Isn't this just one of many ways to produce a vaccine, so won't it need the same long term trials for safety and effectiveness that any type of vaccine needs? Reducing this this time somehow is what I think is needed.
Something else to think about: This post implies that this solution would be implemented in some thoughtful and publicly-known way. We should consider the possibility that some organization (government or otherwise) could do this regardless of whether society accepts this as a solution. It's possible that this is already in the process of being implemented right now. Maybe better to ask for forgiveness than permission...
I'm a layman to this topic but it makes total sense that we should be pursuing this approach. At some point, it needs an influential person to back it and help remove the red tape. I think it could be done though. Probably just needs money first to find the right mutation and that would be the lure for an influential person.
Do you mean this "virus would not be a vaccine from a regulatory perspective"? In that case it is just another vaccine approach, but one that you alledge falls outside the current regulations. Do you think the regulations need to change due to the emergency?
It's extremely important because it's a question a lot of people are going to be asking. You'll need a good answer as to why this approach should not be subject to similar regulations as vaccines otherwise this will go nowhere.
Because the attenuate virus we are looking for would be one that can spread naturally. Of course humans might choose to help it along once it is found by say hanging out with an infected person. Lots of options here
