Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 350 posts

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

#211

Post by MiroF »

tempsy wrote: post #209
_byed wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Need I say More? Yes, actually. Can you demonstrate how this actually resulted in the pandemic rather than subtly shaming a cultural practice you don't agree with? (I don't agree with it either, but "need I say more" pointing to the specific practice is not the same thing as "here's a resource which links bat game consumption to outbreaks." The tone is ever so slightly edging in the wrong direction.)

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”.

Curious, I must have missed the part where GP said that eating bats is an "inherently Chinese" thing to do.

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

#212

Post by tempsy »

Triesault wrote: post #152
sdiw wrote: 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…

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.

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

#213

Post by tempsy »

MiroF wrote: post #211
tempsy wrote: post #209

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”.

Curious, I must have missed the part where GP said that eating bats is an "inherently Chinese" thing to do.

> Yes, actually. Can you demonstrate how this actually resulted in the pandemic rather than subtly shaming a cultural practice you don't agree with?

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

#214

Post by hatenberg »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #20
thisistheend123 wrote: post #7

President Xi has warned that the virus is spreading. His intervention seems to be unprecedented. Is it worse than what it seems to be? They have quarantined whole cities and are building a hospital at war scale especially for this. Maybe the Chinese know something that the world doesn't know yet.

Anecdotal (not official) reports suggest as many as 100,000 infections in Wuhan area. There are claims the virus may be spread through eyes as well as inhalation. Additional unsubstantiated claims suggest low to no fever during incubation period, making detection difficult. The most sensationalist claim making the rounds is that a known Wuhan area PLA biolab may have failed to contain this pathogen. In the end none o…

So what you are saying the mortality rate is comparable to the flu at those infection rates. Why the panic

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

#215

Post by refurb »

Fomite wrote: post #206
howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters because face masks are not enough to prevent transmission, which matters relative to the common cold only because this virus kills. The common cold does not.

But this is taken care of by face marks and hand washing, because what would be happening is you touch your eyes. If you're using a face mask, you should be washing your hands anyway, because if you think it's working, the moment you touch it you've come in contact with virus.

Indeed. In addition, the best thing you can do beyond hand washing is don’t touch your face.

Hard to do, I know, but it eliminates a major source of transmission.

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

#216

Post by _byed »

tempsy wrote: post #209
_byed wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Need I say More? Yes, actually. Can you demonstrate how this actually resulted in the pandemic rather than subtly shaming a cultural practice you don't agree with? (I don't agree with it either, but "need I say more" pointing to the specific practice is not the same thing as "here's a resource which links bat game consumption to outbreaks." The tone is ever so slightly edging in the wrong direction.)

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”.

> 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 that and inferring I'm assigning it to a specific culture, that's pretty revealing.

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

#217

Post by Fomite »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #142
maverick2007 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth I'm flying back home to the US from the UAE and at the airport as I was waiting to check my bag I saw many (10+) groups of Chinese tourists checking entire boxes of 3M N95 masks. My guess is that they're running out at home and these tourists saw an opportunity to make some money or help people out (or both).

Can an N95 mask prevent viral infection? Those things are typically for particulates and are charged so things like dust attach to the fibers. I’m not sure they’re effective for aerosolized particles

There's very little evidence N95 masks work better than surgical masks, which are cheaper and easier to use.

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

#218

Post by Fomite »

jamesblonde wrote: post #137
SubiculumCode wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That 3.8 may have since been revised downward....looking for the link again.

Just looking again - Imperial College are saying 2.6. But Neil Ferguson, part of that study from ICL, says on Twitter "we need to plan for the possibility that containment of this epidemic is not possible". https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1221134886825873409/ph...

Okay...a few notes on R0.

1) Neil Ferguson knows his business, but part of that is knowing that, like economists predicting recessions, there's little penalty for being wrong.

I'm sure you can find a quote that's similar from him for any recent outbreak. Why? Because of course we need to plan for that possibility. It's a low risk statement to make.

2) R0 is not a biological constant. It's a combination of contact rates and probabilities of transmission. Neither one of those is actually fixed.

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

#219

Post by tempsy »

_byed wrote: post #216
tempsy wrote: post #209

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”.

> 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.

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

#220

Post by Fomite »

jamesblonde wrote: post #138
SubiculumCode wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That 3.8 may have since been revised downward....looking for the link again.

Different research groups are providing different estimates. But the estimates of estimates (model averaging) indicates that this epidemic has a good chance of sweeping the globe. Containment is needed to prevent it sweeping the globe, so we are at the mercy of the Chinese authorities...

My group's estimated R0 for MERS was very securely in the same ballpark. There's a lot more needed for "sweeping the globe" than a single R0 measurement in a single context (R0 isn't actually a biological constant, despite people treating it like it is).
Post reply on HN