3 ms·
Yeah I have a hard time believing it has been definitively proven that the market was the source of the virus. Wouldn’t that mean they have the carcass of whate
by tempsy 7y ago
Yeah I have a hard time believing it has been definitively proven that the market was the source of the virus. Wouldn’t that mean they have the carcass of whatever animal transmitted the virus in their possession? And did the first person known to have contracted it actually say they went there?
- sct202 7y agoWhy would they have a carcass of something someone ate at least a week before they got sick they caught the virus?
- pp19dd 7y agoIt's just not that clear-cut. Last time around, they apparently culled the wrong animal population. Scientists still dispute to this day whether the action effected anything resembling change. The book "Spillover" (highly recommend it) goes into this in excruciating details, but in particular draws attention to the distinction between a host animal and the amplifier animal. In Hendra's case (Australia), it was a bat -> horse -> human -> random survival recurrence. In other outbreaks, it was not very clear what was what and health officials and some scientists tend to jump to conclusion too early. What might seem like a rising concern is that there's documentation that the new virus may have made two hops between healthy carriers and infected others.
- Aunche 7y agoIt's pretty simple. You ask all the first people who got sick what they were doing over the past couple weeks. It's the same way they identified that Chipotle had an E Coli problem.