关于武汉病毒起源的一些流行误解

Some basic errors commonly repeated in relation to Covid-19 origins

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354062873_Some_basic_errors_commonly_repeated_in_relation_to_Covid-19_origins

作者是那個調查武漢病毒起源問題的公益國際聯盟D.R.A.S.T.I.C.。这篇论文用数据和资料列举了一些广为流传(一些可能是中俄信息战同志们的成果)的关于病毒起源的误解

一共三十条有兴趣的葱油可以读读，對於澄清一些中國微信上流行的扯蛋會有幫助

E1 ‘SARS-CoV-2 is likely a repeat of SARS-1, with the first cases linked to a wild-life market’ 3
E2 ‘The first official case with onset on the 8th Dec did not visit the Huanan market, but he did visit a local market to do his groceries’ 3
E3 ‘Scenarios where a research-related accident spread not one but two lineages of SARS-CoV-2 (A and B) to two different wildlife markets are difficult to rationalize’ 4
E4 ‘Research-related accident scenarios must account for the fact that the majority of early cases were associated with different wildlife markets in Wuhan’ 4
E5 ‘The WHO mission report shows that the virus may have come from abroad via frozen food’ 6
E6 ‘The zoonotic spillover hypothesis is simple and explains everything’ 7
E7 ‘The zoonotic spillover hypothesis is the most parsimonious hypothesis’ 7
E8 ‘The most likely origin is a standard zoonosis spillover, as historically an estimated 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals’ 8
E9 ‘The research-related accident hypothesis is unlikely because the number of high-risk exposures of scientists doing field or laboratory work with samples from wildlife is minuscule when compared to the millions of worldwide encounters of humans with wildlife, including guano collection and the trapping of bats for food’ 9
E10 ‘Zoonotic jumps happen all the time. We estimate that everyday some new pathogen infects a human. Hence a natural zoonosis event is much more likely than a research-related accident’
9
E11 ‘There is no previous example of a pandemic triggered by a lab, at most just a few local outbreaks. Hence the idea that COVID-19 is the result of a research-related accident makes little sense’ 10
E12 ‘There are no documented cases of laboratory infections with previously unknown, but pathogenic, viruses. Thus a research related accident is of very low probability’ 11
E13 ‘The research-related accident hypothesis is very unlikely because SARS-CoV-2 was never in the WIV. The virus was never sequenced’ 11
E14 ‘Since a SARS-like outbreak in China is much more likely to be triggered by a natural encounter with some animal rather than by any lab accident, saying that the recent epidemic may have been caused by a lab accident is simply unscientific and not worth discussing’
E15 ‘The location argument behind the research-related accident hypothesis is not valid at all. Case in point: SARS-1 started 600 miles from Yunnan where the bat populations with the most similar viruses are. Instead the outbreak just started in Wuhan because there are wildlife markets and good transport links there’ 13
E16 ‘The virus was detected in Wuhan because Wuhan has indeed the best detection capability, by the virtue of being precisely the main city in China where coronaviruses are studied’ 13
E17 ‘The research-related hypothesis requires a colossal cover-up. It is thus a typical conspiracy theory of people - often driven by political or xenophobic considerations - who want quick and easy answers’ 14
E18 ‘The research-related accident hypothesis is very unlikely because nobody in the WIV and other labs were infected’ 14
E19 ‘No virus can have leaked from a lab in Wuhan. The WIV BSL-4 lab is very safe’ 15
E20 ‘BSL-2 and BSL-3 labs are very safe’ 16
E21 ‘China is confident that its labs are safe and can handle pathogenic SARS-like viruses’ 16
E22 ‘Field sampling was safe as being done in full PPE’ 17
E23 ‘China cannot share patients’ data because of privacy rules. There is simply nothing sinister in its decision not to share data’ 18
E24 ‘The WIV may have indeed removed access to its viral databases, but they gave a good reason for doing so (fear of hackers)’ 18
E25 ‘Scientists already know what was in that database, and the data there was already published as SZL herself has explained’ 18
E26 ‘The Mojiang miners’ deaths were ‘more likely explained by fungal infections’ 19 E27 ‘The WIV does not culture and isolate coronaviruses, as it is extremely difficult to do so’ 20
E28 ‘If you suppose that a community outbreak happens in China, then by definition it must happen somewhere. So there is no point saying after the fact that there was a small chance that it happened in Wuhan, of all places. It had to happen somewhere and it just happened in Wuhan by chance’ 21
E29 ‘There is still nothing proving that the COVID-19 community outbreak was caused by a research-related accident, whatever the probabilities. So it makes no sense to talk about a possible lab accident’ 22
E30 ‘We know that populations living close to bat colonies in China carry antibodies for SARS-like coronaviruses, so this is actually only the tip of the iceberg and human outbreaks involving SARS-like coronaviruses are very common’