Have other coronaviruses ever infected lab workers? Why yes, yes they have. SARS infected lab workers four different times:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2003/12/taiwanese-sars-researcher-infected
1 Like
This is not the strong point you think it is. Your continued harping on this subject belongs on zerohedge not here
Your standard tactic of not bothering to discuss any points or make any arguments followed by a no content smear. Yawn.
1 Like
Is there proof that these workers got sick in the lab? Scientists go to wet markets too, you know.
I’m not beholden to take your nonsense seriously. The relevant scientific parts of this conversation have already been had. You’re trying to support the lab outbreak hypothesis with an outbreak of a known contagion within a lab, something that has happened many times before. Notably, no one is aware of any novel pathogen ever being sourced from a lab and the same pathogen you’re referencing is very similar to SARS-Covid-2 which came from bats.
Frankly, I shouldn’t be wasting my time with a dishonest, uneducated and obviously not here to learn person like you. This is day five of you posting straight up garbage. Yesterday you went all in on them finding the animal right away when new literature showed they didn’t find it until 2017. You should be embarrassed, but you don’t seem capable of it.
2 Likes
Maybe they have a wet market in their lab? It would be very convenient.
1 Like
WAM
4 Likes
Yes, then the World Health Organisation conducted a visit and made a report, released 7 days ago, at the bequest of the US and Australia.
I don’t give any more than 3% chance to a lab leak but silencing the thread is dumb (Thanks for poppin’ in though)
Again, a blatant and obvious lie. I said they found the animals likely responsible for transmitting it at the market right away:
You said that they didn’t know what the identity of the animal that was the natural reservoir. Which is true, as I and the paper I quoted both acknowledged. But that was irrelevant, I said they identified the likely culprit at the market right away, and they did:
So the point I was making is obvious and I’m sure you understood it: with Sars, they immediately identified the virus in animals at the market and the animal traders that trafficked them. You’re knowingly lying about what I wrote. Because you’re a liar.
Reminder that they tested the heck out of the Wuhan market, and the animals in it, and a bunch of animals outside of it, and they found exactly zero coronavirus anywhere.
Back in 2002/3 they also tested the heck out of the animals in the markets in Guangdong and later wild animals and bats nearby, and they found lots and lots of coronavirus all over the place. That’s because it is endemic to that region.
Wuhan is 1,000 km away from Guangdong, and there are no known reservoirs of a genetically similar coronavirus anywhere in the area.
Based on this, it seems unlikely that zoonotic jump happened in or near Wuhan. It would be much more reasonable to speculate that somebody was snorting guano in Guangdong, then later traveled to Wuhan and coughed on everybody.
Or, you know, maybe it came from the big building in Wuhan full of coronaviruses.
5 Likes
What you actually said:
“They almost immediately found the animal that was responsible with SARS.”
Now, because you’re dishonest and insecure, so you can’t just admit that you might be wrong about something, you change that statement to “they found the animals likely responsible for transmitting it” which is obviously different. You did not do this accidentally.
The best part is that no one really knows if those animals actually were the intermediate animal between the horseshoe bats of if they just got infected like everyone else (similar to how cats, tigers, other animals have gotten covid), so even under that new standard you are wrong. SARS-Covid-1 was also found in multiple animals including civets, raccoon dogs, ferret badgers and more. No one knows if any of those animals were the intermediary. Saying that one is clearly more likely than the other isn’t supported. It was thought to be civets initially, but that’s because it was isolated in them first.
It’s ok to be wrong about something. It will be ok.
1 Like
They tested that and didn’t find any closely related coronaviruses.
1 Like
The bat origin was finally established in 2017, more than 15 years after the original outbreak. It’s going to take awhile to figure it out exactly. Your characterization of what happened is incomplete.
Wuhan is 1,000 km away from Guangdong, and there are no known reservoirs of a genetically similar coronavirus anywhere in the area.
This sounds compelling, but isn’t. Coronaviruses are very common in nature, and afaik China isn’t genetically sequencing random viral particles in various animal populations.
Also, what Trolly said about lab testing. You can’t harp about ‘genetically similar’ for wild animals and then ignore that ‘genetically similar’ criticism for labs, especially when the viruses are much better characterized viruses in the lab.
They found the animal responsible right away by whatever nonsense definition you want while simultaneously not knowing what animal it is. Alrighty then.
If it’s going to take another 15 years to figure out why are you so certain a market was the most likely source, based on a sample size of one?
We were talking about transmission at the market! The link I provided was to a paper that said exactly that, that they found animals and animal traders who were infected with SARS. It was extremely strong evidence that the source was the market.
Again, we were talking about transmission at the market. The link I posted was talking about transmission at the market. You’re right that my minor change was intentional – my first sentence was imprecise and I clarified it. And of course from context, it’s obvious that was what I meant.
That’s true, no one knows which animal at the market was actually responsible for transmitting SARS. That’s because they found a fuckin bunch of infected animals! Right away! They haven’t found a single one in Wuhan. Not one.
That’s a fair question, there’s lots of reasons:
- SARS-Covid-2 is genetically similar to coronaviruses found in bats.
- SARS-Covid-2 has shown an ability to infect multiple other animals
- Genetic sequencing suggests that there was a single crossover event, suggesting a single animal spillover
- The WHO found:
“A large proportion of the initial cases in late December 2019 and early January 2020 had a direct link to the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market in Wuhan City, where seafood, wild, and farmed animal species were sold. Many of the initial patients were either stall owners, market employees, or regular visitors to this market. Environmental samples taken from this market in December 2019 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, further suggesting that the market in Wuhan City was the source of this outbreak or played a role in the initial amplification of the outbreak. The market was closed on 1 January 2020 and was cleaned and disinfected.” (fyi this goes on that there are a few cases earlier than than that they cannot explain - this is not the best evidence, it could just be the first super spreader event) - It happened with SARS-Covid-1
1 Like
Just to be clear, we’re done. Didn’t even read this.
1 Like
Good riddance. Great to see you haven’t changed a bit.
2 Likes