Recent comments in /f/science

joxeloj t1_jbrjaht wrote

Bacteria is not news, human pathogenic viruses are, and it's a very different scenario. There are absolutely levels of risk and viruses are not bacterial spores.

2

metalmaxilla t1_jbriu02 wrote

It's a key nuance at the basis of the hypothesis that suggests there is a risk of re-emergence without deliberate intervention.

If melting permafrost uncovered intact virus, enabling a susceptible host to be exposed, then infection could theoretically happen.

That is the basis of the epidemiology triad of agent-host-environment.

7

Binsky89 t1_jbrf11d wrote

Yeah, OP explained what they meant by reviving.

I think it's an extremely poor choice of words for something that was never alive to begin with.

4

sleepnandhiken t1_jbrdmgf wrote

I wondered to what degree “don’t alter it just pay attention” is possible. It seems natural to me to adjust it once you are of aware of where you are at. Also it seems that you can’t focus on simply improving your breath work if you’re not mindful in that regard.

15

metalmaxilla t1_jbrdhts wrote

One of the examples that's always pondered is smallpox. If infected bodies buried in permafrost become exposed, could smallpox create an outbreak now that vaccination is no longer routine? A Russian group investigated this in the 1990s but the virus particles were too broken up to cause an infection. Still makes you wonder about the possibility if there was a specimen preserved just right or happened to still have intact and virulent virus.

5

metalmaxilla t1_jbrckv4 wrote

Viruses themselves are not "alive". They exploit a living organism's machinery to cause the infection and have a way to replicate/spread. They simply have to come into contact with another organism with the right door they can get through. So if permafrost melts, it exposes the virus to either wind or water as a mode of transportation to get to living organisms... another way is the melting of its shield allows nearby organisms to come into contact with it.

Sounds like human intervention was needed to isolate samples and prove the hypothesis.

18

Binsky89 t1_jbrbxt2 wrote

That definitely changes things then.

I still have to wonder why the author chose to use the term revive in the context of a thing that wasn't alive in the first place (unless things have changed since my biology course in 08). I feel like thawing would be a much more accurate descriptor of the process.

4

merchant_of_mirrors t1_jbr8pj9 wrote

except that they've already found both virus and bacteria that were viable, so its not theory. As the permafrost melts, the likelihood of one emerging that can infect humans goes up, and as the area warms, you'll have more people living there and potentially becoming exposed to these pathogens.

2