> That could just be a coincidence, but it's a pretty remarkable coincidence Not really. It was always likely to be found in a major population center where p

> That could just be a coincidence, but it's a pretty remarkable coincidence Not really. It was always likely to be found in a major population center where people cluster tightly, where the r0 would be higher, where superspreading events would hit more people, and where there would be more educated hospital staff that would notice something going on. Wuhan is the largest city in central China. It is also about as close to Yunnan where the bats are, as Guangdong is (where the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak happened). If we understood what kind of intermediate animals might be involved in the zoonotic transfer and what their movement was around China, I strongly suspect that the chances that it was observed in Wuhan are something closer to 1-in-12 than 1-in-1000. And this is the second round, the first roll of the dice we had was with SARS-CoV-1 where we rolled a different number and it hit Guangdong.