I don't see the point of this. Nature has most certainly not established the long-term effects of this virus, seeing as it has only been spreading in humans for a short while.
Skirting the regulations is pointless, because the important thing is the intent of the regulations. If it were just a problem with the regulations, we could also just change the regulations and give the untested vaccine.
Plus, if you want to argue from a pure legal background, this approach would probably still run into trouble, as in most countries it would be highly illegal to infect people on purpose.
If we wait for the long term we will all get infected and we will all be broke. We need to think differently.
I am not arguing that we should infect people on purpose. If people chose to become infected on their own by hanging out with those infected with an attenuated strain then that is a very different legal question.
Personally I think the result would be the regulatory agency would just rush the use through based on the epidemiology data gathered in the search for the attenuated strain.
Here's what I have trouble reconciling: You say that this attenuated virus would spread automatically -- just like a virus -- and yet no one would be infected on purpose, only if people "chose to become infected on their own by hanging out with those infected with an attenuated strain".
How much agency do I have in whether I get infected or not? It seems strange to me if it depends on the genetic makeup of the virus.
If you were to deliberately go and hangout with someone you know is infected with the attenuated strain then a lot, if you catch it because your neighbour did this then none.
This discussion is really a distraction as I don’t think a “grass roots” spread would be the way any such strain would be spread. I think the regulatory agencies would look at the data collected from the natural spread and use this to approve the strain for use.
Well, in principle it does sound like a possibly "vaccine", but without the long-term testing I still don't see how we can be sure we have found this attenuated strain. Personally, I am youngish (30s) and healthy, so I would probably fall into the core group of those that "should" be infected. But given the choice, I don't think I'd do it, because even now, three months after this virus became big, there is still huge uncertainty about its lethality (even among young people), the number of severe cases (possibly causing long-term long tissue), and how this virus behaves in the long-term: how long would immunity even last? [seems unclear now]. There were also reports from China, and now South Korea, about possible reinfections or reactivations. Under these circumstances, I'd rather pass and keep to social distancing/masks etc. until a better solution comes along or the safety of an attenuated strain has actually been proven through a large scale, controlled trial.
Skirting the regulations is pointless, because the important thing is the intent of the regulations. If it were just a problem with the regulations, we could also just change the regulations and give the untested vaccine.
Plus, if you want to argue from a pure legal background, this approach would probably still run into trouble, as in most countries it would be highly illegal to infect people on purpose.