I hope I've made myself clearer! Please don't hesitate to ask if there's anything else I can communicate better.