Sviesta Ciba |

None of the Above (

artis) rakstīja,
@ 2020-05-07 07:28:00

“If horseshoe bats were the primary host, how did the bat virus hop from its natural reservoir in a subtropical region to the bustling city of Wuhan hundreds of miles away?“

(Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)

	brr 2020-05-07 10:37 (saite)
	"wet marketos" jau mēdza arī būt sikspārņi, jautājums gan vai tos tur arī dzīvus tirgo vai jau apstrādātus. Bet nu tirgotāja/piegādātāja inficēšanās risks faktiski pastāv. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Diskusija)

artis
2020-05-07 14:46 (saite)

- the horseshoe bats that most likely hosted the virus weren't even sold on the wuhan wet market, according to several eye witnesses
- there are no known horseshoe bat colonies in a 900km diameter around Wuhan[1]
- that lab was specifically researching coronavirii in bats
- there are reports researchers there got splashed with blood and fecies of bats [0]
- the researcher in question (Huang Yan Lin), the likely patient zero, disappeared without a trace, both physically and online [0]

The WIV's location on Google Maps is ~14 km from the wet market. The population density in that area is around 10,000 people per km^2, so there are around 400k people in a 14km radius, or about 1/3,000 of China's population. If we assume

P(virus from WIV) = 0.01
P(outbreak in 14km radius | virus from WIV) = 1
P(outbreak in 14km radius | virus not from WIV) = 1/3,000

Then Bayes' rule gives P(virus from WIV | outbreak in 14km radius) ~= 97%. Even if we reduce our prior to 0.001 (0.1%), the result is still ~75%. So while I have no idea if the virus was a random mutation or what, I strongly suspect that it's somehow connected to the WIV.

The Wuhan Center for Disease Control, which routinely sent viral samples to WIV, is only 300 meters from the wet market. The 300 meter radius circle surrounding the Wuhan Center for Disease Control is 0.33 square miles. China is 3,705,009 square miles. The chances of this happening so close to the Wuhan Center for Disease Control is therefore 1 in 11.2 million.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU (starts at ~3:00)
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https:/www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	puika_vecis 2020-05-07 16:18 (saite)
	Principā šīs sakritības ir gandrīz neticamas, lai vīruss tiešām nebūtu nācis no laboratorijas. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

artis
2020-05-07 16:22 (saite)

Var būt visādi, bet zināmas aizdomas ir. Tas, protams, obligāti nenozīmē, ka vīrusu radīja laboratorijā, bet tas var nozīmēt, ka tas bija negadījums neuzmanības dēļ. Negadījumi bio-laboratorijās diemžēl notiek. Piemēram, SARS vīrus divreiz izmuka no laboratorijas Ķīnā

https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/threatened-pandemics-and-laboratory-escapes-self-fulfilling-prophecies/

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-analysis/sars-escaped-beijing-lab-twice-50137

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

	puika_vecis 2020-05-07 12:26 (saite)
	Krātiņā iekšā un uz tirgu? (Atbildēt uz šo)

Navigate: