Heard the earlier - any support to the the idea that the outbreak of "design a super disease" games few years back was just a DARPA project for distributed computing?
Simulating millions and millions of disease scenarios with players doing the brunt of artificial selection.
Game players (aka experimenters) would quickly identify the most overpowered strategy by using real-world epidemiology trends. Here's my method for fans of the "game":
• start virus due to easy genetic manipulability and resistance to chemical disinfection
• focus on adaptability to hit all the major vectors: airborne, insect, body fluids, water
• start in tropical climate; encourages heat resilience and provides high population densities, plus copious reservoirs of insect vectors
• dead people don't spread your virus, so lethality is out of the question (until endgame, see next 2 points)
• effective diseases are innocuous at first, allowing transmission without overt symptoms
• unlike bacteria, viruses rewrite host DNA, allowing latent effects to be triggered much later after infection - latency makes research into your disease more difficult
• maximizing infected hosts is your goal, so it's paramount to keep panic suppressed - clueless media and open borders are integral to this
• nothing spreads an under-the-radar disease faster than holding the Olympics in a highly infected area - YOU MUST NOT RAISE ALARMS BEFOREHAND, STAY INCOGNITO BUT CONTAGIOUS
• smart countries (fuck Madagascar lemur cunts) cut themselves off from foreign involvement before panic sets in; closed border = you failed
• high rate of untreated infection leads to frequent viral mutation; immunization is ineffective and viral "cures" are difficult to manufacture
• this is the point in the game where some kind of lethality factor evolves, dooming humanity in one fell swoop as everyone suddenly bleeds to death through their fingernails
Thoughts Sup Forums? Pic related