SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Steve Cochi is a 63-year-old physician and epidemiologist who thinks its time to totally wipe out Measles:
[F]or the past 25 years, Cochi has been pushing one of the boldest—and some might venture foolhardy—ideas in public health. He wants the world to undertake a huge new effort to eradicate measles. Not just tame the virus or control the outbreaks re-surging across the globe, but to obliterate it, wipe it off the face of the earth, as has only been done once for a human pathogen, smallpox, in 1977, and as the world fervently hopes will happen soon with polio.
Measles is the most contagious virus on Earth, infecting virtually everyone who is not vaccinated.
It would cost a lot of money. And a large percentage of people, when presented with the idea think Measles is not worth the cost or the effort, because measles is, in their opinion, only a nuisance. Indeed the CDC has stated that Measles was eliminated in the US in the year 2000. Subsequent outbreaks earlier this year served as a brief wake up call, but nobody died, and people have largely written it off and attributed it to anti-vaxers.
But more than half of the estimated 10 million infected with measles each year in the developing world fare far worse. The virus suppresses the body's defense system, especially in those already immune-compromised or with malnutrition or vitamin A deficiency, leaving them vulnerable to secondary bacterial infections. The problems are compounded by a lack of health care. Pneumonia is the most common cause of death; diarrhea and dehydration is a close second. Measles is one of the top five preventable causes of blindness. Deafness is common. Inflammation of the brain can cause seizures and sometimes permanent brain damage. In poor countries, the fatality rate is 2% to 15%, soaring to 25% in the worst outbreaks.
In 2013, there were 145.700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.
The article appearing on Science Mag's site outlines the problems involved, and the heartbreak of having Polio almost beaten, only to see it linger. It has a full discussion on why it should be doable, and why there are pitfalls.
Original Submission
(Score: 2, Interesting) by inertnet on Monday June 01 2015, @11:37AM
Suppose that in the future we manage to eradicate every virus this way. Wouldn't it be wise to keep on vaccinating against many known types of viruses, in order to keep our immune systems prepared?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @12:10PM
As soon as it has definitely been eradicated, there is no longer a point in further vaccination against a virus. A no longer existing virus will not suddenly spring back into existence.
Of course you should first be absolutely sure that it has really been eradicated; if it just survives in some back corner of the world, it may well come back.
Note that vaccination isn't effective against whole classes of viruses, it is effective against a specific type only. Indeed, for some quickly changing viruses (like the flu), it is only effective against a certain strain of them (that is, if you're vaccinated against one strain, say H5N1, and then get infected by another strain, say H3N2, the vaccination will have exactly zero effect on your infection).
Vaccination against a virus only makes sense if you have a chance to get infected by that virus. An eradicated virus cannot infect you.
Also note that it is unlikely that we ever will eradicate all sorts of viruses. That is, our immune system will still be fighting more than enough viruses. Especially those which are not dangerous enough that it seems worthwhile to develop vaccination against.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @01:06PM
I doubt we ever will. Viruses don't appear spontaneously out of thin air, initially, they were part of something living. As long as you have living things on the planet, we will have viruses.
That said, eliminating our dependency on the immune system will actually be a very good thing for us, because it would mean we can keep sticking metal things and foreign organs in ourselves with no fear of rejection. There are obvious medical benefits, as well as plenty of opportunities of enhancement in that. Don't expect it to happen in your lifetime through, we would either need to develop our own replacement or live in bubbles, and either of those requires technology that is several order of magnitude higher that what we have right now.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 01 2015, @03:07PM
At some point you will get inject nanobots able to adapt and destroy any undesirable disease, not vaccines. Heterosubtypic immunity is of limited value in comparison.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @03:15PM
I found out the other day that the main problem with using nanobots is that none exist. I'd been hearing about them so long I assumed there were at least some prototypes, but apparently not.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 01 2015, @05:02PM
http://www.nature.com/subjects/dna-nanomachines [nature.com]
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-toolkit-dynamic-dna-nanomachines.html [phys.org]
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/pfizer-partnering-with-ido-bachelet-on.html [nextbigfuture.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @05:24PM
They are actually trying to build tiny man-shaped robots to do the job? That is cool and all but pretty strange. Will they travel in the bloodstream in tiny UPS trucks containing the cargo?
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/1-designerstoo.jpg [phys.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 01 2015, @05:49PM
It was a lot more literal than I expected. I think the point is to show that you can think of a shape, any shape, and then implement it with programmable DNA building blocks.
A UPS truck isn't far from the truth. In link 3 above you see a DNA origami cage containing a drug payload that is released only when a certain type of cell is randomly encountered. A fullerene could also be used as a "shipping container" [columbia.edu] but it looks like DNA structures are much easier to create. Molecular motors [wikipedia.org] and "vehicles" [wikipedia.org] are also possible if needed. Although the most functional forms of these targeted nanomachines find their targets randomly, without using a motor, I could see a nanomachine encountering a target, capturing it, and then activating a nanomotor to drag it away from cells... similar to a lysosome.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @06:09PM
Very interesting. Thanks. Still I think this approach of tiny humanoids and cars is bizarre. I would think something like the moon lander, ie a bacteriophage, would be a superior shape.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @03:31PM
I already invented nanobots with complex molecular-scal machinery to fight diseases. They're self-repairing, self-replicating and self-programming [wikipedia.org]. You can call it the "Immune System (patent pending)".
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 01 2015, @05:07PM
Great, I'll tell the HIV-infected crowd that they are cured.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday June 01 2015, @04:29PM
It looks like you've read Nobots.
The #1 domestic terrorist organization in the US is ICE
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Monday June 01 2015, @04:27PM
If a virus doesn't exist you have no need for immunity against it. Smallpox vaccinations are no longer needed because there is no more smallpox.
The #1 domestic terrorist organization in the US is ICE
(Score: 1) by inertnet on Monday June 01 2015, @06:30PM
What I meant is that our immune system might weaken over time, if it never gets triggered. So it may be wise to introduce it to a variety of viruses, even if they don't exist anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:07PM
Don't worry, your immune system will till be exposed to a variety of viruses (and other antigens) even if we wipe out all the pathogenic viruses.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday June 03 2015, @11:34AM
There are always other viruses and other pathogens
The #1 domestic terrorist organization in the US is ICE
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 01 2015, @06:36PM
I presume that you are working from a clinical definition of "there is no more smallpox".
Because of the impossibility of proving a negative, we can never be sure there "is no more smallpox".
Earth is a big place. Have we checked everywhere? Did it not arise spontaneously at least once in history? Why couldn't it do so again?
Frankly I'm amazed Inertnet's post wasn't up modded more. (I did). It is an interesting proposition.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday June 01 2015, @08:43PM
It makes sense to maintain ability to manufacture the vaccine, but not to actually administer it.
All vaccines carry some risk, however slight. For a disease out there in the wild such as measles or polio, that risk is small compared to the risk of the disease. We no longer give the smallpox vaccine regularly because the small risk is much greater than the risk of contracting a disease that isn't out there.
(Score: 2) by Joe on Monday June 01 2015, @11:19PM
Short answer: No.
Viruses, such as Measles, that do not have animal reservoirs can be fully eradicated without worry (except possible bioweapons) of it comming back. If there was an animal reservoir, then a re-introduction would be possible and vaccination would have to continue.
- Joe