Corona as a TRIZ Challenge

On Facebook I made the suggestion to apply a profound TRIZ analysis to the Corona problem as a challenge full of contraditions to transform the harmful into useful (or - at least - less harmful).

First, let me give an English translation of the proposal, presented on Facebook in Russian:

Corona is an excellent example of TRIZ application (at least in the OTSM-TRIZ variant). Different local prototypical situations are generalized into an abstract problem (doctors of intensive care hospital departments intensively exchange their experience around the world), the problem is modeled (it is better and better understood how exactly the "machine" - the infectious process - works), the process of transformation of the "technical system" (the global health care system) is developed and the transformation is realized according to local conditions.

Second, let me remind the tradition of TRIZ application to important world challenges of mankind, as, e.g. in this analysis of Nikolay Shpakovsky of the oil desaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

The following approaches and papers were proposed:

Here is an English translation: A recent post … raised the question of what methods are used by the coronavirus and what methods were used by mankind to fight it. We have to admit that the virus has won with a crushing score. It’s not only using a tricky way to get into the cage. The virus also blocks the enzyme that recycles the surplus remarkable substance, Angiotensin 2 (AT2). Excess of this substance in the lungs causes contraction of the vessel walls, blood stagnation, increased local pressure, excessive infiltration into the lungs plasma, thrombosis. All this leads to a particularly acute course of pneumonia, and blood stagnation prevents the immune system from functioning. The virus creates a “safe haven” for itself. This mechanism has been known since 2005, when the results of an epidemic caused by another virus, COVID-1, were analysed. It was then possible to artificially induce pneumonia in mice and cure them with substances that neutralized the effects of AT2. However, as a result of some ill-conceived claims, such drugs were ‘banned’. Only after retrospective studies, they were not only cleared of suspicion, but also the data on their high efficacy. Thus, two studies (out of four) showed that the risk of death in patients who continued to take antioxidant-converting enzyme inhibitors (iAPF) in hospital was about two-thirds (!) below average. Clinical trials of these drugs have only just begun, and they are all still in the “recruiting” phase. What were innocent mice killed for?

I want to note that I do not claim that there is a miracle cure, I can not even claim that these drugs are useful in this case. The question is, they have not been investigated. There’s already been a good ten clinical trials of Chloroquine, and another ten are planned. Why so many? There are clinical trials of such powerful drugs as prayer (!) and yoga (!!!).

This suggests that no systematic search for solutions has been carried out. The problem is solved by a twisted storm: - “The one who screams louder is right”. Someone in the spotlight shouted that the drugs could be harmful, and it caused nothing but a panic reaction. Like a shot in a herd of stupid antelopes. One of the reasons for this depressing state of affairs is that systematic problem-solving methods are now a marginal niche. For which we must all congratulate ourselves.

All of this was described in more detail and with links in my previous post. (in Russian, German translation). Thank you for reading it to the end.