4 ms·
Emphasis should be put on the fact that it's both an endangered and internationally protected specie (from which China is a signatory [1]). It had nothing to do
by jorge-d 7y ago
Emphasis should be put on the fact that it's both an endangered and internationally protected specie (from which China is a signatory [1]). It had nothing to do in those markets in the first place.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CITES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CITES
- jeltz 7y agoSo does that mean that the sale of pangolins at the market in Wuhan was entirely illegal? If so this seems like a huge enforcement issue if endangered animals could be openly sold at a market.
- rhombocombus 7y agoIt was entirely illegal and remains so. It is a huge enforcement issue, and hopefully this encourages the Chinese Gov't to crack down on these wildlife markets, but it didn't happen after SARS-CoV-1 (which IIRC also came out of a wildlife meat market in China) so I don't hold out a lot of hope.
- corndoge 7y agoThe wildlife markets are permanently banned now, as I understand it
- bobthepanda 7y agoThey also did this after SARS for a short bit. Let's see how long it lasts.
- duxup 7y agoWell it says related viruses... so I'm not sure there has to be a connection between Pangolins and the market directly. Although that's probabbly a good route to investigate.
- jorge-d 7y agoI highly suggest you this video [1] from Vox which explains why virus outbreaks (like SARS, Ebola etc) usually appear in wet markets, like the one in Wuhan. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPpoJGYlW54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPpoJGYlW54
- michaelmrose 7y agoYouTube is such a bad source in discussions about controversial matters that not only should it incur -5 karma but people ought to appear to repossess your keyboard. - what one can read in 30 seconds takes 5 minutes to watch because people read much faster than they talk. -The relevant 5 minutes of video will usually be embedded in a 20 minute video somewhere in the middle. - The url says nothing about the trustworthiness ofthe source so you have to go out of band to establish credibility. Add to this YouTube is literally where every crank ever uses for sources as if 17 lunatics quoting each other makes them collectively more credible. Basically a YouTube video is an invitation to waste 20 minutes of your life Consider spending a few minutes summerizing the the video including what is established and by whom and why they are a credible source. That way readers can distinguish between you and a million cranks.
- jorge-d 7y agoI have a hard time to see the point of your message, given that if you read the description of the said Youtube video they post multiple of the source material they used to make it if you're allergic to videos. My message was only a recommendation, I don't see why I should try to summarize an already well-crafted explanation.
- michaelmrose 7y agoIt is actually a good video but its hard to discern this and even this well crafted explanation could have been profitably replaced by 2 pages of text.