(Sorry - still off-topic - or not !) Hi Jessica
There's something called the "transmission-virulence trade-off hypothesis", which was introduced specifically to explain observations of myxoma virus virulence in Australia. What scientists found was that if they introduced what they called Grade I (ie highly virulent) myxoma strains, they recovered Grade III strains one or two years later. But if they introduced (very mild) Grade IV strains, they also recovered Grade III strains a little later. It always ended up as Grade III. I discussed this in my preprint - and also in the paper my collaborator and I are now working on ! So probably not a good idea Jacob Thx Patrick On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 4:16 PM Jessica Bruhn <jessicafbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > There have been some really excellent points raised by others (informed > consent, feasibility, etc), but I would like to share a story about another > time humans tried to release a virus on a wild population in order to > further an arguably noble goal: > > In the 1850s European rabbits were introduced in Australia for sport > hunting. They quickly did what bunnies do and started to become a real > problem. In the 1950s, scientists decided to introduce myxoma virus to > Australia, which is 90-99% fatal for European rabbits, but less lethal for > the native rabbits. They intentionally released this virus and in the first > year the mortality rate was 99.8% for the European rabbits. Yay, right??? > Unfortunately, in the subsequent year the mortality rate fell to 25% and > steadily continued to fall until it was lower than the reproductive rate of > the European rabbits. The host-virus interaction played itself out: > less-virulent viruses arose and resistant rabbits were selected for. > > To me it seems unwise to assume a replication competent virus (engineered > or not) would refrain from mutating and adapting upon release, especially > over the time course that would be required to infect all 7 billion+ humans > on this planet. To me, I feel our options are (1) reach herd immunity > through natural infection and accept the preventable deaths of many > millions of people or (2) continue with non-pharmaceutical interventions > (mask wearing, distancing, etc) until we can vaccinate enough people to > reach herd immunity and hopefully by that time we have robust testing and > treatment options available for those who continue to fall ill after we > reach herd immunity. We as humans did something amazing by producing > multiple safe and effective vaccines in less than one year, and I would > like us to continue trying to save as many lives as possible by employing > these vaccines as widely as possible. > > Anyways, take care. I know the pandemic is hard on all of us. > > Best regards, > Jessica > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:15 AM Patrick Shaw Stewart < > patr...@douglas.co.uk> wrote: > >> I agree with those who say that A and B are usually incompatible. >> >> If we're like chickens-in-a-barn-that-have-been-infected-with-bird-flu, >> the virus very rapidly becomes more virulent (hospital and care-home >> infections?). It's hard for a virus to infect your nose and throat >> quickly, and then stop. >> >> In the medium term the herd will build up some immunity and then we'll >> become more like wandering albatrosses: the virus has to keep us on the >> move if it's going to get itself near another susceptible host. >> >> IMO the way a *respiratory *virus tries to "have its cake and eat it" - >> that is, get as much of both A and B as possible - is to develop thermal >> sensitivity. I.e. infect nose and throat but keep out of lungs and brain : >> >> https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202101.0389/v1 >> >> >> >> Thanks, Patrick >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 9:46 PM Edwin Pozharski <pozharsk...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess for such vehicle to be "extremely contagious" (or contagious at >>> all for that matter) it should be capable of rapidly multiplying inside the >>> host, so that it outruns immune system mediated destruction for at least >>> some time in order to be present in high enough concentration to >>> effectively spread via aerosols. Given the range of immunodeficiencies >>> present in any population, you are essentially guaranteed to kill at least >>> some people whose immune system will not be able to cope with rapidly >>> multiplying virus. You can theoretically fine tune the lethality of such >>> virus to make sure that number of people you thus murder will be less than >>> those that die either in no vaccine or traditional vaccination scenario, >>> but that would be ethical equivalent of that modern crypto fascist >>> suggestion that we just have to take it easy until herd immunity is >>> established, even though few million grandparents will die in the process >>> while the rest of us enjoy indoor dining. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:33 PM Jacob Keller <jacobpkel...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It would seem to me that it should be possible to generate versions of >>>> the Covid virus that would: >>>> >>>> A. be extremely contagious and yet >>>> B. be clinically benign, and >>>> C. confer immunity to the original covid virus. >>>> >>>> If, then, this virus could be released, with appropriate "kill switch" >>>> safeguards built in, would this not solve the world's pandemic problems? Is >>>> there any reason, practically, why this approach would not be feasible? >>>> >>>> Maybe we don't really know enough to manipulate A, B, C yet? >>>> >>>> Or maybe it's too scary for primetime...nightmare bio-warfare >>>> apocalypse? >>>> >>>> Has this sort of thing been done, or does it have a name? >>>> >>>> Jacob >>>> -- >>>> >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> >>>> Jacob Pearson Keller >>>> >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> >>>> Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Therapeutics >>>> >>>> Uniformed Services University >>>> >>>> 4301 Jones Bridge Road >>>> >>>> Bethesda MD 20814 >>>> >>>> jacob.kel...@usuhs.edu; jacobpkel...@gmail.com >>>> >>>> Cell: (301)592-7004 >>>> >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: >>>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: >>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 >>> >> >> >> -- >> patr...@douglas.co.uk Douglas Instruments Ltd. >> Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK >> Directors: Patrick Shaw Stewart, Peter Baldock, Stefan Kolek >> >> http://www.douglas.co.uk >> Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090 US toll-free 1-877-225-2034 >> Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36 >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: >> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 >> > -- patr...@douglas.co.uk Douglas Instruments Ltd. Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK Directors: Patrick Shaw Stewart, Peter Baldock, Stefan Kolek http://www.douglas.co.uk Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090 US toll-free 1-877-225-2034 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
