1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

yeah, but sky sprays aren't nearly effective as they're made out to be, because achieving a concentration high enough to guarantee infection (for lack of a better word) is practically impossible. You'd be better off engineering a minor cold that naturally carries the dna into into cells and releasing it in a major airport, then sitting back and waiting. even then mutation and resistance are a thing.

short-term, filling the air might work in a densely filled, enclosed space, like a subway train or an er waiting room on a full moon, but it would take too long to achieve anything remotely viable in the open air. Long-term, it'd be impossible to maintain at any level high enough to achieve what you want, not to mention how do you protect yourself from your engineered bioweapon once it's out in the wild?

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

put it to you this way. if they were going to go with such a supervillian level plan, putting it in drinking water would be more effective and less costly. You'd waste a ton of resources producing enough mrna to infect people through the air, assuming you didn't smother them outright from over saturation.

If you put it in the water, however, all you have to do is make it acid and heat resistant, and most people will end up eating drinking contaminated food/water, bathing in it, and before you know it, everyone ont he municipal water is already shedding. you're gonna miss the rural folks, but even they have to come into town eventually for supplies.

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

same, lol.

I'd definitely check out her work though. her characters are fun and entertaining (and typically the supporting cast reaches 50 or more, lol) my personal favorite is Ranma 1/2, though if you're more of a religious type, you might like one-pound gospel, or a horror fan, mermaid saga/forest is fantastic.

haven't seen one of her series I don't like, though is my point.

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

good point.

the amount of mrna need to blanket an area to get adequate inoculation would be likely pretty high. even chemical weapons have problems being effective in enclosed spaces, nevermind the open air.

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

an interesting idea, but even then you'd have to produce a metric fuckton of whatever you wanted to release into air, and as another commenter pointed out, taking away the part that makes most people avoid shots in the first place would be simpler, cheaper, and more effective.

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think the main point U/BakasEverywhere is trying to make about feasibility still stands, though. The amount of mRNA you'd have to produce to be effective would be astronomical. my understanding is even simply spraying a chemical agent isn't as deadly as it's often made out to be (sounds terrifying of course), because whatever agent is used often has trouble achieving a lethal level in the air quick enough and long enough to kill more than a handful of people.

If they can achieve the same result by simply making vaccines/mRNA injections less scary, why bother?

4
yeldarb1983 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm not trying to say this isn't happening, I'm just trying to keep both feet planted firmly on the ground is all.

Would the government do it? In a new york minute

are we there yet? probably not.

should we be concerned about this? absolutely.

should we be screaming the sky is falling? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no.

5
yeldarb1983 5 points ago +5 / -0

Devil's Advocate here, while I share the concern he has, he is extrapolating a bit here. from the bit of context of the paper he gives, it sounds like this is more of an inhalable vaccination administered nasally rather than some sort of vaccine bomb dropped on a city.

There's no doubt in my mind that governments would do such a thing if they thought they could get away with it, but we're a little ways off from that scenario with this paper is my point.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

...anyone considered the possibility he's doing monologues for fun?

I couldn't tell you the exact reference, but this feels like it came from a movie or a play or something...has that vaguely familiar feeling like I've seen it or something like it before. =/

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

what I'm wondering is where are all the anons who can normally find these guys faster than facial recognition on this one?

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

faggot

my understanding is it went something along the lines of long, thin sticks > bundles of same > poor widows who gathered said bundles to sell within cities (aka, "faggot bearers") > feminine men > homosexuals. Personally, I take it a step further and apply it to inconsiderate, attention hungry assholes of a particularly flashy nature, but YMMV.

Fun linguistic fact: all fascists are by definition faggots.

3
yeldarb1983 3 points ago +3 / -0

posted something similar, but I think I like yours better, lol.

Also, ew.

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

...why do people always use the photo of Kash Patel where he looks surprised there's a camera in his face?

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

having your finger cut off at the top most knuckle

...closer to having your feet cut off and having to walk on the stumps, honestly...

cats put all their weight on their toes when they walk/stand.

3
yeldarb1983 3 points ago +3 / -0

wouldn't be shocked, but there's a wide gulf between intelligence and common sense

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

can I just ask a question? when exactly did an anonymous source go from being the starting point to find a story to the story itself?

I know it's been going on for a while now, but it seems like "sources say" didn't used to be a headline ten/twenty years ago

3
yeldarb1983 3 points ago +3 / -0

...unfortunately, there are no "good guys" in war, only winners and losers, "our guys" and "their guys."

Ultimately, it's the people who suffer the worst, both the grunts on the ground, and the civilians inevitably caught int he crossfire...

view more: Next ›