Origin of the Coronavirus

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Thought I would just point out the researchers believe tends that bats then infected Pangolins that then infected humans, while the wet market possibly didn't sell bats it did, I assume, sell pangolins that are mainly bred or caught in southern china where the bats are, it would seem more likely that a pangolin being bred in some barn in southern china which had bats nesting in it or something of that nature caught the bat flu and was then shipped out to Wuhan, where it then had its revenge on humans dumb enough to think that Pangolin tastes better than chicken.

All of this doesn't disprove that the Chinese did this on purpose or by accident or anything else, but it seems some variation of a pangolin catching bat flu on the farm or caged in some truck on the way to market is still massively the most likely.

Even then, all that's really needed is somebody in the pangolin trade who would have had close contact with the animals also working in or visiting that wet market. It's not crazy to think that some guy who trades in other animals in that market also trades in pangolins or bats and started human to human transmission from there.

Mostly though, I just think nobody is totally sure at this point. It's not inconceivable to me that it was engineered in a lab, but it's also pretty conceivable that it wasn't. It will take more time before an answer to that becomes clear, if it ever does.

Edit: Honestly, someone trading in something as valuable and distinctive as a pangolin probably isn't going to keep that on show in a market. It would be a special order type of thing, but someone in the animal trade would be the most likely kind of person to traffic in that.

[Fuzz]

Adam Lauring, an associate professor at the University of Michigan Medical School and an expert in the evolution of viruses, told Newsweek: "This claim is a conspiracy theory and it is not supported at all by the available data... The SARS-CoV-2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses — the ones a laboratory would be working with," said Lauring. "This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory 'escape.'"

There actually is scientific evidence against the "escaped from a lab" theory."

https://science.slashdot.org/story/2...tm_medium=feed


Several links and discussion here that it was not even a "lab-escape".

[EldrickOnIce]

Only my opinion, but at end of the day it doesn't matter to me how/where it originated, except in the knowledge that can be gained moving into the next one.

What I want an investigation to find out is who knew what when, and how long before the alarm bells started ringing.
Modeling shows pretty dramatic results from action taken 1,2 and 3 weeks earlier. With 3 weeks earlier dropping infection rate by 95%.
If they sat on any sort of important information for any significant period of time (7 days is significant) then.... I don't know.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Thought I would just point out the researchers believe tends that bats then infected Pangolins that then infected humans, while the wet market possibly didn't sell bats it did, I assume, sell pangolins that are mainly bred or caught in southern china where the bats are, it would seem more likely that a pangolin being bred in some barn in southern china which had bats nesting in it or something of that nature caught the bat flu and was then shipped out to Wuhan, where it then had its revenge on humans dumb enough to think that Pangolin tastes better than chicken.

All of this doesn't disprove that the Chinese did this on purpose or by accident or anything else, but it seems some variation of a pangolin catching bat flu on the farm or caged in some truck on the way to market is still massively the most likely.

Pangolins are from Africa though, and the bats that are the reservoirs for coronaviruses are from southern China. The reason the wet markets are so dangerous, as well as disturbingly cruel and inhumane, is that exotic live animals from all over the world are shoved in cramped unsanitary quarters which are rife for transmission. That's what makes no bats being sold at this seafood market such a big deal, that's a huge risk factor that now doesn't exist. Is it possible that a pangolin was infected at a wet market somewhere else and the moved to another wet market? I guess, that's what you'd have to be relying on, but now you're adding another magnitude of uncertainty there. You don't have evidence of pangolins being sold in Wuhan either. The lab theory by contrast is the only one that actually puts coronaviruses in Wuhan beyond a doubt, and also explains how bat viruses could end up thousands of miles from where they're from, they were specifically sought out by the renowed bat Corona virus researcher who worked there. You need multiple improbable happenings for the wet market, you only need one improbable from the lab which is accidental release, and when you combine that with the fact that this lab had been cited multiple times for unacceptably lax safety standards it's much less of a leap. Then you add in the fact that Chinese authorities ordered samples at the lab destroyed. Then you add in any articles and papers on the Chinese internet speculating that this was an accidental release were scrubbed or "withdrawn". All we're ever going to have for this (thanks to the dictatorship of China's censoring and destroying of evidence) is circumstantial evidence. It's certainly possible this was from a pangolin or whatever, but you can't say the evidence massively weighs that way. It weighs towards a lab release.

