Live data from Hacker News

New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

nationalgeographic.com

221–230 of 350 posts

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#221
post #199

Need I say More? https://twitter.com/chenqiushi404/status/1219885244670607361

Yes, that video isn't an argument. Just because bats are eaten isn't proof positive that that is where the xeno barrier was crossed

It isn't, but is an opportunity for that to happen. The eating of 'bush meat' is how lots of Zoonosis events happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#222
post #173

Viruses are scary. My company switched to work at home maybe 18 months ago, so I no longer am exposed to the viruses of my coworkers. At the grocery stores at which I buy most of my food I use the self checkout, so no interacting with humans there. At McDonalds I order and pay at the kiosks, so no human interaction there except when they hand me the bag with my food. At Burger King and Wendy's I do order at the count…

Touching stuff other people touch, and then touching your eyes/mouth is a bigger issue than talking to people

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#223
post #219
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eating bats is not an inherently Chinese thing to do. This is a case of some people in China who happen to eat bats. > It’s actually more offensive to suggest it is than to defend the practice as “cultural”. It's worse to read into a statement and reveal your own biases. I never said it was "inherently Chinese." Different cultures eat different foods. Shaming the choice to eat a food is a dark pattern. Reading into…

This is a pot calling the kettle black. Someone claimed it was unclear the bat was for human consumption, then someone posted a link of someone Chinese eating a bat, and then you inferred some racist undertone from a comment that was nothing more than a link to the video.

My thoughts exactly. It's not like the guy came out and said "shithole", and just because he didn't doesn't mean it's okay to just slap a "subtle" modifier on the accusation.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#224
post #28
post #21

From what I've read it came from bats. Most probably bats being eaten.[1] Bats have been the source of at least 4 pandemics. It's interesting to note that current coronavirus spreading in China and the SARS outbreak of 2003 have two things in common: Both are from the coronavirus family, and both were passed from animals to humans in a wet market.[2] I tried to put together a page for coronavirus in China here where…

I’ve read virology reports that the virus originated most likely from bats but through an intermediary source — as to which animal, that’s unknown. Another thing I’ve been pondering is since bats have been the source of deadly, infectious diseases in humans for so long, that’s where the historical myth of vampires and the living dead come from.

> the virus originated most likely from bats but through an intermediary source

They don't mean another animal. They are hinting at the new Wuhan BSL-4 facility:

https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to...

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#225
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be more concerned if the ones that are outside of China were dying at high rates. So far I haven’t heard any of those quarantined people actually dying. The ones in the US have been listed in fair condition and recovering.

The deaths are mostly among older ages, 60s, 70s, 80s. This group is probably less likely to be traveling.

But does that matter when young infected people are traveling.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe (hopefully?) China will shut down these markets after this outbreak. They've been known to take serious measures in the past when necessary. Surely the benefit of these markets cannot outweigh their costs (including on the local wildlife, not just infectious diseases).

I've been told by friends in China that modern cities like Beijing shut down these markets years ago. It's still a holdover from the huge migration from rural to urban environments, and a cultural preference for eating wild meats, more so than a cost of living issue.

Wuhan is a modern city.

I've never been to Beijing but I have visited two of the other tier one cities and I can assure you wet markets still exist there.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been told by friends in China that modern cities like Beijing shut down these markets years ago. It's still a holdover from the huge migration from rural to urban environments, and a cultural preference for eating wild meats, more so than a cost of living issue.

Wuhan is a modern city. I've never been to Beijing but I have visited two of the other tier one cities and I can assure you wet markets still exist there.

[deleted]

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#228
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that video isn't an argument. Just because bats are eaten isn't proof positive that that is where the xeno barrier was crossed

It isn't, but is an opportunity for that to happen. The eating of 'bush meat' is how lots of Zoonosis events happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis

The list in the article you linked indicates that eating undercooked meat is a mode of transmission only for parasites, prion-based diseases, and a couple of bacterial diseases.

It doesn't seem plausible for a viral disease, especially a respiratory one. On the other hand, capturing, keeping, butchering, and preparing bats could present a risk. With Ebola, butchering of bush meat was cited as a likely vector.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#229
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Vice article that is cited by sdiw doesn't mention that the virus came from "bats being eaten.[1]" The article does state "new report points to the original animal source: bats" but nothing about bats being eaten. Maybe I missed something, please let me know. :) The National Geographic article states the following: > "[T]he highest prevalence of coronaviruses tend to be extruded by animals through feces, or guano…

The claim is the virus originated from a wet market where animals like bats sold for food, so it’s not inaccurate to suggest it was transmitted by bats meant for human consumption.

this is such poor logic i dont know where to begin.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#230
post #146
post #21

From what I've read it came from bats. Most probably bats being eaten.[1] Bats have been the source of at least 4 pandemics. It's interesting to note that current coronavirus spreading in China and the SARS outbreak of 2003 have two things in common: Both are from the coronavirus family, and both were passed from animals to humans in a wet market.[2] I tried to put together a page for coronavirus in China here where…

It was reported in the BBC today that while SARS originated in bats, the vector for humans were a species of cats that got the disease from the bats. For coronavirus what we know so far is that it originated in a seafood market, but as to what species was eaten that is speculation at this point.

Not at all making light of it, but with the cats and the bats, my mind wanders to David Bowie's apocalyptic "Future Legend": "Fleas the size of rats sucked on rats the size of cats..." The lyrics actually speak to the sort of fear this elicits: "And in the death,/As the last few corpses lay rotting on the slimy/Thoroughfare ... And red, mutant, eyes gaze down on Hunger City."
Post reply on HN