3 ms·

Correct, but note that they don't really support the idea that the virus was accidentally released from the lab either. > A large amount of the initial cases h

Correct, but note that they don't really support the idea that the virus was accidentally released from the lab either. > A large amount of the initial cases had no connection to the Wuhan seafood market. Factual. But misleading. The article you cite notes the much likelier cause: the long incubation period means that those who did come into contact with the market infected others. > The CCP has ordered the destruction of evidence at those places and imposed gag orders on the scientists involved. Correct, but the Wuhan CDC is also where most of the early analysis of covid was being done after it was discovered. The CCP also silenced doctors in hospitals, they generally tried to cover up covid in general. Keeping the scientists working on it silenced isn't any different than how they treated hospital workers.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Correct, but note that they don't really support the idea that the virus was accidentally released from the lab either. Let's suppose we had to decide between two scenarios, which one of these two sounds more probable? A virus endemic to bats from southern China was first transmitted to a researcher working at one of two specialist centers in central China, while performing research on bats and/or bat coronaviruses, under a questionable safety regime. A virus endemic to bats from southern China was first transmitted to a human in the wildlife market in central China where no bats are sold, presumably through an intermediate host such as a pangolin. Which of these two scenarios is preferable to the ruling party of China? Which is feeding the narrative that "human encroachment on nature is dangerous" (bad thing is dangerous), as opposed to "scientific research can be dangerous" (good thing is dangerous)? > The article you cite notes the much likelier cause: the long incubation period means that those who did come into contact with the market infected others. How is that more likely? The finding is that there is no epidemiological link to the seafood market in 13 out 41 patients, including the earliest known patient. Your interpretation is the opposite of what the paragraph regarding the incubation period says: "Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts."
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  > A virus endemic to bats from southern China was first transmitted to a human in the wildlife market in central China where no bats are sold, presumably through an intermediate host such as a pangolin. How likely is it that a virus endemic to bats in southwestern china was first transmitted to humans in a wildlife market in southeastern china where bats are not sold? Well that's exactly what happened with SARS-1. The disease was passed to humans via civets. And in Wuhan the carrier seems to have been pangolins. Seems completely believable, given that it happened once already.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > How likely is it that a virus endemic to bats in southwestern china was first transmitted to humans in a wildlife market in southeastern china where bats are not sold? Well that's exactly what happened with SARS-1. Patient zero in SARS-1 was a farmer from Guangdong, the same area where the novel coronavirus is suspected to have emerged among bats, where farmers have been found to carry bat coronaviruses. Wuhan is more than 600 miles away from that area. The initial outbreak of SARS-1 was literally where you would expect it to be, among the population where you would expect it to occur. Civets were suspected as transmitters, but that link is neither proven nor necessary to explain the initial outbreak. > Seems completely believable, given that it happened once already. I'm not asking if it is believable. Both scenarios are believable. The "pathogen escapes from lab" scenario happened before as well. I'm asking, which of these appears more likely? Which of these would you be more inclined to believe, if you want to be as far away from right wingers as possible? Which scenario caters to your pro-environmental and pro-science stance?
    - yorwba 7y ago
      > Patient zero in SARS-1 was a farmer from Guangdong, Correct. > the same area where the novel coronavirus is suspected to have emerged among bats, Incorrect, that's Yunnan. > where farmers have been found to carry bat coronaviruses. Yunnan. > Wuhan is more than 600 miles away from that area. I suggest you go find Yunnan, Guangdong and Hubei on a map. Bat caves in Yunnan are full of potentially dangerous coronaviruses, but the farmers living close to the caves are already immune to the strains they're in frequent contact with, so the only way for an outbreak to get big is by long-distance transportation carrying the virus somewhere else.

gridlockd 7y ago

> Correct, but note that they don't really support the idea that the virus was accidentally released from the lab either. Let's suppose we had to decide between two scenarios, which one of these two sounds more probable? A virus endemic to bats from southern China was first transmitted to a researcher working at one of two specialist centers in central China, while performing research on bats and/or bat coronaviruses, under a questionable safety regime. A virus endemic to bats from southern China was first transmitted to a human in the wildlife market in central China where no bats are sold, presumably through an intermediate host such as a pangolin. Which of these two scenarios is preferable to the ruling party of China? Which is feeding the narrative that "human encroachment on nature is dangerous" (bad thing is dangerous), as opposed to "scientific research can be dangerous" (good thing is dangerous)? > The article you cite notes the much likelier cause: the long incubation period means that those who did come into contact with the market infected others. How is that more likely? The finding is that there is no epidemiological link to the seafood market in 13 out 41 patients, including the earliest known patient. Your interpretation is the opposite of what the paragraph regarding the incubation period says: "Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts."

joshuamorton 7y ago
> A virus endemic to bats from southern China was first transmitted to a human in the wildlife market in central China where no bats are sold, presumably through an intermediate host such as a pangolin. How likely is it that a virus endemic to bats in southwestern china was first transmitted to humans in a wildlife market in southeastern china where bats are not sold? Well that's exactly what happened with SARS-1. The disease was passed to humans via civets. And in Wuhan the carrier seems to have been pangolins. Seems completely believable, given that it happened once already.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > How likely is it that a virus endemic to bats in southwestern china was first transmitted to humans in a wildlife market in southeastern china where bats are not sold? Well that's exactly what happened with SARS-1. Patient zero in SARS-1 was a farmer from Guangdong, the same area where the novel coronavirus is suspected to have emerged among bats, where farmers have been found to carry bat coronaviruses. Wuhan is more than 600 miles away from that area. The initial outbreak of SARS-1 was literally where you would expect it to be, among the population where you would expect it to occur. Civets were suspected as transmitters, but that link is neither proven nor necessary to explain the initial outbreak. > Seems completely believable, given that it happened once already. I'm not asking if it is believable. Both scenarios are believable. The "pathogen escapes from lab" scenario happened before as well. I'm asking, which of these appears more likely? Which of these would you be more inclined to believe, if you want to be as far away from right wingers as possible? Which scenario caters to your pro-environmental and pro-science stance?
  - yorwba 7y ago
    > Patient zero in SARS-1 was a farmer from Guangdong, Correct. > the same area where the novel coronavirus is suspected to have emerged among bats, Incorrect, that's Yunnan. > where farmers have been found to carry bat coronaviruses. Yunnan. > Wuhan is more than 600 miles away from that area. I suggest you go find Yunnan, Guangdong and Hubei on a map. Bat caves in Yunnan are full of potentially dangerous coronaviruses, but the farmers living close to the caves are already immune to the strains they're in frequent contact with, so the only way for an outbreak to get big is by long-distance transportation carrying the virus somewhere else.