14 May 21
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777272/
Genetic engineering now enables the design of live viral vaccines that are potentially transmissible. Some designs merely modify a single viral genome to improve on the age-old method of attenuation whereas other designs create chimeras of viral genomes. Transmission has the benefit of increasing herd immunity above that achieved by direct vaccination alone but also increases the opportunity for vaccine evolution, which typically undermines vaccine utility. Different designs have different epidemiological consequences but also experience different evolution. Approaches that integrate vaccine engineering with an understanding of evolution and epidemiology will reap the greatest benefit from vaccine transmission.
14 May 21
I guess it’s a way to circumvent anti-vaxxers, to be able to combat virus x.2.
Virus x.2.1 (a mutation) might not be stopped by the anti-virus. And the chances of the anti-virus making the same mutations as the virus itself seem to me rather small.
However, there are so many ethical implications, that I can’t foresee anything like this being introduced for a very long time.
Could even turn into a Frankenstein’s monster. Test running it would be a complete nightmare. You’d have to build in a dead man’s switch; the ability to “turn it off”.
I don’t know if that’s even possible.
In the very long term, I can see a sci-fi ability to deal with pandemics though.
And I’ve just had a great idea for a story.
14 May 21
@metal-brain saidWhen you have a significant portion of the population that refuses to get vaccinated because of some hearsay and lies they've heard, yes, another avenue has to be found. You really can't be surprised by this.
Do you think this is a good idea?
https://thebulletin.org/2020/09/scientists-are-working-on-vaccines-that-spread-like-a-disease-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/
14 May 21
@vivify saidAs I stated, the ethical implications are vast.
Putting aside whether this works or not, it is an absolute guarantee such technology will be used maliciously by a government. The risk of some regime using it for genocide is far too high.
Not only on misuse of the technology, but even removing “choice” is very debatable.
14 May 21
@vivify saidWell if it exists it exists and genocidal governments will use it regardless of whether it has positive uses.
Putting aside whether this works or not, it is an absolute guarantee such technology will be used maliciously by a government. The risk of some regime using it for genocide is far too high.
The best way to stop genocidal governments is to make the consequences too severe.
14 May 21
@shavixmir saidI think as more and more novel and mutated virus’s emerge we will reassess the balance between civil rights and public health in favour of public health.
As I stated, the ethical implications are vast.
Not only on misuse of the technology, but even removing “choice” is very debatable.
14 May 21
@suzianne saidWhat about "consent"?
When you have a significant portion of the population that refuses to get vaccinated because of some hearsay and lies they've heard, yes, another avenue has to be found. You really can't be surprised by this.
Is it ethical to force vaccines on people like a fast spreading disease? How is that different than physically holding a person down and injecting them as they object?
It should be called the Hitler vaccine. Maybe the Borg vaccine because resistance is futile.
Did you read the part where it could evolve into something dangerous? A self spreading vaccine is like a virus. Not a lot of difference.