My personal opinion is that we should strive to create antidotes when the body fails to fix itself, instead of removing the threat altogether. Evolution needs viruses, in the same way the universe needs entropy.
1. https://whyy.org/segments/the-placenta-went-viral-and-protom...
endogenous retroviruses in mammals are amazing. primates owe to one or more ERVs the effectiveness of the p53 gene activation (p52 is a tumor suppressor gene).
But the cost for individuals is tremendous, 99.9999999% cases the infection would not be beneficial.
Perhaps in a short while we can do much better ourselves, it certainly seems we humans want to transcend evolution and death.
Yep, if nothing else, we need them to "train" our immune systems.
Treating the coronavirus as a flu would be a best option... vaccinate the most exposed and vulnerable groups, and let others get it.
The question is do we need the blind god of evolution.
> 'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
Individual immunity is different.
Regarding parent; I believe it was known that the measles vaccine wouldn’t protect for life but for a fair amount of time where having to go through the disease would’ve given life lasting immunity.
It has to be proven for each one and this hasn't been done yet. The nasal vaccines, which aren't approved yet, seem more likely to do this.
That doesn't make much sense; vaccines aren't topical treatments for current infections but systemic preparation against future infections.