This would be like if there was a new virus emerging in Winnipeg (our national lab) of the exact pathogen type they were studying but instead it was blamed on a farmers market selling animals from Mexico despite those animals never being there.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Pangolins are from Africa though, and the bats that are the reservoirs for coronaviruses are from southern China. The reason the wet markets are so dangerous, as well as disturbingly cruel and inhumane, is that exotic live animals from all over the world are shoved in cramped unsanitary quarters which are rife for transmission. That's what makes no bats being sold at this seafood market such a big deal, that's a huge risk factor that now doesn't exist. Is it possible that a pangolin was infected at a wet market somewhere else and the moved to another wet market? I guess, that's what you'd have to be relying on, but now you're adding another magnitude of uncertainty there. You don't have evidence of pangolins being sold in Wuhan either. The lab theory by contrast is the only one that actually puts coronaviruses in Wuhan beyond a doubt, and also explains how bat viruses could end up thousands of miles from where they're from, they were specifically sought out by the renowed bat Corona virus researcher who worked there. You need multiple improbable happenings for the wet market, you only need one improbable from the lab which is accidental release, and when you combine that with the fact that this lab had been cited multiple times for unacceptably lax safety standards it's much less of a leap. Then you add in the fact that Chinese authorities ordered samples at the lab destroyed. Then you add in any articles and papers on the Chinese internet speculating that this was an accidental release were scrubbed or "withdrawn". All we're ever going to have for this (thanks to the dictatorship of China's censoring and destroying of evidence) is circumstantial evidence. It's certainly possible this was from a pangolin or whatever, but you can't say the evidence massively weighs that way. It weighs towards a lab release.

This would be like if there was a new virus emerging in Winnipeg (our national lab) of the exact pathogen type they were studying but instead it was blamed on a farmers market selling animals from Mexico despite those animals never being there.

The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.

Really? I'm not into virus research, but the evidence I have read(and linked above) disagrees with that.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9


That doesn't read like it is "weighing toward a lab release". We have all the conditions for the wet market theory, and it happened with SARS. So really, what evidence suggests the lab release theory is the most likely one?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Pangolins are from Africa though, and the bats that are the reservoirs for coronaviruses are from southern China. The reason the wet markets are so dangerous, as well as disturbingly cruel and inhumane, is that exotic live animals from all over the world are shoved in cramped unsanitary quarters which are rife for transmission. That's what makes no bats being sold at this seafood market such a big deal, that's a huge risk factor that now doesn't exist. Is it possible that a pangolin was infected at a wet market somewhere else and the moved to another wet market? I guess, that's what you'd have to be relying on, but now you're adding another magnitude of uncertainty there. You don't have evidence of pangolins being sold in Wuhan either. The lab theory by contrast is the only one that actually puts coronaviruses in Wuhan beyond a doubt, and also explains how bat viruses could end up thousands of miles from where they're from, they were specifically sought out by the renowed bat Corona virus researcher who worked there. You need multiple improbable happenings for the wet market, you only need one improbable from the lab which is accidental release, and when you combine that with the fact that this lab had been cited multiple times for unacceptably lax safety standards it's much less of a leap. Then you add in the fact that Chinese authorities ordered samples at the lab destroyed. Then you add in any articles and papers on the Chinese internet speculating that this was an accidental release were scrubbed or "withdrawn". All we're ever going to have for this (thanks to the dictatorship of China's censoring and destroying of evidence) is circumstantial evidence. It's certainly possible this was from a pangolin or whatever, but you can't say the evidence massively weighs that way. It weighs towards a lab release.

This would be like if there was a new virus emerging in Winnipeg (our national lab) of the exact pathogen type they were studying but instead it was blamed on a farmers market selling animals from Mexico despite those animals never being there.

Pangolins traded in China are coming from Myanmar.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Really? I'm not into virus research, but the evidence I have read(and linked above) disagrees with that.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9


That doesn't read like it is "weighing toward a lab release". We have all the conditions for the wet market theory, and it happened with SARS. So really, what evidence suggests the lab release theory is the most likely one?

