Does the origin of the virus really matter?

[intrepidity]

Wait, please understand what I'm asking before you reply.

I'm not asking about the response (or lack thereof) to the outbreak.

I'm not asking whether there is scientific value in pinpointing the precise origin.

What I'm wondering is what the difference will be if we ultimately discover that the virus was accidentally released from a research lab, versus that it got to us via a bat (or pangolin) via the wet market in Wuhan.

In either case, I will assume it was an accident (for the sake of this thread, please don't bring into it otherwise).

In either case, the need for stronger preventative measures exists for both, and are no doubt being dealt with by the Chinese.

In either case, China is clearly at fault and should accept responsibility, whatever that means.

So then, does it matter?

I think it does, but I want to hear other opinions.

[DonaldsRump]

1. Only if one is a racist

and basing his entire "re-"election campaign on pointing the blame at anyone but himself.

I wonder who this is?

[Different Drummer]

2. This.

DD

[Igel]

4. Either way it goes back to China.

Saying that is no more racist than saying Chernobyl' was in the USSR is racist.

Or saying the Ebola was first identified along a river in the DR of Congo is racist. Even worse for Ebola, the river is named "Ebola."

[Voltaire2]

6. yup

[lagomorph777]

14. National origin, not racist spin is significant to fix it. Specific path, of course.

If wet markets, in addition to being vile and cruel and an environmental crime, are the source of a series of pandemics, it's one more reason to shut them down.

If it's a lab, need to look at the lab's procedures and whether it is properly funded for safety measures (e.g. the WHO lab that our own scientists have participated in - are we funding WHO and is WHO funding that lab properly?)

[Caliman73]

27. You are equating one person, or party's intent with actual useful scientific information.

The terms being used to describe the current pandemic were coronavirus (the family of viruses) and COVID-19, the condition caused by the virus. The particular coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has a name SARS-CoV-2. Most health experts believed that the origins of the virus was in Wuhan, China, which had experienced the outbreak before anyone else. There is speculation that the wild animal trade, brought the host animal into contact with people which started the spread. This was all the best guesses of the people involved initially.

In the US we were informed of the Coronavirus, that is how we heard it. We knew that it had spread in Wuhan causing the shut down of the entire city. We knew it spread to Taiwan and South Korea too.

Donald Trump began calling it the "Chinese Virus" or specifically referred to it as coming from China AFTER his lack of a response to the spread of the disease was questioned.

I say, that I would have had no major qualms about it having been named the Wuhan Virus, like Ebola or Zika, or West Nile, which denotes the region of origin. Though the WHO, and other international health agencies have moved away from that specifically because naming the region in popular culture, tends to stoke antisocial feelings against inhabitants of the origin region.

The problem with SARS-CoV-2 is that it was RENAMED "Chinese Virus" for the specific purpose of stoking xenophobia to deflect blame for its spread, away from Trump by implying that China had something sinister to do with its spread.

It is actually VERY important to know the origins of a viral or bacterial outbreak. Important for health officials to gather data and enrich models to learn about how to spot and mitigate future pandemics and epidemics.

[Marrah_Goodman]

31. this

[cwydro]

37. Well, the 1918 flu started in Kansas.

Would we be upset if it was called the Kansas flu? The American flu?

[Marrah_Goodman]

39. They aren't sure exactly where it started, but I understand your point :)

Interesting reason as to why it was called the Spanish Flu:

There was a widespread misunderstanding because all of the reports in all their gory detail were coming out of Spain. This is because Spain was neutral in WW1 and their reporters were not being censored like in most other countries. So people were hearing the first reports of it coming out of Spain, so people started calling it the Spanish Flu.

[former9thward]

51. It started in China according to the National Geographic

1918 Flu Pandemic That Killed 50 Million Originated in China, Historians Say

Chinese laborers transported across Canada thought to be source.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/1/140123-spanish-flu-1918-china-origins-pandemic-science-health/#close

[cwydro]

59. Not from what I've read.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-cases-reported-in-deadly-influenza-epidemic

Again, not that it really matters, but funny how many on DU want to say it started elsewhere.

