On top of this, it is my opinion they tried twice with a *genuinely* fatal virus in the form of the original SARS, but quickly found out on both attempts (SARS and MERS) that fatal viruses do not spread well, and thus went back to the drawing board.
What's notable about the viruses Peter Daszak & Co studied is they are mainly 'resident vi…
On top of this, it is my opinion they tried twice with a *genuinely* fatal virus in the form of the original SARS, but quickly found out on both attempts (SARS and MERS) that fatal viruses do not spread well, and thus went back to the drawing board.
What's notable about the viruses Peter Daszak & Co studied is they are mainly 'resident viruses'; viruses that stay latent in a host body without generally harming the host. Essentially, a non-lethal virus with a long-time persistence (which is ideal if your goal is to spread it as far and as wide as possible).
Even then, those resident viruses are only bat-compatible, hence the engineering requirement via serialised passage in humanised mice to make it 'human compatible'. What I find notable is Daszak work is about spread, not lethality.
On top of this, it is my opinion they tried twice with a *genuinely* fatal virus in the form of the original SARS, but quickly found out on both attempts (SARS and MERS) that fatal viruses do not spread well, and thus went back to the drawing board.
What's notable about the viruses Peter Daszak & Co studied is they are mainly 'resident viruses'; viruses that stay latent in a host body without generally harming the host. Essentially, a non-lethal virus with a long-time persistence (which is ideal if your goal is to spread it as far and as wide as possible).
Even then, those resident viruses are only bat-compatible, hence the engineering requirement via serialised passage in humanised mice to make it 'human compatible'. What I find notable is Daszak work is about spread, not lethality.