In your link above the guys says that it’s not related to any known/studied coronaviruses “that laboratories would be working with”. His point is essentially that no published papers or genomes match with covid, but the only thing that proves is that if this virus was in a lab they never published its genome or papers on it. Unless there’s some kind of international law to publish details on every virus you’ve been able to isolate, and even if there was China would be the first country that would ignore it, I don’t see how it debunks anything.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

In your link above the guys says that it’s not related to any known/studied coronaviruses “that laboratories would be working with”. His point is essentially that no published papers or genomes match with covid, but the only thing that proves is that if this virus was in a lab they never published its genome or papers on it. Unless there’s some kind of international law to publish details on every virus you’ve been able to isolate, and even if there was China would be the first country that would ignore it, I don’t see how it debunks anything.

Debunking a conspiracy is nigh impossible, due to the flexibility of the goal posts. I'm just suggesting the balance of evidence does not, as you suggest "weigh towards a lab release". I have seen nothing of the sort.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Debunking a conspiracy is nigh impossible, due to the flexibility of the goal posts. I'm just suggesting the balance of evidence does not, as you suggest "weigh towards a lab release". I have seen nothing of the sort.

It was your link though that claimed without a doubt this was a conspiracy theory, so I'm not sure how I'm moving the goal posts by showing that it in fact does not disprove the lab release hypothesis in any way. And yes, the balance of circumstantial evidence heavily weighs to the lab and it's not even particularly close, please read the two articles from the Washington Post I posted here.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Pangolins are from Africa though, and the bats that are the reservoirs for coronaviruses are from southern China. The reason the wet markets are so dangerous, as well as disturbingly cruel and inhumane, is that exotic live animals from all over the world are shoved in cramped unsanitary quarters which are rife for transmission. That's what makes no bats being sold at this seafood market such a big deal, that's a huge risk factor that now doesn't exist. Is it possible that a pangolin was infected at a wet market somewhere else and the moved to another wet market? I guess, that's what you'd have to be relying on, but now you're adding another magnitude of uncertainty there. You don't have evidence of pangolins being sold in Wuhan either. The lab theory by contrast is the only one that actually puts coronaviruses in Wuhan beyond a doubt, and also explains how bat viruses could end up thousands of miles from where they're from, they were specifically sought out by the renowed bat Corona virus researcher who worked there. You need multiple improbable happenings for the wet market, you only need one improbable from the lab which is accidental release, and when you combine that with the fact that this lab had been cited multiple times for unacceptably lax safety standards it's much less of a leap. Then you add in the fact that Chinese authorities ordered samples at the lab destroyed. Then you add in any articles and papers on the Chinese internet speculating that this was an accidental release were scrubbed or "withdrawn". All we're ever going to have for this (thanks to the dictatorship of China's censoring and destroying of evidence) is circumstantial evidence. It's certainly possible this was from a pangolin or whatever, but you can't say the evidence massively weighs that way. It weighs towards a lab release.

This would be like if there was a new virus emerging in Winnipeg (our national lab) of the exact pathogen type they were studying but instead it was blamed on a farmers market selling animals from Mexico despite those animals never being there.

As it stands right now, as best I can understand, they have no idea that the Virus originated in bats, southern or northern, just that it resembles some virus's they have found in bats, nor do they know if the transmission agent is pangolin, be it African or Asian Pangolin (there are native Asian pangolins, which is presumably why they have become a delicacy) just that the virus has some elements that suggest Pangolin.

What they do know is the virus shows no evidence at all, to the degree they are certain it was naturally occurring, that it was genetically manipulated virus, nor has it been 'seen' before, hence the noval description.

