On Chrome on Windows 10, I could dismiss it in Edge.

This was the solution, open javascript console:

for( var x in document.querySelectorAll("a")) { if( x.text == "I ACCEPT") c.click()}

Well, even in the summary, they didn't claim that monkeys got sick and survived. They claimed monkeys stayed healthy.

I agree, but you can still learn about the mental state of those that even try to make those statements.

They are basically sociopathic arrogant bullies.

I would say withholding funds to the WHO in this point in time is a misdemeanor, or even a high misdemeanor.

"Central Park five? Nothing that came up during the Trump administration."

Oh, really, so in your delusional mind, only things after 2017 count?

Trump was a racist his whole life, and still is.

Nice straw man argument attempt, though.

After 60 years of constant lying, you get good at it.

The destructive power of Trump is simply amazing, nobody has ever seen something like this. Everything Trump touches, dies. (A real book title)

That Trump is an idiot was known long before 2016. And, yet, here you are, still in denial.

"Remember when President Trump was condemned as a "racist" and a "xenophobe" for doing this?"

Well, Trump is a racist and a xenophobe. Muslim ban, border wall, Central Park five.

Trump is a mentally ill person, narcissistic personality disorder. He projects. Whatever he's done wrong, he blames others for the same things.

A prerequisite for NPD is to be a psychopath, which he is. He simply doesn't care about other people, only about himself.

Trump is a pathological liar, which narcissists usually are. Also, he is very arrogant. NPD people can be charming, and you have fun for two weeks, and then the nightmare starts.

Trump knows he fucked up, and be blamed almost everybody and everything he could think of, cycling trough a lie after lie. The WHO blame is just the latest.

"The difference is that you prescribed a virus which might cause deaths as opposed to people who get naturally occurring infections."

True. That's why you give the mild version. Duh.

"The point which I guess is not clear to you: You can't always control mutations. You pick a virus; it mutates and not necessarily the way you want it to mutate. End of story. You don't always control it. In the lab, you can destroy the virus. Once you give that virus to people and it could spread out of control."

You don't need to control any mutations. You select already existing mutations that are right now spreading trough the world out of control.

"No you don't seem to understand what mutations are and how they occur. What is this "back" you keep referring to?"

Back to the deadly variant, duh. You really didn't get that?

"I think you seriously need to review your understanding of evolution and viruses before proceeding. The amount of basic knowledge you seem to lack is a hindrance"

Straight from straw man to the ad hominem.

"Again if further mutation is an addition or a change that makes it deadlier, who would you handle that."

I already answered that. You would handle is exactly the same way as if the current version of the virus mutates into something deadlier. Which, is, there is nothing you can do, but start from scratch. At that point you have a new disease. Should we start to worry if any of the influenza or other common cold viruses mutate into something deadlier?

"You seem focused only one scenario that doesn't represent what mutations are."

Sure, because this is the focus of the idea. You, not nature, select the mutation you want. You pick the one which is harder to mutate back. You seem to not get this point. I find it fairly intuitive.

"How? You are testing people with a live virus as opposed to a dead or weakened virus."

That is the other half of the point of the idea. The testing is already being done. There are people with mutations of this virus right now, probably more than 100 versions. This way we can trace geological history of the spreading. Of those 100, you select one that is not deadly (if that one exists), and spread it.

Lets say you manage to find 1000 people with one particular SARS-2 virus strain and nobody of those 1000 dies. You can deduce that that particular version of corona virus is much better than the current one, and you artificially spread this one instead. This has already been done for other diseases.

Notice that you actually do not give this virus to anybody, they already have it. Thus this method of finding it is safe. You do nothing. You just sample.

With a new vaccine candidate, you have to artificially give it to people and see what happens. Then you can't start with 1000, you start with 10, then 100, then more, and each step takes months.

"Far more people will obviously get sick."

This is why I think you didn't understand the idea.

"There is far greater chance of mutation to deadlier version."

Why? This is a virus that is already out there, you just try to find the one that gives mild symptoms. Why would you think this one has greater chance of mutation to a deadlier version?

"You do understand that a non-deadly version could mutate to a far deadlier version than the current one?"

I sure do. One can also say that the current version could also mutate to an even deadlier version. What's your point here?

And, you specifically select a weak version of the virus, a version for which it is harder for it to mutate back to the current normal (deadly) version.

"You also understand that this is not the common cold right?"

Thus i said a "new version of common cold". There are already 4 corona viruses that go around and cause common cold. We find the 5th that also gives you immunity against the current problem. This would obviously only be useful if the symptoms are common cold like or weaker.

"What? Mutations are not simply deletions. Sometimes they are additions or changes."

Did I claim otherwise? We have already found versions of the virus with a simple switch, and a deletion. You pick the one with a deletion, since it is much harder for this one to mutate back.

"And how long will it take to get enough samples of your possibly deadlier version?"

A lot less than 1.5 years, hopefully. And, why are you claiming that, if we found a mild version of this virus, and it was already spread in 1000 people, why are you claiming that this would be a possibly deadlier version? We only take it if none of those 1000 died.

"Also why not just use a dead or weakend version as a vaccine?"

Because, the testing process is long. Much longer. This idea uses existing cases as tests. Geez, this was all in the proposed idea, did you even read it?

"Bahahaha. Sure let me rig up my Star Trek tricorder and do that."

Apparently, we have pretty cheap genome sequencers today.

"That works in the lab. That does not work as quickly in humans."

What are you talking about here. Did you even read the idea?

"Deadly mutation(s) could occur quite quickly"

Since we already have a deadly virus, catching a new version of common cold, including the chance of it mutating to become deadly is much better than what is happening now in the world.

And the point is that you look for an already existing mutation, where a part of genetic code was deleted, and logic says that this cannot mutate back quickly.

Deadlier version of a vaccine, which we will not have that quickly.

This is a long shot (like everything else), but the good characteristics is the speed in which this can potentially be implemented, as opposed to 1.5 years for the vaccine.

Both of those are addressed in the guys idea.

You take those strains from humans, so we know they do infect humans. Duh.

Second, that's why he said you look for deletions of segments in RNA code, not simple one bit (doublebit?) switch, which could easily mutate back.

The great thing about this idea is that the testing is already being done in all the infected humans, and the problem is that you need massive testing and sequencing.