China clamping down on coronavirus research, deleted pages suggest

Re:China clamping down on coronavirus research, deleted page... by andromeduck on Sunday April 12, 2020 @11:30PM (#22852952)

This market is not known to have sold bats and by all accounts it did not. Consuming bats is a southern thing not a central thing.

Your theory also doesn't along with the evidence, that the first known cases had a significant population with no known connection to the market, 27 with connection, 14 without; and that other than the market there are no other obvious connections. If it were just some hawker you'd expect a much stronger connection to the market. And over a longer period.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:China clamping down on coronavirus research, deleted page... by throwanem on Monday April 13, 2020 @12:00AM (#22853068)

I had a theory around guano used for fertilizer acting as a fomite, but found some research an hour ago that suggests SARS doesn't remain viable via that route, so SARS-CoV-2 probably doesn't either.

Do we know that bats are the only (or only likely) nonhuman host? Was there a significant population of cases with a known connection to the lab?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:China clamping down on coronavirus research, deleted page... by andromeduck on Monday April 13, 2020 @07:05PM (#22861152)

Pangolins Malasia I think are the next closest source genetically. China imports from there as well as Africa for TCM so but the known strains from bats are still match much much better.

[ Parent | on HN ]