[yufeng66]

The omicron variant could be a blessing in disguise if the early stories on how it is less deadly checks out. That means people refuse to get the vaccine shot will be infected with the omicron variant with relatively low consequence and get immunity that way. Btw this is how it suppose to work. The virus has no incentive to kill its host. The variant that is fast spreading and less deadly eventually wins out.

[ed_balls]

> The omicron variant could be a blessing in disguise

Not really. There is a very low evolutionary pressure to become less deadly.* You start infecting people in day 3, have symptoms on day 8 and die on day 20. You can walk around for a week infecting people before you die. Compare it to previous SARS epidemic, where people started infecting others much later. It just died out, because people were isolated at homes and hospitals.

*SARS-COV-2 is an upper respiratory track disease and SARS-COV-1 is a lower respiratory track disease.

[wallacoloo]

this makes me think that there’s got to be at least some people in power who believe that engineering and releasing a more transmissible but less deadly variant is a prudent way to respond to this pandemic. i wonder how many people are working on this right now.

[seoaeu]

Not sure why this is downvoted. Given all the google hits for "transmissible viral vaccines", people have surely thought about it. I'd honestly be more surprised if people in power hadn't at least tried to look into the feasibility

[bhawks]

Yes nothing could possibly go wrong with this strategy.

This is an example of one of the reasons why there is growing distrust of experts.

[throwawaygh]

This post is a case-study in the self-awareness of conspiracy theorists.

Parent post posits a conspiracy theory, in the literal sense, without any evidence.

In fact, it's worse than that. The parent didn't even claim their theory is true! They just sort of throw it out there as a random-ass thought/hypothetical. They didn't say "X is happening and I have proof". Fuck, they didn't even say "X is happening"! They said "Consider the following conspiracy in which X is happening".

But, for some reason, you not only (a) latch onto this theory as if it were plausible without a shred of evidence, but then also (b) slander a large group of people on the basis of... what? One internet user's random-ass thought that sounds kinda-sorta right to you because it tickles the right neurons even though the original claimant not only doesn't provide evidence but doesn't even actually assert that their conspiracy theory is anything other than a random thought!

Your post is close to something like "People who believe in bat-shit-insane conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence tend to distrust the people who those conspiracy theories tell them not to trust".

Which... yeah, no shit. This is why people believe conspiracy theories. Because they are prone to believe bat-shit insane things about people they don't like, regardless of whether there's any rational or empirical justification for that belief. And, not only that, but they are prone to circular reasoning to justify these beliefs. You hit the nail on the head.

[cglace]

A hypothetical situation is why people don’t trust experts?

[wallacoloo]

a hypothetical occurrence to which there are adjacent real-world occurences. gain-of-function research being perhaps the most damning. if i was doing gain of function experiments, i would at least consider engineering a variant that squeezes out the more deadly ones.

it's not really that dissimilar a line of thinking to the people who want to use CRISPR to release genetically modified mosquitos with dominant traits that lead to eradication of the species as their new genes take over.

> A hypothetical situation is why people don’t trust experts?

it's the real-world occurrences which lead a person's theory of mind to believe that similar experts might feasibly pursue certain hypothetical occurrences. without the hypotheticals, it's mostly individuals who lose their credibility after doing specific things in the real world. but the hypotheticals allow that loss of credibility to spread from individual bad actors to whole groups.

[aradox66]

This is fairly accurate for how a lot of vaccine resistance works.

[waych]

Too bad most media are into natural immunity denialism.

[tim333]

I wonder if you could kind of engineer that. Develop a fast spreading but harmless variant.

[scottcodie]

Healthy people will generally continue being fine. However, people who are at high risk have a new reason to be concerned. I'm not sure what you mean by 'how it's suppose to work'.

[asah]

-1, viruses are not sentient and are only given pressure to not kill their hosts if that reduces transmissability... which specifically doesn't apply for COVID, which is asymptomatically transmissable.

[fastball]

If you're dead you can't continue to transmit the virus, so lethality absolutely does decrease transmissibility. The fact that some people can be asymptomatic and contagious doesn't change that.

[karlicoss]

also if it was more deadly, presumably that would lead to people taking it more seriously.

E.g. HIV is asymptomatic for a long time, but is ultimately deadly, so people use condoms because of that (of course there are other STDs as well, but I feel like HIV plays the biggest role in condom use). If its effects were less serious, it would probably be far more widespread (e.g. like HPV).

With covid more deadlines would probably lead to people would using masks more often, taking rapid treats more often, etc.