Of course you are right maybe it was some virus they found in the wild and decided to study secretly, but then the lab in Wuhan wasn't some secret lab and it would be the last place the Chinese would study a secret virus, the place was overrun with various scientists from all over the world, the very fact we know so much about this lab is because the rest of the world's virologists hang out there complaining about their safety standards, would seem to preclude it being the center of secret research, which is why the many western virologists that studied there are saying it didn't come from the lab, their argument seems to be that they knew what the lab was studying and would have noticed a wholly new virus, it just wasn't a top secret lab like that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Covid-19 genome expert scoffs at lab leak theory
Australian scientist who genetically mapped Covid-19 says there is no evidence it was manmade in a Chinese lab, a conspiracy theory the US government is now testing

Edward Holmes, a biologist at the University of Sydney and a fellow of the respected Royal Society in London, said the Wuhan laboratory blamed by some for the pandemic does have specimens of the bat virus RaTG13, the closest relative of Covid-19 source SARS-CoV-2, but the two are not genetically linked.

RaTG13 strains, he says, are from the southern Chinese province of Yunnan, not the central city of Wuhan, the pandemic’s initial epicenter.

“There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19 in humans, originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China,” said Holmes, who is a specialist in evolutionary biology, said in an April 16 statement.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/04/covid-...b-leak-theory/

As factions inside President Donald Trump's orbit have been floating theories about the novel coronavirus originating in a Chinese bio-research lab, U.S. scientists are hardening their belief that the virus emerged naturally, citing expanded research as proof.

"There's no reason to believe this was made in a lab," Dr. Robert Shafer, professor of Infectious Diseases at Stanford Medical School, told ABC News. "There are many strains in nature that could cause this type of outbreak."

Dr. Robert Garry, a professor at the Tulane School of Medicine, authored one of the first major studies that refutes theories that COVID-19 was engineered as a biological weapon. He told ABC News the new focus of this research has been a special mutation that is thought to be what makes this coronavirus so contagious.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/scient...ry?id=70207409

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

As it stands right now, as best I can understand, they have no idea that the Virus originated in bats, southern or northern, just that it resembles some virus's they have found in bats, nor do they know if the transmission agent is pangolin, be it African or Asian Pangolin (there are native Asian pangolins, which is presumably why they have become a delicacy) just that the virus has some elements that suggest Pangolin.

This isn't entirely accurate, through genetic sequencing scientists know this came from bats in southern in China (it's the same evidence used to show that it's a natural virus). This is the same population of bats that the researcher from the institute, who's nickname was "batwoman", went in to try and find new coronaviruses, that was the main thrust of her research.

What they do know is the virus shows no evidence at all, to the degree they are certain it was naturally occurring, that it was genetically manipulated virus, nor has it been 'seen' before, hence the noval description.

Correct, which coincidentally was what batwoman and the institute specialized in, novel bat coronaviruses. They were seeking out what eventually cropped up in the population of the city their lab was in.

Of course you are right maybe it was some virus they found in the wild and decided to study secretly, but then the lab in Wuhan wasn't some secret lab and it would be the last place the Chinese would study a secret virus, the place was overrun with various scientists from all over the world, the very fact we know so much about this lab is because the rest of the world's virologists hang out there complaining about their safety standards, would seem to preclude it being the center of secret research, which is why the many western virologists that studied there are saying it didn't come from the lab, their argument seems to be that they knew what the lab was studying and would have noticed a wholly new virus, it just wasn't a top secret lab like that.

I really don't think you can say the place was overrun with scientists like it was some big clubhouse hangout, and then to stretch that even further to say that there's nothing an emerging superpower like China would keep secret is too much. The scientists quoted in Fuzz's link never professed to having first hand knowledge of the lab or batwomans work, the one guy's quote was this.

"Even if it is difficult to prove that a laboratory accident did not take place, you should know that SARS-CoV-2 is not closely related to any previous viruses; it was never sequenced (even partially) in previous studies, and the COVID-19 outbreak began in November/December, as in previous SARS epidemic events (2002 and 2003)."

He's just talking in generics about this never being sequenced before, not that he knows for a fact he saw every various in China's top bio lab and COVID doesn't match those. Bringing up the dates also seems completely irrelevant. Like I said, it's not proof positive of anything except that there were no published papers on this virus.

[Jeff Lebowski]

From the abc link:

Any time scientists tinker with COVID-19 in the lab, that mutation either changes or completely disappears, Garry said, citing a new study published by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York.