[Marrah_Goodman]

67. There are a few different places it might have started, including Kansas

They just do not have a definitive answer. What they do know is that is wasn't Spain

[captain queeg]

3. I'd guess all the details would be useful. More understanding would help prevent some impacts.

It’s not like it won’t happen again so as much as we can learn ought to be valuable. I’m not talking about assigning blame though.

[JCMach1]

5. Big assumption China is taking measures...

They will need to ban all wet meat markets like most of Africa did bush meat markets

[intrepidity]

10. True, big assumption

I thought I heard they were taking measures against the live animal markets though. Who knows what we can believe anymore.

[Wounded Bear]

7. It matters to those trying to find a scapegoat...

other than that, it does have use for those that you dismissed as beyond the scope of the dicsussion you seemed to want to start.

[MaryMagdaline]

8. Yes. If we nail down the facts the world can pressure China to

Change methods. If it is wet market, they’ve finally (but not forever) shut down wet markets. If it was the lab, they need to get research to be made safe or quit altogether

Just like we need to get after CDC to stop contaminating tests and to follow their own procedures.

I actually trust China to make systemic changes in response to worldwide embarrassment. Can no longer trust America to do the same. Our country is proud of being stupid

Ugly Americans will not reform our behavior and will attack Chinese people for their race.

[bobalew]

9. Actually it matters , because we need to know the original RNA sequence prior to

any mutations, so we can better understand it to make a vaccine for it, and to customize treatments.....

[intrepidity]

13. If I am understanding you correctly

You're saying that if we definitively knew that it came from a lab, then we would have access to the original sequence, right? If so, I agree.

If it came from the market, then we will never get closer to patient zero than we already are.

[Marrah_Goodman]

28. Not only that, if it escaped from a lab then that lab is doing something wrong and

whatever it was doing that was wrong needs to be corrected.

[intrepidity]

34. Well, that is exactly the subject of those StateDept memos

from the WaPo article about a week ago. That the lab in Wuhan had issues.

[Mosby]

35. Covid-19 did not come from a lab.

The coronavirus was not engineered in a lab. Here's how we know.


https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html

[intrepidity]

36. Not saying it was bioengineered

But rather that it was a research specimen that the lab had collected and was studying.

[Marrah_Goodman]

38. I agree

[intrepidity]

42. That article only addresses the idea of an engineered virus

But what about a completely wild-type virus from a horseshoe bat?

There is reasonable speculation that it may have come from Zhengli Shi's lab. In fact, upon learning of the disease, Dr. Shi *herself* wondered whether it may have come from her lab! Have you followed that story at all? I am trying to critically evaluate it, so if you have input, I'm interested (although, I planned to devote a thread to this topic once I had enough info -- this wasn't meant to be that thread, yet).

[Marrah_Goodman]

45. I can give you my thoughts on it.

In my opinion it is just another theory coming from conspiracy theorist types who want to pin something nefarious to the virus to bolster their own beliefs. Then they get on youtube and tell all their followers they know the truth, it was the evil Chinese who did it!

Will the scientist get to the bottom of where it came from? In time they will. My guess is that they will find like in all other cases, that it came from wildlife, and jumped to humans.

One last point: If as you asked, it had come from a lab that was studying the pure, just from nature virus and it accidentally got out, then that virus sample would have needed to come from a human. Since it would have come from a human, that human would have already spread it to other humans by that time.

The most logical answer is that the virus jumped to a human and that human started spreading it within a very large and unsuspecting population.

[Crunchy Frog]

49. The jump could have happened in the lab.

It's not a conspiracy theory that there was a laboratory in Wuhan that was studying bat viruses, and that the lab was visited last year by U.S. embassy staff who had major concerns about inadaquate safety, and who transmitted those concerns to Washington, where they were completely ignored.

Nobody serious has suggested that it was engineered.

I find it plausible that it could have come from a laboratory breach. I also find it plausible that it came from the wet market. I certainly wouldn't decide that it was one or the other, based on an ideological agenda. That's just stupid.

