[aspagnito (OP)]

In the 1970s, Australia decided to fight the rabbit epidemic. So a virus was developed to kill these rabbits. Of course, rabbits in Australia did not become extinct, but the disease spread around the world and was very dangerous to rabbits around the world for many years. However, with time, this virus started to show less and less symptoms, until it became almost completely harmless to rabbits.
It is presumed that the same will be true of coronavirus. When the virus starts to give, say, one symptom - a cough, with no pains, including sore throat, or fever, those not in quarantine (they won't go to the doctor because they think it's something harmless), will go out shopping, to work, or to socialize. . . . and infect many more people than before.
The disease will remain and be worldwide, but those sickened by the weaker version will acquire a eleven-month immunity (the recovered have this immunity - the vaccine gives immunity for 4 months) which will also be immunity to other strains of coronavirus. Hence, before long it is most likely that coronavirus will be harmless and we will all ignore it.

[Bored chemist]

In the 1970s, Australia decided to fight the rabbit epidemic.  So a virus was developed to kill these rabbits.

No
The virus myxomatosis already existed It was a minor infection in Sylvilagus brasiliensis, but it spread through populations of the European rabbit where it was devastating.  (Having been released in France in 1952 ).

No "development" was needed.


In fifty to 100 years time, it's likely that Covid 19 will be less of a problem for humanity- even if it doesn't change at all..
It will circulate among the people who are young (today) and it won't harm many of them.
They will grow up, exposed to it from time to time and protected by natural immunity.
So by the time they are vulnerable "over 50s" they will be much less susceptible.

However it's impossible to say what will actually happen.
The virus has already shown that it can evolve into a more transmissible form, and we simply don't know what it will do next.

It is presumed that the same will be true of coronavirus.

You might presume that, but there's no guarantee.

[aspagnito (OP)]

Okay. Science is never sure for 100%.

[Colin2B]

However, with time, this virus started to show less and less symptoms, until it became almost completely harmless to rabbits.

This is rubbish.
The acute form of myxomatosis can kill a rabbit within 10 days and the chronic form within two weeks, although some rabbits do survive this. There are still high risk areas in the uk.

[aspagnito (OP)]

Okay.. so I was wrong about the rabbits. That does not change the whole context. Either such weakened virus appears, or we create it. That would solve the problem. So please... let this conversation not be about rabbits, dogs, pigs, hamsters or helicopters... Okay?

[Bored chemist]

Either such weakened virus appears, or we create it.

The traditional approach is to create a weakened virus. We did this with polio and smallpox.

It's called vaccination.

[Colin2B]

So please... let this conversation not be about rabbits, dogs, pigs, hamsters or helicopters... Okay?

You introduced rabbits. As far as I am aware none of us have mentioned dogs, pigs, hamsters or helicopters, so why are you?

Either such weakened virus appears, or we create it.

The traditional approach is to create a weakened virus. We did this with polio and smallpox.

It's called vaccination.

I’m with @Bored chemist on this, better to prepare a vaccine than wait and see whether a weaken virus appears.

[Bored chemist]

Even if a weaker virus appears, that won't help; the strong one won't suddenly "go away"; it will carry on killing people.
There probably have been variations in the virus already which  have reduced it's lethality, but three's no reason to imagine they will significantly out-compete the dangerous strains which are doing so well.

What the OP is hoping for is a virus that's much better at spreading, but much worse at killing.
That's not a particularly likely combination.

[aspagnito (OP)]

1. I am speaking about a solution that would eliminate the problem and not "appease" it, like the vaccination.
2. I was speaking about the developed virus that got weaker - you said you know the virus, it was not developed and it did not got weaker. Perhaps we are speaking about the different virus - but let's stop it on this.
3. No, the weakened variant would help. The strong one has a low coronavirus reproduction rate and the weakened one would have a lot greater coronavirus reproduction rate. I explained it - people get sick, they don't go to a doctor but for example socialise.
4. No-one wrote about one thing and I'd like to notice that once more. Vaccine immunity is 4 months. Recoverers immunity is 11 months.

[Origin]

1. I am speaking about a solution that would eliminate the problem and not "appease" it, like the vaccination.

I don't think the word appease means what you think it means.

I was speaking about the developed virus that got weaker

So your idea is to bring the live virus into the lab and cause it to mutate and then test the mutations on people to see if it is less lethal, yeah, what could go wrong?
 

