Paradigm Shift in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Herd Immunity to Domestication of Novel Coronavirus

The WHO has announced that we need to find a way to coexist with novel coronavirus as it is not likely that we can conquer this fast-spreading new zoonotic virus, which has been causing the covid-19 global pandemic, comparable to the Spanish flue in 1918. This message of the WHO indicates that a prospect of having an effective vaccine against novel coronavirus is the foreseeable future is not likely, given the unique nature of this virus, including its extreme mutability.

Many of us have latched our hope on “wiping out” novel corona virus by building herd immunity through vaccination, while controlling the further spread of the virus by quarantine, thorough testing and contact tracing, shutdowns the venues of people gatherings, social distancing, and enhanced hygiene, as well as rigorous disinfections. At the same time, some of those hoping for herd immunity argue that we rather should expose ourselves more to the novel coronavirus, rather than keeping ourselves from it, because it is a better way to build herd immunity than vaccination. They seem to believe that building herd immunity through mass infection is rather most natural way, trusting God-given immune system to fight and overcome the virus, without any artificial intervention. While both groups are for herd immunity, the former are pro-vaccination but the latter are anti-vaccination. Some of the latter are rather religious fundamentalists and therefore consider vaccination is just as unacceptable as genetic modification. To them, it is better to let nature take its course without any human interference to attain the most effect herd immunity.

Those who are anti-vaccination and pushing for herd immunity by exposing ourselves to the virus, however, seem to base their argument on a hasty logic, which makes their view rather pseudo-scientific. Basically, their view is rather aligned to the Darwinian “survival of the fittest” argument, though religious fundamentalists among those who espouse this view oppose the Darwin’s theory of evolution as they are more like literal Creationists. They probably do not recognize and acknowledge the self-contradiction between their opposition to evolution and their argument for Darwinian approach in terms of our response to the novel coronavirus.

Challenging the viewpoint of those who advocate for herd immunity by mass exposure is not necessarily to argue against nature. In their view, however, attaining herd immunity through vaccination seems to be an artificial intervention against nature. Such a view to support mass exposure to the virus for herd immunity but rejecting vaccine rather aligns with fundamentalist mentality, which is usually dualistic.

Ever since humans were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), we have been charged by God the Creator to serve as the responsible custodians of His Creation (Genesis 1:28). Therefore, it suggests that we are not always at mercy of nature – unless you are a dualistic religious fundamentalist. Rather, we discern the will of God the Creator and act with our free will, rooted in our conscience, to ensure that this God’s will for the Creation is always reflected in nature. This is what Genesis 1:28 means. Therefore, unless you can logically and theologically justify that God does not want any human intervention to nature and always wants us to be subject to nature’s mercy, the argument to push for herd immunity by mass exposure and infection does not stand.

Here is another problem with that view – unless you can justify that God wants a certain number of people to die for the sake of the majority to gain herd immunity – unless you can prove that God is utilitarian. By arguing for mass exposure and infection for herd immunity, their view does not factor in a possibility of our body’s inability to form long-lasting antibody through infection itself. Anyone who knows science of dealing with a new virus is very cautious not to jump onto a myopic conclusion or assumption that human body can form a lasting antibody to fend off future infection. The fact that the Native American tribes have been almost exterminated not only by violence of the invaders from Europe but by infectious diseases that they had brought and exposed to the indigenous populations, who did not have antibodies to defend themselves. Had things worked out as those who argue for herd immunity by exposing ourselves to the novel coronavirus as the best way believe, the European invaders would not have pushed the Native American tribes this far to near extinction.

The anti-vaccine people, who argue for herd immunity by exposure to the virus, may justify that it makes more sense to take a risk of mass exposure, rather than preventing the exposure, because that those who survive from covid-19 are much greater in proportion to those who die. This kind of argument seems to follow utilitarianism, a form of relativism. On average, those who are unfortunate to die from covid-19 make up “only” 2% of those who are infected, and they may think that it is even morally justifiable to have the 2% die for the sake of herd immunity of the 98% , even though there is no scientifically significant probability for herd immunity by infection through exposure.

At this point, we are not sure about the clinical efficacy of antibodies that those who have recovered from covid-19 – if they are good enough to build herd immunity. And, a prospect of effective vaccine is not so good. In the meantime, though the average mortality ratio is 2% among the infected, about 80% of covid-19 patients death are accounted for ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome). ARDS presented among covid-19 patients are extremely difficult to manage that even experienced pulmonology specialist physicians struggle to stabilize the condition of covid-19 ARDS patients because they do not respond with the treatments that they are trained and familiar with. Thus, even with highly experienced specialists and advanced medical procedures today, fighting against covid-19 ARDS is navigating through uncharted water. And, it is not only the physicians who are struggling to battle but also our immune system. Though the physicians are more in control even under very limited and uncertain circumstances, the human immune system tends to react to this new zoonotic virus in panic, as it often results in cytokine storm. It is because the human immune system does not seem know how to handle this zoonotic virus. This extremely harmful immune override reaction destroys blood vessels and organs vital to sustain life. Thus, it leads to death.

So, enough about latching our hope only on our immune system and herd immunity. And, in considering for those who have compromised immunity, counting only on immunity may put them in back burner.

