4 ms·

I mean the most likely explanation is that it came from the market, no? * Most of the first cases had a direct tie to the market * it happened before with SAR

I mean the most likely explanation is that it came from the market, no? * Most of the first cases had a direct tie to the market * it happened before with SARS-1 * Why would they cover it up by blaming it on the markets? They had already come under scrutiny for reopening them after what happened with SARS-1. A lab accident is maybe the Chinese government doing a bad job, a dirty market that should never have reopened in the first place is definitely the Chinese government being inept. I just don’t see it.

jnbiche 7y ago
> * Most of the first cases had a direct tie to the market False. Few of the initial cases had any tie to the market. Multiple outlets have reported this from the beginning, even before the lab theory started circulating here in the US: "However, a study, by Chinese researchers published in the Lancet medical journal, claimed the first person to be diagnosed with Covid-19, was on 1 December 2019 (a lot of earlier) and that person had "no contact" with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. [...] She also said that three other people developed symptoms in the following days – two of whom had no exposure to Huanan either." [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200221-coronavirus-the-harmful-hunt-for-covid-19s-patient-zero https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200221-coronavirus-the-...] > * it happened before with SARS-1 You know what else happened before with SARS-1? https://www.who.int/csr/don/2004_04_23/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/don/2004_04_23/en/ https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content_344755.htm https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content... and then, recently: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep... > * Why would they cover it up by blaming it on the markets? Who knows? They certainly have a record of covering up such stuff. It may have been released by a lab (the Wuhan CDC, who was conducting live bat research on bat coronaviruses with 96% match SARS-Cov-2) that is under control of the provincial authorities, the same ones who we know tried to cover up the initial outbreak. Possibly, Xi Jingping and/or national leadership felt it would just be too much to reveal to the world that not only was there a cover-up, but it was a cover-up of a lab accident under the direct control of the provincial government. After they had been warned by multiple countries about safety issues involving coronavirus research in the nearby BL4 lab. I agree it's possible that the spillover somehow was linked to the market. That said, the spillover likely involved a person who was in close contact with lots of live bats. At this point, it seems most likely this would have occurred at one of the labs studying bat coronaviruses. But it's far from proven.
- jnbiche 7y ago
  Also, to add a possible answer to the final question above, on why would they cover it up? Well, if the Hubei provincial government covered the whole accidental release up, and if the Xi Jinping wasn't aware of it, I think he would probably want to keep that under wraps since it would make him look weak if it were to be revealed he wasn't even aware of the situation on the ground for multiple weeks.
makomk 7y ago
The cases which caused doctors to suspect an outbreak of SARS-like disease had a tie to the wet market, but it turned out those weren't actually the first cases. Also, the fact that SARS was caused by a wet market means that Chinese doctors are going to be a lot more suspicious of SARS-like symptoms in workers at one than they are in general. Basically, the evidence suggests that the apparent ties to the wet market might be an illusion created by the fact that the health system was looking more closely for disease outbreaks there. Something similar happened in Italy. The case which tipped them off to the fact that they had a major outbreak was someone that was only tested because they'd had contact with a person who'd travelled to China recently, but the general consensus is that was a red herring and the outbreak there originated in Germany.

jnbiche 7y ago

> * Most of the first cases had a direct tie to the market False. Few of the initial cases had any tie to the market. Multiple outlets have reported this from the beginning, even before the lab theory started circulating here in the US: "However, a study, by Chinese researchers published in the Lancet medical journal, claimed the first person to be diagnosed with Covid-19, was on 1 December 2019 (a lot of earlier) and that person had "no contact" with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. [...] She also said that three other people developed symptoms in the following days – two of whom had no exposure to Huanan either." [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200221-coronavirus-the-harmful-hunt-for-covid-19s-patient-zero https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200221-coronavirus-the-...] > * it happened before with SARS-1 You know what else happened before with SARS-1? https://www.who.int/csr/don/2004_04_23/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/don/2004_04_23/en/ https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content_344755.htm https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content... and then, recently: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep... > * Why would they cover it up by blaming it on the markets? Who knows? They certainly have a record of covering up such stuff. It may have been released by a lab (the Wuhan CDC, who was conducting live bat research on bat coronaviruses with 96% match SARS-Cov-2) that is under control of the provincial authorities, the same ones who we know tried to cover up the initial outbreak. Possibly, Xi Jingping and/or national leadership felt it would just be too much to reveal to the world that not only was there a cover-up, but it was a cover-up of a lab accident under the direct control of the provincial government. After they had been warned by multiple countries about safety issues involving coronavirus research in the nearby BL4 lab. I agree it's possible that the spillover somehow was linked to the market. That said, the spillover likely involved a person who was in close contact with lots of live bats. At this point, it seems most likely this would have occurred at one of the labs studying bat coronaviruses. But it's far from proven.

jnbiche 7y ago
Also, to add a possible answer to the final question above, on why would they cover it up? Well, if the Hubei provincial government covered the whole accidental release up, and if the Xi Jinping wasn't aware of it, I think he would probably want to keep that under wraps since it would make him look weak if it were to be revealed he wasn't even aware of the situation on the ground for multiple weeks.

makomk 7y ago

The cases which caused doctors to suspect an outbreak of SARS-like disease had a tie to the wet market, but it turned out those weren't actually the first cases. Also, the fact that SARS was caused by a wet market means that Chinese doctors are going to be a lot more suspicious of SARS-like symptoms in workers at one than they are in general. Basically, the evidence suggests that the apparent ties to the wet market might be an illusion created by the fact that the health system was looking more closely for disease outbreaks there. Something similar happened in Italy. The case which tipped them off to the fact that they had a major outbreak was someone that was only tested because they'd had contact with a person who'd travelled to China recently, but the general consensus is that was a red herring and the outbreak there originated in Germany.