While some people initially speculated that laboratory work created that mutation, it is actually the opposite, Garry told ABC News.
"When you pass the virus with that [mutation] through cell cultures, you actually lose it. So that is not the way it could've been generated," Garry said. "It's more than a hypothesis at this point."



In the scientific community, though, alternative theories have not gained currency, according to Dr. John Ionnidis, a professor of disease prevention at Stanford Medical School. He told ABC News that the only scientific paper sowing doubts about COVID-19's natural origins had to be retracted after being rebuked by the scientific community.
Ionnidis also said that the COVID-causing coronavirus does not behave or look synthetic in any way.



"The way that it handles itself and binds to its receptors, they don't suggest anything that would be close to human manipulation," he said. "If it were man-made, it would not look like that."
Ionnidis said his conclusions are firm: "There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that this virus was not created in a lab."

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/scient...ry?id=70207409

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

This isn't entirely accurate, through genetic sequencing scientists know this came from bats in southern in China (it's the same evidence used to show that it's a natural virus). This is the same population of bats that the researcher from the institute, who's nickname was "batwoman", went in to try and find new coronaviruses, that was the main thrust of her research.



Correct, which coincidentally was what batwoman and the institute specialized in, novel bat coronaviruses. They were seeking out what eventually cropped up in the population of the city their lab was in.



I really don't think you can say the place was overrun with scientists like it was some big clubhouse hangout, and then to stretch that even further to say that there's nothing an emerging superpower like China would keep secret is too much. The scientists quoted in Fuzz's link never professed to having first hand knowledge of the lab or batwomans work, the one guy's quote was this.

"Even if it is difficult to prove that a laboratory accident did not take place, you should know that SARS-CoV-2 is not closely related to any previous viruses; it was never sequenced (even partially) in previous studies, and the COVID-19 outbreak began in November/December, as in previous SARS epidemic events (2002 and 2003)."

He's just talking in generics about this never being sequenced before, not that he knows for a fact he saw every various in China's top bio lab and COVID doesn't match those. Bringing up the dates also seems completely irrelevant. Like I said, it's not proof positive of anything except that there were no published papers on this virus.

The Lab in question was partially built by the French, is effectively an open institution akin to UBC, while I would not deny the Chinese no doubt have secret labs this place is literally over run with foriegners, it is the last place in the world the Chinese would study secret virus's and is frankly their showcase for how internationally open and cooperative they are (regardless of whether they are or not), you could argue that the Chinese might have a secret lab that released this virus by mistake but this lab wouldn't be it, this place was wide open on purpose

[Harry Lime]

It doesn't seem like anyone (sane) is saying that this virus is synthetic, or man-made, but there is a massive push towards rebuking that conspiracy theory. The question is whether a naturally occurring virus being held in a lab for purposes of study could have gotten loose. Finding scientists to angrily answer an unvoiced question just makes this look more like a cover-up.

I lean towards an infected pangolin then infected other animals in a wet-market, but the more yelling and hand-waving makes me wonder why they are making noise.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

It doesn't seem like anyone (sane) is saying that this virus is synthetic, or man-made, but there is a massive push towards rebuking that conspiracy theory. The question is whether a naturally occurring virus being held in a lab for purposes of study could have gotten loose. Finding scientists to angrily answer an unvoiced question just makes this look more like a cover-up.

I lean towards an infected pangolin then infected other animals in a wet-market, but the more yelling and hand-waving makes me wonder why they are making noise.

My guess would be a Government not used to being questioned who haven't really had to deal with a problem of this magnitude in a society that is culturally deferential in the first place and massively concerned about keeping face doesn't really know how else to react and is scared witless of the economic effects and the political ramifications, in a sense its not that different from Trump.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

My guess would be a Government not used to being questioned who haven't really had to deal with a problem of this magnitude in a society that is culturally deferential in the first place and massively concerned about keeping face doesn't really know how else to react and is scared witless of the economic effects and the political ramifications, in a sense its not that different from Trump.

I take issue with saying China did not have the experience to deal with something like this. They had Sars outbreak in 2003. Of every country out there they should be the most experienced to deal with this.

Yet they did the same thing they did with Sars. Deny it existed until it was too late.

