zlacker

[parent] [thread] 15 comments
1. IgorPa+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-03-22 23:24:19
My naive reasoning on why China didn’t create COVID-19 with the intention of using it is that I suspect (unburdened by education or the thought process) that engineering a virus is as difficult as coming up with a vaccine or treatment. If you are developing some kind of super virus to shut down the world economy and then immunize your own people to take advantage of the situation, wouldn’t you have the cure ready to go?

Now, an unintentional leak would be theoretically possible with these initial intentions but then wouldn’t China still have a leg up on developing treatments? If so, wouldn’t we have seen that in their vaccine development?

Of course you this is all uneducated speculation. Quite possible that engineering a deadly and very infectious virus is easier than creating a cure or a vaccine by orders of magnitude.

replies(5): >>DrJaws+l2 >>alfor+V2 >>Michae+y3 >>andrei+n6 >>ggggte+Sa
2. DrJaws+l2[view] [source] 2021-03-22 23:38:08
>>IgorPa+(OP)
an immediate immunization of your population would drive to a raise of suspicion and if someone found china guilty of that, would mean a world war against them.
replies(1): >>Aeolun+59
3. alfor+V2[view] [source] 2021-03-22 23:43:15
>>IgorPa+(OP)
From what I read, it’s only about researchers looking to publish something interesting rather than some complicated planned CCP plans.

It’s rather simple to do the so called ’gain of function’, you let the virus have it’s run with bat cells and add lots of human cells in petri with them. Because there is no immune system, the virus have not much to stop it. Slowly it adapt to human cells, you can change the type of cells so it can adapt to other receptors and so on. Those articles where published before the whole crisis erupted.

replies(2): >>IgorPa+19 >>Fomite+UA
4. Michae+y3[view] [source] 2021-03-22 23:46:54
>>IgorPa+(OP)
> Quite possible that engineering a deadly and very infectious virus is easier than creating a cure or a vaccine by orders of magnitude.

"Moderna designed its coronavirus vaccine in 2 days" was a headline I saw. And it's been approved by the FDA. So that seems demonstrably false.

Multiple companies have come up with a vaccine by now, too.

replies(2): >>IgorPa+Y5 >>thedai+4G3
◧◩
5. IgorPa+Y5[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:04:23
>>Michae+y3
I know my argument is not solid at all. But you seeing a headline that is demonstrably not what we are even talking about does not convince me. If it took two days to create a cure and manufacture a billion doses we would be all fine now. Clearly nobody had a leg up on anyone in the race to a vaccine otherwise someone would have come out with “we have the vaccine and all the doses ready to go” in mid 2020.
6. andrei+n6[view] [source] 2021-03-23 00:08:32
>>IgorPa+(OP)
It's not about creating a virus from scratch, but taking an existing virus and performing gain-of-function research to select for certain things (like transmissibility).
replies(1): >>abacad+Fx
◧◩
7. IgorPa+19[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:31:05
>>alfor+V2
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.
◧◩
8. Aeolun+59[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:31:52
>>DrJaws+l2
Given how many people died of the virus VS how many would die in a world war that seems like a highly illogical course of action.
replies(3): >>ggggte+yb >>the_lo+og >>marcus+Zl
9. ggggte+Sa[view] [source] 2021-03-23 00:46:09
>>IgorPa+(OP)
I'll not conclude anything, but I will say that engineering a virus is an order of magnitude easier than a vaccine.

It's a pure mapping problem. There are thousands of known viruses that affect humans. But most viruses don't have thousands of vaccines.

Additionally, there are constraints. The only contraint on a virus is that is needs to reproduce, and cause harm. Any kind of harm will do, and any kind of spreading is fine. But the vaccine needs to not hurt the person (at least, don't hurt them worse than the virus would).

Even if both processes involved similar techniques, the constraints on virus production are more favorable to the researcher than vaccine production.

To get back to whether China or any nation would intentionally create a biological weapon, however...: most industrialized countries realized a long time ago that bioweapons tends to be a bad strategy. Most western countries stopped their bioweapons programs back in the 70s for the simple reason that there was no reasonable use-case for a bioweapon that isn't done better by simply bombing something (or more recently-hacking their infrastructure). Bioweapons are strategically useful for small nations, and terrorist groups.

replies(1): >>ethbr0+qm
◧◩◪
10. ggggte+yb[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:51:40
>>Aeolun+59
By that sort of reasoning, when a nation rolls tanks into your borders, you should just let them do it because more people would die if you fight back.

If a nation actually did that (release a bioweapon and pre-immunize their own citizens)... well World War is probably overselling it, but I could certainly imagine contained conflicts, sinking of cargo vessels, shooting down of planes, targeted assassinations... etc. It's very likely that every nation would have highly vested interests in making sure that whoever authorized that weapon was removed from this planet.

◧◩◪
11. the_lo+og[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 01:28:40
>>Aeolun+59
The reasoning wouldn't be how many people died of the virus vs. how many in a world war; it would be how many people die in a world war vs. how many might die if the adversary does increasingly worse things going forward. The threshold for fighting all-out can't be "as soon as the adversary does".
◧◩◪
12. marcus+Zl[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:15:22
>>Aeolun+59
Pearl Harbour killed 2,403 Americans [0].

We're at 500,000 now with the virus, I think?

That's more Americans than have been killed in all the 20th Century wars combined [1].

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...

◧◩
13. ethbr0+qm[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:19:09
>>ggggte+Sa
> But the vaccine needs to not hurt the person

People underappreciate just how complicated and time-consuming this is.

Immune systems are terrifying things, on trigger alert (they have to be!), and you have to tickle it just right without making everything explode.

◧◩
14. abacad+Fx[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 04:00:05
>>andrei+n6
Also doesn't necessarily have to be that, maybe the guy who went in the cave to collect samples got sick on the way home. Or maybe some guy harvesting guano for his farm got sick on the way home. The only thing we know for sure is we'll probably never know, and also that the CCP is sketchy
◧◩
15. Fomite+UA[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 04:30:46
>>alfor+V2
While there's some use to gain of function studies (they give us what genetic markers to look for for particularly human-adapted pathogens), researchers have been concerned about laboratory accidents for a long time. Like, it was a keynote talk at a conference I was at in 2008, which estimated a GoF study had an expected number of deaths of, IIRC, 1500. Every one - obviously in the form of a long-tailed but highly consequential outcome.

One of the keys there is that's not uniquely Chinese as a problem. Those researchers were talking about American labs.

◧◩
16. thedai+4G3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 02:46:49
>>Michae+y3
To be fair, "designing" a vaccine is not the same as testing it to show that it is acceptably safe and effective in humans. That said, the time from design to deployment was amazingly short.
[go to top]