With all these factors in the covid-19 pandemic reality, now the WHO is calling us to think of a way that we can co-exist as it is not so likely that we can “conquer” novel coronavirus with herd immunity – though the humans have “wiped out” some viruses and other pathogenic microbes through vaccinations, antiviral medicines, and antibiotics. In regard to viruses, in most cases, once their hosts build herd immunity, they have to go extinct as they cannot survive without infecting the hosts – unless they mutate and find new hosts to infect.

Even we think that the average death rate of 2% is “small” and focus on the surviving 98%, heard immunity is skeptical, even with a vaccine, because of extremely frequent mutability of this RNA virus. It is likely that novel coronavirus can cause another pandemic with its new stronger strain, against which the vaccine may not work. In fact, new waves of infection spike hotspots are popping up as I write this, even where the spikes had been subdued successfully, given the very uniquely mutable nature of the novel coronavirus – making the virus seem impossible to conquer.  So, how can we make sure that we will not be wiped out by this extremely mutable zoonotic RNA virus, called novel coronarivus? To come up with a better answer, we need to think beyond the paradigm of immunity.

So, let us move our focus from immunity to something else. And let us think of our history – what our ancestors have done moving from hunting to farming for a stable life-style. Remember, as our ancestors began to farm, human population grew better, because we began to have more control over food supply in dealing with wild creatures.

It is domestication. Our ancestors succeeded to domesticate selected wild animals to put them under human control. If this action were against the will of God the Creator, then, there would not be shepherd in the Bible.

We have done domestication to certain wild animals and put them under our control. Now, what about viruses to be put under our control?

In fact, we have already put some viruses and bacteria under our control – transforming viruses and bacteria, which used to be pathogenic into not only harmless ones but also therapeutic and medicinal ones – through microbiological “domestication”.  It can be done through something like cross-breeding and genetic modification.

Though genetic modification per se can raise ethical question and can be argued as “against God’s will” and can be abused by evil-minded people, it may be ethically and morally justified as long as its operation is rooted in our conscience for human welfare.  And, it is a possibility that we can edit genes of pathogenic viruses and bacteria so that they will not be harmful to humans (Freije et al., 2019; Ramachandran & Bikard, 2019). It is now within capabilities to turn novel coronavirus and other pathogenic viruses and bacteria into non-pathogenic ones.

In terms of genetic science and nuclear science, we have already opened the Pandora’s Box in God’s Creation. Genetic codes and subatomic particles have been considered as “off limits” to humans as these are the domain of God the Creator. However, we have already stepped in. And, God still allows us to exist, though we can send ourselves to extinction as a result of our unethical practice and application of genetic science and atomic science.

Humans cannot be elevated to the level of God, as we have learned a lesson from the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). Some religious people worry that rapid and remarkable progress in science since the 20^th century, getting into subatomic structures and genetic codes, humans are usurping into God’s sacred area of Creation, as to try to play God. At the same time, such progress in atomic and genetic sciences can be interpreted that humans have achieved far enough to understand God more through the hidden codes behind the Creation. And, subatomic composition and genetic composition are these hidden codes behind God’s work of Creation.

Discovering such God’s secret and applying it to enhance the quality of life for us humans and other species through science and technology itself do not be considered as our offense against God the Creator. As long as we apply the discovered God’s secret of Creation for the goodness of us and the rest of the Creation, it reflects the principle of God’s change to us in Genesis 1:28 for the responsible stewardship of the Creation, including human welfare. Is this unethical and immoral? I do not think so. Does it invite God’s wrath? I do not think so, as long as we handle God’s secrets in Creation in line with God’s will. Thus, it is indispensable to always discern God’s will whenever we engage in atomic and genetic sciences and application of these sciences, including gene editing.

With this ethical consideration, we may also turn our abilities to edit genetic code to put a virus that can threat human existence under our control. This way, we can safely “domesticate” a wild life-threatening pandemic-causing virus, like novel coronavirus.

We can start working to let the novel coronavirus lose its pathogenic abilities by editing its genetic code. This way, we can safety coexist with the novel coronavirus, with or without a vaccine. Because this virus is an RNA virus, given its messenger-like character, we can edit its gene by replacing its pathogenic genetic code with therapeutic one to transform this virus into a therapeutic virus to be used for therapeutic and medicinal applications to save more lives.

The WHO has just reminded us that continual human existence may depend out our abilities for paradigm shift. And, it is what it takes to adopt ourselves to constant change. After all, we have made this far throughout the shuffles of evolution over 35 millions years because our ancestors after ancestors have adopted constant changes. Paradigm shift is a form of cognitive adaptation, leading to physical adaptation. I firmly believe that God has designed humans fully capable of this as He has blessed us upon Creating us to let us serve as the stewards of His Creation (Genesis 1:28).

References:

Freije,C.A., Myhrvold, C., Boehm,C.K., Lin, A.E., Welch, N.L., Carter, A.,Metsky, H.C. , Luo, C. Y., Abudayyeh, O.O., Gootenberg, J. S., Yozwiak, N.L., Zhang, F., and Sabeti, P. C. (2019). Programmable Inhibition and Detection of RNA Viruses Using Cas13. Molecular Cell 76, 826–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2019.09.013

Ledford, H. (2020). How does COVID-19 kill? Uncertainty is hampering doctors’ ability to choose treatments. Nature 580, 311-312. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01056-7

Ramachandran, G & Bikard, D. (2019). Editing the microbiome the CRISPR way. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 374: 20180103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0103