[Marrah_Goodman]

55. Maybe it could have

But in my opinion, and it's just my opinion, the most logical answer would be it did not come from a lab.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. The most logical answer would be a scientific investigation and

go where the evidence leads, rather than going with an "opinion" or "gut feeling" or whatever.

That's just my opinion.

[intrepidity]

54. Reply

One last point: If as you asked, it had come from a lab that was studying the pure, just from nature virus and it accidentally got out, then that virus sample would have needed to come from a human. Since it would have come from a human, that human would have already spread it to other humans by that time.

But, that is *exactly* the scenario that is proposed: that a grad student (Huang Yan Ling) became infected and then spread it around Wuhan. I am just now reading about this, so not sure whether I buy it. "Apparently" she has disappeared. Because of how secretive the CCP is, it's really difficult to evaluate these rumors. Unless a whole bunch of the lab also got sick, this doesn't make sense. But maybe they did? I don't know.

I don't think it's wrong to be asking the questions, though.

ETA: Crap, it's not *exactly* what you said, but rather that the bat virus in the lab infected a lab worker -- not that the lab was studying the human version.

[Raine]

11. YES

if we want to prevent these kind of epidemics in the future.

[intrepidity]

15. Please elaborate

How will knowing accomplish that?

[Raine]

19. Wet markets need to be shut down

if that's where this came from otherwise it will happen again and again.

[intrepidity]

20. How about just restricting certain known reservoir animals?

Like bats and pangolins?

[Marrah_Goodman]

25. couple of reasons

You never know which animals might have a pathogen crossover to humans. Ever hear of a Civet cat? It's not really a cat, it's a nocturnal animal found in south east asia. That is the animal from which SARS originated from.

Secondly, it is the act of butchering in public, close to the public and the other live animals that often spread these things. You pick out a fish or a duck, etc and the seller kills it right there. These markets are usually very busy.

Most of the time it is markets that people are illegally selling exotic animals in that are the issue. There is not as much enforcement as there needs to be. It is better then it was though.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

41. That's about as rational as saying shut down all vegetable stands in the USA.

Far too much misinformation floating about regarding these markets in China.

KY...........

[Crunchy Frog]

50. So which vegetables tend to carry diseases that can readily jump to humans?

[KY_EnviroGuy]

52. Don't know, I'm not a foodborne illness expert.

The FDA web site is chocked full of info relating to that question, including hundreds of food product recalls.

This Wiki article offers a primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodborne_illness

Just in the virus category alone, we see....

Viruses

Viral infections make up perhaps one third of cases of food poisoning in developed countries. In the US, more than 50% of cases are viral and noroviruses are the most common foodborne illness, causing 57% of outbreaks in 2004. Foodborne viral infection are usually of intermediate (1–3 days) incubation period, causing illnesses which are self-limited in otherwise healthy individuals; they are similar to the bacterial forms described above.

Enterovirus
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis E
Norovirus
Rotavirus

[Crunchy Frog]

62. There is a HUUUGE difference between a foodborne illness and

and a disease that makes the jump from another host organism to a human. I have never heard of such a thing happening with vegetation.

Of course anything that you take into your body through your mouth can become contaminated with pathogens that can make you sick. Human pathogens contaminating food and making people sick is not the issue.

A zoonotic disease is where a pathogen that normally infects an animal becomes a human disease.

If you can point me to any vegetable disease where that has happened. I would be very interested in learning about it. I am not talking about food poisoning.

The reason that it's unlikely is that the physiological properties of plants and animals are so different that a virus that infects one normally couldn't survive in the other.

Humans and other animals not so much.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

64. We knew all those things already.

Perhaps you missed my original fundamental point relating to hypocritical and intolerant criticisms of foreign cultures.

I apologize for being abstract and not making my point more direct.

[Crunchy Frog]

65. Well, you actually compared "wet markets" with vegetable markets,

and then gave me a list of common foodborne illnesses as an equivalent to sorts of zoonotic illnesses that can emerge in a market where large numbers of live, exotic (often endangered) wild animals are kept in tiny cages in close proximity, and slaughtered at the point of purchase.

I apologize for misunderstanding your post. If your point was that it's wrong to criticize "wet markets" that sell live, exotic animals, then I disagree with you.