No-one wrote about one thing and I'd like to notice that once more. Vaccine immunity is 4 months. Recoverers immunity is 11 months.

I would prefer that they work on making the vaccine more effective than releasing a mutated corona virus into the wild...

[Bored chemist]

1. I am speaking about a solution that would eliminate the problem and not "appease" it, like the vaccination.

Do you think we "appeased" smallpox and rinderpest into extinction, or do you just not know  what you are talking about?

No-one wrote about one thing and I'd like to notice that once more. Vaccine immunity is 4 months. Recoverers immunity is 11 months.

Since your other stuff is just plain wrong it's not unreasonable for us to ignore what seem to be a couple of made-up numbers.

I was speaking about the developed virus that got weaker

The virus didn't need to change much.
The susceptible rabbits died.
The survivors were (obviously) less strongly affected by the virus.
Do you think a 1% human mortality rate is acceptable?

The strong one has a low coronavirus reproduction rate and the weakened one would have a lot greater coronavirus reproduction rate.

Why would it?

Also, two such viruses in the population would be a disaster.
Viruses "share" DNA from time to time if they meet.
So you would also get the stronger virus but with " a lot greater coronavirus reproduction rate".

Which is apocalyptic.
How, exactly, is that a good thing?

[Zer0]

Okay. Science is never sure for 100%.

What Is?
Horrorscopes?

[Petrochemicals]

All women need to be impregnated immediately by men who show natural resistance to the lethal covid disease, otherwise we will be following a path of survival of the weakest. We saw a similar thing in the Colombian exchange where smallpox flu plague measles etcetc destroyed almost entirely the peoples of the americas.


Although,,,,,, a breeding ages, the mated pair usually being at their prime around 15 to 35 for women and 25 to 45 for men, corona virus holds no fear.

[Colin2B]

All women need to be impregnated immediately by men who show natural resistance to the lethal covid disease,

As women have a stronger immune response than men and men are more likely to die from covid, it may be the other way round. Look for the women who had very few symptoms?

[Zer0]

& to just add to it...

Women are NOT reproduction machines.

They have All Rights & Freedom to say " NO " to such absurd demands.

Ps - Pregnancy should be a self gift, not ordered slavery.
✌️

[The Spoon]

All women need to be impregnated immediately by men who show natural resistance to the lethal covid disease, otherwise we will be following a path of survival of the weakest. We saw a similar thing in the Colombian exchange where smallpox flu plague measles etcetc destroyed almost entirely the peoples of the americas.


Although,,,,,, a breeding ages, the mated pair usually being at their prime around 15 to 35 for women and 25 to 45 for men, corona virus holds no fear.

So you are saying that women should be completely passive and have no say in this? It is like some kind of Incel fantasy..an utterly disgusting attitude.

[Zer0]

& to add more to it...

15???

FIFTEEN???

Ps - this ain't an Out of the Box solution, it's an Mind Out of place statement.
(Please Use Better Paid for Translators, & kindly Quit using the Cheap & Free ones Comrade!)
✌️

[puppypower]

 If a person gets the virus, and his immune system is fighting virus, does his sneeze contain both virus and some of his immune factors? If so, can human pass the equivalent of a mini vaccine through sneezing, along with the virus?

[Kryptid]

If a person gets the virus, and his immune system is fighting virus, does his sneeze contain both virus and some of his immune factors? If so, can human pass the equivalent of a mini vaccine through sneezing, along with the virus?

No. The virus can replicate when it passes to another person. Any antibodies that might somehow make their way into another person's body cannot replicate.

[puppypower]

If a person gets the virus, and his immune system is fighting virus, does his sneeze contain both virus and some of his immune factors? If so, can human pass the equivalent of a mini vaccine through sneezing, along with the virus?

No. The virus can replicate when it passes to another person. Any antibodies that might somehow make their way into another person's body cannot replicate.

I agree that immune factors would not multiple like a virus. However, the transferred fluids would provide viral fragments from a healthy immune response.These viral fragments could jump start the immune system of others, similar to a very weak but specific vaccine. Unlike a vaccine shot which takes a second to transfer, this immunity transfer would occur through days of human-human breathing exposure from different immune systems. 

This may explain why in the USA, states that covered up with masks had similar statistics to states that remained open without masks. The masks limited both virus and secondary immune factor exposure, while the lack of the masks increased both exposures, so there was a wash.