Oh god I love your Imperius idea. Although the sense I get is that Imperius is very hard to cast and powerful wizards can resist, so a) it wouldn’t necessarily be an effective virus, b) it might be pretty easy to notice and then counter, if you were too obvious about it.
Not to mention, if you lost one person, then everyone they infected, and those they infected, ad nauseum, would be released.
You could try to mitigate that by having overlapping vectors of infection, but I’m not sure how someone would react to having multiple Imperiuses cast on them.
Granted, the way this was accomplished in the actual story was by Imperiusing people who were poor wizards but politically powerful, to effectively gain control of large swaths of the population with minimal effort. Which is probably a better idea in the first place.
I’m surprised Quirrel hasn’t mentioned something like that in his arguments against democracy. It’s possible that rule by the strong really would be safer for wizards.
Oh god I love your Imperius idea. Although the sense I get is that Imperius is very hard to cast and powerful wizards can resist, so a) it wouldn’t necessarily be an effective virus, b) it might be pretty easy to notice and then counter, if you were too obvious about it.
Not to mention, if you lost one person, then everyone they infected, and those they infected, ad nauseum, would be released.
You could try to mitigate that by having overlapping vectors of infection, but I’m not sure how someone would react to having multiple Imperiuses cast on them.
Granted, the way this was accomplished in the actual story was by Imperiusing people who were poor wizards but politically powerful, to effectively gain control of large swaths of the population with minimal effort. Which is probably a better idea in the first place.
Still, cool concept.
I’m surprised Quirrel hasn’t mentioned something like that in his arguments against democracy. It’s possible that rule by the strong really would be safer for wizards.
He actually did make this point to Harry.