4 ms·
You've made this false claim before. I responded correcting you, and you didn't respond to me. At this point, it seems like you're willfully posting misinformat
by tripletao 3y ago
You've made this false claim before. I responded correcting you, and you didn't respond to me. At this point, it seems like you're willfully posting misinformation.
As I noted previously, the likely proximal zoonotic host for SARS-1 was discovered within about a year. The article that you've linked discusses different related bat viruses. These provide important information about the evolutionary history of the human virus, but are more genetically distant from the human virus than the civet and raccoon dog viruses found within that ~year.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37095934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37095934
- conception 3y agoAh, fair and interesting. Thanks for pointing this out. I think it's more that it's harder to keep track of when people comment on your stuff. I'll make a note not to share anymore!
- tripletao 3y agoThanks, and sorry for my impatience; I've seen that claim in enough places (from many other people) that I got frustrated. The absence of a clear proximal host certainly isn't proof that SARS-CoV-2 arose unnaturally, especially since the PRC's preferred origin story (imported on frozen food) would require them to cover that up too. It's not what anyone expected though, since it's different from SARS-1 and MERS.