Recent comments in /f/science

sedativumxnx t1_jbr2rxm wrote

Hey, now these viruses, this time, at least will kill unintentionally, and not by getting mismanaged in a lab. Always look for the silver lining.

−44

Lachryma-papaveris t1_jbr1qzc wrote

I think a new working hypothesis may be that these drugs end up up regulating the synthesis of BDNF over a longer period of time, so while it does increase serotonin, that may be unrelated to why the drugs actually end up helping people in the sense it’s not the serotonin that is decreasing the depression, but something downstream

1

Darwins_Dog t1_jbr1h9v wrote

The only intervention was they had to isolate the viruses in order to be sure that they were the cause of infections in the amoeba cultures. That's what they mean by reviving. They isolated it, infected cells, which then infected other cells.

Most viruses don't have to be isolated to become infectious, and some are pretty good at crossing species.

64

Binsky89 t1_jbqzpyb wrote

None of that suggests that melting permafrost poses a risk of viruses re-emerging.

I don't know what's involved in 'reviving' a virus, but it sounds like human intervention is required for it to happen.

25

16billionDeadEyes t1_jbqywzx wrote

Even worse than that. Not only is there the threat of them infecting humans, but infecting other species is just as dangerous. From ecological health, to food production for humans, a bunch of unknown viruses being unleashed could be devastating to humanity without ever even infecting humanity.

35

joxeloj t1_jbqwlcb wrote

I'm EXTREMELY skeptical this is a meaningful risk. Viruses infecting single cell organisms are extremely abundant in the environment but do not pose a threat to humans.

Viruses that infect humans or even mammals immensely less abundant, so very few if any will stand a chance of being preserved in this manner. It seems astronomically unlikely they would then make it back into a living host in sufficient numbers while still viable to achieve a productive infection. I imagine an infected carcass would have to freeze very quickly for viable viruses to be preserved, and then be consumed in large amounts fairly quickly to infect something.

Even if they did, they'd be less likely to achieve subsequent transmission relative to current viruses in active circulation and no more likely to be lethal/highly pathogenic. This just reads like a scary sentence you put at the ending of a basic microbiology paper to garner media coverage and win career points.

8