What I do find comforting is the surrounding nations of China did learn. As soon as the word came out of a new virus outbreak in China they took immediate action. It is like they knew China lied before and expected it to happen again, and it did. Those countries have been the most successful in containing the virus.

Staying on topic though I find it difficult to debunk either theory right now. Either way I still hold China accountable for this outbreak.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

I take issue with saying China did not have the experience to deal with something like this. They had Sars outbreak in 2003. Of every country out there they should be the most experienced to deal with this.

Yet they did the same thing they did with Sars. Deny it existed until it was too late.

What I do find comforting is the surrounding nations of China did learn. As soon as the word came out of a new virus outbreak in China they took immediate action. It is like they knew China lied before and expected it to happen again, and it did. Those countries have been the most successful in containing the virus.

Staying on topic though I find it difficult to debunk either theory right now. Either way I still hold China accountable for this outbreak.

But that's the point, they didn't deny Covid, they confirmed it in January when they had a 2 hundred cases pretty much as they realised it existed, at each step of the way they let the world know what they had, you could make an argument that they could have assumed it would be spread person to person when they saw they had a flu like virus in week one but they didn't have proof at that time and proof needs patients to track, by the time they had 400 cases with clear proof one of them had never been to the wet market they announced it was now person to person.

With SARS the Chinese said nothing from November 2002 when they had their first case until February, almost 4 months, with Covid they told us a week after it started and while would agree they wanted to down play the severity of things, like all Governments have done, they have still been clear about what was happening, the fact that the rest of the world pretty much dropped the ball on their response isn't on the Chinese this time.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

But that's the point, they didn't deny Covid, they confirmed it in January when they had a 2 hundred cases pretty much as they realised it existed, at each step of the way they let the world know what they had, you could make an argument that they could have assumed it would be spread person to person when they saw they had a flu like virus in week one but they didn't have proof at that time and proof needs patients to track, by the time they had 400 cases with clear proof one of them had never been to the wet market they announced it was now person to person.

With SARS the Chinese said nothing from November 2002 when they had their first case until February, almost 4 months, with Covid they told us a week after it started and while would agree they wanted to down play the severity of things, like all Governments have done, they have still been clear about what was happening, the fact that the rest of the world pretty much dropped the ball on their response isn't on the Chinese this time.

Yet I read reports China knew about this in November. Countries around China were already reacting before China spoke to the world. Even the secret service in the USA knew about this in November apparently. Please dont ask for a link. You would be fair to ask but its out there.

Doctors reporting on this new virus were arrested in China, and forced to recant their statements. That happened! Reporters imprisoned.

They deliberately tried to hide this viral outbreak from the world again. If you are arresting doctors and the media to me that means you are trying to hide something.

The rest of the world has paid a heavy price from this.

With that said trying to stay on topic here. I have no idea if this was because of wet markets or a lab exposure.

I do know however China deliberately tried to cover this up from the start.

We can debate a lot of things. China trying to cover this up is not one of them.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Yet I read reports China knew about this in November. Countries around China were already reacting before China spoke to the world. Even the secret service in the USA knew about this in November apparently. Please dont ask for a link. You would be fair to ask but its out there.

Doctors reporting on this new virus were arrested in China, and forced to recant their statements. That happened! Reporters imprisoned.

They deliberately tried to hide this viral outbreak from the world again. If you are arresting doctors and the media to me that means you are trying to hide something.

The rest of the world has paid a heavy price from this.

With that said trying to stay on topic here. I have no idea if this was because of wet markets or a lab exposure.

I do know however China deliberately tried to cover this up from the start.

We can debate a lot of things. China trying to cover this up is not one of them.

they had no idea in November, the first cases we now know in retrospect started appearing in Wuhan's hospitals in December, but through out early to mid December they were just 'flu', as more cases with the same symptoms showed up the Doctors started to get concerned that it wasn't 'just flu', the Doctor who was told he would be arrested for spreading rumours, that was mid December, and at that point there was no facts just 50 to 100 patients across the city with symptoms that still could be seen as 'just flu'.

The November you are reading about is when the virus first made the jump to humans, virologists estimated this to within a week or so by looking at the numbers and infection rate, but it wasn't until several weeks later in mid December that the doctors started to get concerened they had something serious on their hands.