[Marrah_Goodman]

21. If you know where something came from then you can try to prevent future outbreaks

An example:

The Nipah Virus. After much searching the scientist found it came from Bats feeding off the tapping buckets for date palm sap (something that people would drink) and at the same time excreting into the bucket. Since the date palm sap was such big thing in the areas it would be nearly impossible to get people to just stop drinking it. Instead they came up with a way of adding covers onto the tap and bucket to stop the excrement from reaching the sap.

This is why factual data is needed in the fight against emerging viruses.

[intrepidity]

23. Excellent example, thanks

Do we know if SARS the 1st came from wet market? If so, seems like that would've already provided enough reason.

[Marrah_Goodman]

26. It came from the Civet cat (not really a cat)

Traced back to the sales of them in wet markets.

I am not an epidemiologist, it's just an area of great interest to me and I have many books on the topic Yes, I am wierd.

[Alex4Martinez]

12. For scientific reasons, yes, it matters. nt

[intrepidity]

17. Agreed nt

[totodeinhere]

16. It is useful for scientists to pursue that line of inquiry because any research might help to

develop treatments and or vaccines. So I think that trying to determine the origin of the virus could be scientifically useful.

[Marrah_Goodman]

18. It matters because the scientists that are trying to get ahead of new viruses need the data

This pertains to every virus no matter where they started.

[Caliman73]

22. Yes, the origin of the virus does matter...for the sake of science and public health.

Not for assigning blame necessarily, unless it is determined that the virus was released purposefully. Then there would be a need to sanction the offenders and assign some sort of compensation to victims.

It is necessary to know where the virus came from and under what conditions the initial victims were infected in order to have more data and information for future situations.

If we know for instance that bats (which are extremely common carriers of viruses) were the host animal and because of specific, controllable practices, carried the virus to an intermediate host or passed it directly to humans, we could work to control that vector pathway.

The thing is, that is the infrastructure that President Obama talked about in 2014 and began putting together with the Global Pandemic Response Team and working with the WHO and CDCP. That is what Trump dismantled and bragged about in 2018.

There were people from the US on the ground in China, helping them work on prevention and containment measures, knowing that because of China's unique situation (Large population, large rural population, huge land mass with a great deal of wild spaces, huge, densely packed urban areas, AND the center for production and distribution of a great many consumer and industrial goods) they need and under President Obama, were cooperating with international health agencies on mitigation and prevention efforts.

So, bottom line. It is very important to know where infections come from and how they began. What we want to keep out of it,is the racist or moralistic judgments. That does nobody any good whatsoever. Unless absolutely necessary, the threats of legal and financial liability that stop countries from sharing information should also be avoided.

We are a global community now and while still living in sovereign nations, viruses and bacteria do not know about, or respect borders. When one country becomes infected, especially if they are a trade hub, that infection will spread and depending on the incubation period and spread characteristics (symptomatic v. asymptomatic) and lethality of the infection it can spread like wildfire and kill countless people.

[intrepidity]

30. Great info, thanks for posting

Seems to me that since we already know, have known for many years, that bats are a reservoir, or pangolins or whichever intermediary, that measures should have already been in place. That is, we didn't need a global pandemic to tell us of the danger.

Frankly, I'm quite seriously exploring the real possibility that this particular one came from an accidental lab release. Not bioengineered, not a weapon or any of that nonsense, but a bonafide accidental release of a research specimen. I'm applying Occam's razor to my analysis (but this isn't the topic of this thread). I started this thread because I'm trying to understand what practical difference it will make in the end: because since *both* options are seemingly equally possible, preventative measures should be reinforced to both or *any* potential routes of transmission.

[Caliman73]

40. Agreed. This is where the cooperation is needed.

The United States, prior to this current administration, was seen as the leader with respect to international cooperation. The Pandemic Team set up by the Obama administration was on the ground in China and had established relationships with Chinese officials and international health agencies. If ANY Democrat and I would argue, most Republicans in the 2016 election were in office, this situation would have been more like South Korea's or Taiwan's handling of the outbreak. We would have gone into lockdown, but would likely be able to be coming back out knowing we were safe.

