pandemic, terrifying and maybe interesting comment
And now to get me banned from the internet: if you really want the pandemic to end I guess what you would want to do is accelerate it into endemic by engineering a highly transmissible variant with few symptoms, release into wild, airborne vaccine
...I am not advocating this :P
re: pandemic, terrifying and maybe interesting comment
@cwebber The usual argument for Not Doing This No Really Seriously is that live viruses (or bacteria) released into the general environment have a boringly predictable habit of spreading and Continuing To Evolve, often in hard-to-predict ways.
It's a bit like the rationale against use of weapons of mass destruction such as fire or chemicals: once they're done going in the direction you pointed them in (if they in fact go there at all), they've got a nasty habit of coming back 'round to you or your'n which even remarkably unenlightened minds have come to respect.
Which is one of the reasons epidemiological response tends toward minimising vectors of transmission (if possible) and/or use of vaccines based on killed or attenuated virus or particles. The mRNA stuff is novel in that RNA (but not virus particles), encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles (I had to look that up, thought it might actually be a carrier virus or bacterium) uses the body's own mechanisms to generate antigens which are then recognised as foreign and train the immune system.
So ... yeah, a fast-spreading-but-harmless virus ... might ... seem attractive, but carries some pretty large risks. Even if it doesn't mess with humans, it could affect other species. Most of which are already doing poorly.
re: pandemic, terrifying and maybe interesting comment
This has *some* similarity to releasing genetically modified mosquitos, that's being experimented with.
Like: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24994274
Some similiarities because mosquitos obviously have a very different role in the ecosystem than viruses, so the effects / risks may be quite different.
I'm a complete noob on all this, but intuitively I feel that us humans aren't at a level where we can be confident about the effects.
re: pandemic, terrifying and maybe interesting comment
@humanetech Modified organisms where the modification specifically targets reproduction is an exception to the rule.
There've been several variants of this tactic, the ones I'm aware of with mosquitos and flies. Most I'm familiar with release sterilised males --- these will mate with females but produce no offspring. The idea is that there will be much useless faffing around, so to speak.
The article you link is a variant on that: the males are fertile, and will produce viable and fertile male offspring, but female offspring will be nonfertile. That's a reproduction-attack one step removed but also with a multiplier on the attack vector itself (viable but altered male offspring will continue the attack).
There are still risks, but they should be reasonably moderate.
An alternate and riskier strategy would be to introduce some superpredator of the mosquito to the environment. Australia's seen this game played out repeatedly with cane toads, foxes, housecats, and other predators released into the wild.
Other practices, such as the use of ladybird beatles and praying mantises for natural pest reduction, seem largely benign.
re: pandemic, terrifying and maybe interesting comment
@dredmorbius I've heard of that with mosquitoes. I've always felt that scientists could be fudging it a bit when they say there wouldn't be any adverse effects to removing disease carrying mosquitoes. like they just don't like mosquitoes, so they're minimizing the downside risks
@humanetech @cwebber
