3 ms·
This is plausible sounding but wrong, in fact it's in Alina Chan's top 10 myths: "(4) (FALSE) Wuhan is a place where SARS transmits from animals into humans fr
by xyzzy123 5y ago
This is plausible sounding but wrong, in fact it's in Alina Chan's top 10 myths:
"(4) (FALSE) Wuhan is a place where SARS transmits from animals into humans frequently. That's why the Wuhan Institute of Virology was built there.
Actually, Wuhan is ~1000km away from SARS spillover zones. Its human population was even used as a negative (no SARS) control group."
https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1394327680456220672?s=12 https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1394327680456220672?s=12
- bawolff 5y agoThat doesn't really seem to contradict the important part of the parent's argument: that the researchers went into the caves in question. I have no idea if that's true, but how far away the caves are seems like a quibble that's fairly irrelevant.
- xyzzy123 5y agoThere are 3 sentences in OP's post, the first two are wrong or misleading. The third (conclusion) is OK only insofar as it doesn't depend on the (false) premises. 1. Wuhan is not known for spillover. 2. Cave visits did happen but this has never been connected to the 3 "sick researchers" reported by US intel. 3. Sure, lab origin, zoonosis, engineering or not, all still on the table, just factually what OP wrote was inaccurate or misleading.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoWuhan is a very large city in Central China and a transport hub. So it at least sounds plausible that the virus might have been carried there by someone, though I don't know how plausible it is that (if that's what occured) it did not seem to have left a trail of contamination (or perhaps it did but we don't know...) Also, I believe that the first recorded outbreak of SARS was in Guangdong while the origin of the virus was eventually found to be in Yunnan, 1000+km away.