by gus_massa on 12/15/2021, 2:53:41 PM
This has been proposed here a few times, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29368127
As NoPie comented there
> Our science is not that good.
> Basically you want a virus that really is a vaccine. The current vaccines are far from perfect because apparently we don't know how to make them better. Expressing such a vaccine as a contagious virus would not better but would only create more risks.
And I replied:
> Using "live" virus is a problem. For example there are two versions of the polio vaccine. The injectable uses inactivated ("dead") virus, and the oral uses weakened("live") virus.
> Both are safe, but in the oral one the virus can go to another person and cause no problems, and then to another and cause no problems, and after like a year jumping hosts it can mutate and become dangerous. Now most of the the polio cases are caused by virus that mutated from the version of the vaccine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Vaccine-induced_... .
> The number is much smaller that the number of cases before the vaccine, but it's concerning anyway. So they are trying to discontinue the use of the vaccine with the weakened virus, but the it's better when most of the population is not vaccinated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Schedule .
by dusted on 12/15/2021, 2:04:55 PM
It's not a new idea, but the implications if it goes wrong are severe. Imagine it mutates (it happens, especially if it's super infectious and thus being exposed to MANY environments and gets to live millions of years per day (time * infected humans)). Imagine it works differently in a small percentage of people, it's a lot harder to control when it's distributing itself.. With vaccines, at least, administration can be stopped or paused, if cause for concern arose.
by neximo64 on 12/15/2021, 2:21:31 PM
For the virus to be spreadable it has to create symptoms.
With Covid for example you would have to make a virus that can compete and attach better to the ACE2 receptor. If it is better at attaching its more bio-competitive against normal use and more likely to make you sick. The key thing with covid is to prevent a cytokine storm, but the 'ideal' virus would still make you quite sick and some would die in the process.
Maybe viruses for bacteria. But viruses to compete against other viruses and win is a recipe for disaster.
by raxxorrax on 12/16/2021, 8:24:07 AM
How would you keep the virus from mutating into a deadly form? I don't think our medical expertise would allow that and it would be a pretty stupid idea. Covid is not a threat to overall health of humanity. Lab-grown super spreading viruses might become exactly that though.
I think any ethical debate would also be concluded very quickly.
by high_byte on 12/15/2021, 2:13:22 PM
mass-infecting unassuming people with foreign engineered agent. yes that sounds cool and all but legally speaking...
by desktopninja on 12/15/2021, 2:19:20 PM
I've often thought the mosquito would be a great delivery agent.
If a new virus appears, how crazy would it be to quickly create a super spreading stable virus that produces no symptoms and has the same viral spike as a newly appeared virus?
Could that be a self-spreading vaccine that protects us from new viruses and solves the logistics of vaccines? Anti-vacs would not pose a general health risk because they'd get immunised without even noticing.
What are the ethical implications? How could a government even prevent other countries from developing such a protection and spreading around the world?