A Modest Hypothesis

A modest hypothesis: the viral interference as a way to control a dangerous artificial or natural pathogen and to mitigate its effects. When a truly dangerous pathogen is intentionally or accidentally released to the environment, you impose an immediate lockdown to the affected city and at the same time you intentionally release a less dangerous pathogen that works reasonably well to achieve the viral interference against the deadly pathogen. For repeated application, the less dangerous pathogen for viral interference is ideal if human beings in general do not gain lifelong immunity against it. 

Discussion

What is the best way to respond to the seriously deadly pathogen? An immediate straightforward answer would be to follow the conventional idea in which an attempt is made to gain antibody-mediated mass immunity. But is this true? What are the underlying implicit assumptions by which the above mentioned idea makes sense? There are two implicit assumptions without which the conventional idea does not make sense: assumption one is that the mechanism of human bodies is such that antibodies are the primary sources of protection against it rather than other means such as apoptosis; assumption two is that the artificially induced antibody-mediated immunity does not lead to the emergence of new variants with more toxicity. We have no guarantee in advance that the two assumptions hold true. Then especially for an artificial pathogen with seriously dangerous toxicity, we will want to have a safety measure without relying on the above mentioned two assumptions. This leaves an alternative idea to be desired. Thus an alternative idea to the conventional one would be the use of viral interference. It is much easier to control the deadly pathogen through controlling the viral-interference-inducing less dangerous pathogen than through controlling the deadly pathogen itself.

Implications

What is then implied if the above mentioned hypothesis proves true and the above-mentioned discussion makes sense? It could be a wrong decision making to try gaining immunity against the viral-interference-inducing less toxic pathogen because if otherwise you will lose the privilege to passover the deadly pathogen.