We would be working with China and other countries to make sure that coordinated efforts were under way. We would not be fractured and disconnected like we are now.

[intrepidity]

43. This is such an under-reported part of the picture

Some reporters need to keep pressing this over and over, because it is a great example against "both sides are the same" BS

[KY_EnviroGuy]

48. Bingo, thank you.

Scientists have said they know that viruses mutate in bats and are likely transmitted to humans either directly or via some wild animal subject to trade in Asian nations (it has not been proven that pangolins were in this particular path). It's likely impossible to trace the exact quite convoluted path, say for example from some bat cave in Thailand to a human from Laos who traveled to Wuhan and passed it on to Chinese natives.

But as you said, it is important that we learn as much as possible and that we stop blaming other cultures for their traditions. I think the Chinese know the illegal bat trade is a very serious problem and they're addressing it as best they can.

[WestLosAngelesGal]

24. The WHO is reporting that the cause of the virus is animals.

I believe them.

[Marrah_Goodman]

29. So do I

The scientists at the WHO work extremely hard to track down and locate this type of information and they aren't doing it for the money.

[intrepidity]

32. That the virus is from an animal is not in doubt

Or at least not that I'm aware of.

[Marrah_Goodman]

33. For those interested, Spillover is a great book on zoonotic diseases

A zoonotic disease is a disease that crosses over from animal to human.

The book is about science but it is easy enough for anyone to read and is not "dry".

[Amishman]

44. yes, it really does. not just for scientific reasons

Unfortunately it has become a political issue.

Trump is stressing it to stir the pot and pander to racists and the loons who claim it was made in a lab (it wasn't)

China is trying to suggest it might have originated somewhere else first (doubtful) to shift the blame away from their very poor handling of the initial outbreak

you have all sorts of nuts here spinning their own BS story on it for their own gain or entertainment

so now we have so much BS surrounding the origin that the origin does really matter, to counter the bullshit.

[MenloParque]

46. If China is implementing protective measures

Then that would be awesome! But unfortunately not the case at all. My sister works in Beijing and the wet markets are back! On her morning run yesterday she saw the cages of live dogs and cats
Zoonotic diseases are here to stay.

[Retrograde]

47. In the long run, knowing where it came from

can help us (i.e., the human race) understand how it became so virulent so soon, how it initially spread, how it's related to other viruses, etc., and so be able to react better to the next one.

In the immediate time, it's more important to prevent its spreading even more, treat the infected, and look for a cure and vaccine.

[ecstatic]

53. I think so, especially because so many people think it was engineered in a lab.

This virus operates in a highly unusual manner. Researchers seem stumped.

I'm reading reports of reinfections, people getting infected from dead bodies, asymptomatic people infecting others, asymptomatic people dying within 3 days, and the virus itself can survive on surfaces for over 17+ days --and probably a lot longer.

Also, the targets of the virus seem a little too convenient...

So yeah, it matters. At least to me.

[anamnua]

56. Good point NT

[Iggo]

57. Not to me it don't. But to a bunch of racists it's of utmost importance.

[Crunchy Frog]

63. Thats painting with an awfully broad brush.

[Iggo]

66. Yep. The broadest.

I do that when I’m talking about racism in America.

[Crunchy Frog]

68. So you're saying that many of the posters on this thread are racist,

because they're giving reasons why there might be epidemiological value in knowing?

Just wanting to clarify.

[Iggo]

69. No.

I’m saying, “Not to me it don't. But to a bunch of racists it's of utmost importance.”

Hope that clears it up.

[AntiFascist]

58. The difference may have to do with purification...

if it was being grown in a lab, then it may have been purified in order to make it more suitable for research. Unfortunately this could also make it much more deadly, or possibly even "weaponized" as in the case of the Anthrax virus:

https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/theamesstrain.html

[intrepidity]

60. Fascinating article about anthrax

Although, not sure any lessons can be applied to this virus (compared to bacillus spores) besides the general one, which is that there is so much more research being conducted on various pathogens than we really can keep track of. The anthrax story really highlights that well.