No one can find the animal that gave people kobid-19
One problem with laboratory escape theory is that it assumes that the Chinese are lying or hiding, with a scientific effort that is incompatible with this position. This is perhaps why the WHO team never asked to see the database offline. Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, has been collaborating with the Wuhan lab for many years and when he funded part of his work, said there is “no evidence” to support the lab’s theory. “If you believe firmly [that] what we hear from Chinese colleagues in the labs will not be true, we will never be able to ignore it, “he said of the lab’s theory.” That’s the problem. Basically, this theory is not a conspiracy theory. “.
For those who believe the lab accident is likely, including Jamie Metzl, a member of the Atlantic Council’s technology and national security team, the WHO team is not set up to conduct a forensic probe that it deems necessary. “Everyone on earth is the driving force behind this,” he says. “It’s wonderful that a year after this started, there isn’t a full investigation into the origins of the pandemic.” In February, it was published by Metzl statement in which the investigators said he was “horrified” by the rapid rejection of the lab hypothesis and asked Dasza to remove him from the group. A few days later, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appeared at the conference reprimanding the group of origin, “I want to clarify that all hypotheses are open and require further research.”
The scenario that the WHO-China group believes is most likely to be a “mediator” theory is that a bat virus then caught or infected another wild animal that had been raised for food. Mediation theory has the strongest antecedents. Apart from the SARS case, in 2012 researchers discovered Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), a deadly and rapidly found lung infection caused by another coronavirus in camels of dromedaries.
The problem with this hypothesis is that Chinese researchers have failed to find the “correct progenitor” of this virus in the animal. Liang said China has tested 50,000 animal specimens, including 1,100 bats in Hubei Province, where Wuhan is located. No luck: the matching virus has not yet been found.
The Chinese team appears to be giving the animal an intermediate turn: the virus could have reached Wuhan in the delivery of frozen food that contained a frozen frozen animal. This “cold chain” hypothesis may be attractive because it would mean that the virus has come thousands of miles away, even outside of China. “We think it’s the right choice,” says Marion Koopmans, a Dutch virologist who traveled with the team. China said it has tested 1.5 million frozen samples and found the virus 30 times. “It may not be surprising in the middle of an outbreak when a lot of people are manipulating these products,” Koopmans says. “But the WHO asked for research, it threw the virus into fish, it froze and thawed it and it could have grown the virus. It’s possible, so. You can’t rule it out.”
The WHO-China group, in its latest report, will suggest further research. This is one of the reasons for the report; which determines which questions and which does not.
It is likely to make a greater effort to track the trade in wild animals, including supply chains for frozen products. In addition to the animal evidence, Ben Embarek said China should make a greater effort to locate people infected with kobid-19 in the beginning, but who may have no symptoms or no evidence. This could be done by hunting through samples from blood banks, using newer and more sensitive technology to find antibodies. “We need to keep looking for material to know the early days of events,” Ben Embarek said. In addition, it is likely that the report will require the creation of a core database that includes all the data collected so far.
After all, when looking for the cause of the covid-19 disaster, we don’t just want to know what happened. We are looking for something — or someone — to blame. And each hypothesis points to a different culprit. Ecologists believe the lesson of the pandemic is almost inconclusive: humans should stop entering wilderness areas. “We’ve recognized this type of research not only about human diseases, but also about the interface between humans and animals, but it’s based on a broader discussion that discusses how we use the world,” says John Watson. British epidemiologist.
Meanwhile, Chinese authorities are taking action on the theory of mediation, placing responsibility on wild animal farmers and traders. Last February, According to the NPRThe Chinese legislature began taking measures to “eradicate the evil habit of eating wild animals”. By order of President Xi Jinping, they have done so already banned the hunting, trade, and consumption of a large number of “wild animals of the earth,” was never a step that was fully realized after the original outbreak of SARS. According to a report in Nature, The Chinese government has already shut down 12,000 businesses, cleared a million websites with information on wildlife trafficking, and banned the cultivation of bamboo rats and civets, among other species.
Then covid-19 is the result of a laboratory accident. If this is true, it would have serious consequences, especially for scientists who are concerned with finding the origin of the virus. If the pandemic were to generate ambitious high-tech research on dangerous microbes, China would bring rapid growth, as the power of biotechnology threatens the entire world. It would mean that this kind of science should be very restricted or banned in China and everywhere else. More than any other hypothesis, it is carried out by a government-sponsored technology program — along with early efforts to hide the news of the outbreak — that would establish the case for compensation. “If it’s a man-made disaster,” says Miles Yu Hudson, a conservative institute analyst, “I think the world should seek redress.”
According to some behind the ancient viruses, the WHO-China origin report may be different from what has been heard so far. Schnur says the Chinese already know a lot more than we think, so the group’s role may be to find ways to bring these events to light. It’s a process he calls “part diplomacy and part epidemiology”. He believes that China’s research has been very in-depth and that foreign visitors may have stronger views than they have left so far.
He noted that “what you say at the press conference may be different from what you put in a report after you leave the country.”