Zürcher Nachrichten - Pair of new studies point to natural Covid origin

EUR -
AED 4.237681
AFN 75.575697
ALL 92.940333
AMD 421.656142
AOA 1058.122213
ARS 1728.956202
AUD 1.633787
AWG 2.077011
AZN 1.945226
BAM 1.955597
BBD 2.323358
BDT 142.405188
BHD 0.434964
BIF 3448.416033
BMD 1.153895
BND 1.477446
BOB 13.698575
BRL 5.892632
BSD 1.15348
BTN 110.034939
BWP 15.57038
BYN 3.419918
BYR 22616.341608
BZD 2.320009
CAD 1.608143
CDF 2619.917771
CHF 0.935353
CLF 0.026801
CLP 1054.82155
CNY 7.786026
CNH 7.783968
COP 3623.980269
CRC 523.056928
CUC 1.153895
CUP 30.578217
CVE 110.253532
CZK 24.246391
DJF 205.418634
DKK 7.475866
DOP 67.263004
DZD 153.32836
EGP 57.978842
ERN 17.308425
ETB 186.588492
FJD 2.551207
FKP 0.853163
GBP 0.854863
GEL 3.011187
GGP 0.853163
GHS 13.571588
GIP 0.853163
GMD 84.816206
GNF 10129.946354
GTQ 8.800085
GYD 241.584872
HKD 9.053789
HNL 30.918784
HRK 7.535739
HTG 150.824312
HUF 364.485455
IDR 20573.947493
ILS 3.461731
IMP 0.853163
INR 110.028559
IQD 1511.142822
IRR 1586288.276314
ISK 142.206313
JEP 0.853163
JMD 182.501018
JOD 0.818185
JPY 183.741653
KES 149.210113
KGS 100.907683
KHR 4673.513894
KMF 491.559225
KRW 1629.997786
KWD 0.356542
KYD 0.9613
KZT 537.975699
LAK 26026.292929
LBP 103298.655603
LKR 385.739878
LRD 208.208344
LSL 18.719353
LTL 3.407152
LVL 0.69798
LYD 7.356235
MAD 10.687188
MDL 20.036916
MGA 4963.483733
MKD 61.513602
MMK 2422.530647
MNT 4148.022534
MOP 9.32273
MRU 46.106204
MUR 54.27904
MVR 17.827624
MWK 2000.191954
MXN 19.759816
MYR 4.72185
MZN 73.739592
NAD 18.719353
NGN 1572.262254
NIO 42.445585
NOK 10.968631
NPR 176.051688
NZD 1.963162
OMR 0.443666
PAB 1.15348
PEN 3.899694
PGK 5.176462
PHP 70.583912
PKR 320.191096
PLN 4.297007
PYG 6868.285609
QAR 4.205063
RON 5.240181
RSD 117.359248
RUB 95.137449
RWF 1699.123269
SAR 4.322325
SBD 9.306967
SCR 15.797863
SDG 692.91888
SEK 10.965822
SGD 1.477245
SLE 28.388939
SOS 659.231431
SRD 43.560114
STD 23883.296381
STN 24.497452
SVC 10.09295
SZL 18.708459
THB 38.202042
TJS 10.629794
TMT 4.050171
TND 3.386948
TRY 55.08686
TTD 7.812357
TWD 37.209663
TZS 3052.632612
UAH 51.756417
UGX 4291.553623
USD 1.153895
UYU 46.445169
UZS 13715.573403
VES 872.07044
VND 30158.776144
VUV 137.137857
WST 3.15444
XAF 655.888779
XAG 0.017687
XAU 0.000263
XCD 3.118459
XCG 2.079029
XDR 0.815327
XOF 655.888779
XPF 119.331742
YER 275.086221
ZAR 18.677174
ZMK 10386.440091
ZMW 21.62875
ZWL 371.553713
  • JRI

    0.0270

    12.76

    +0.21%

  • NGG

    0.5550

    80.02

    +0.69%

  • BCE

    0.6600

    23.19

    +2.85%

  • RIO

    0.5000

    102.41

    +0.49%

  • GSK

    -0.0100

    52.18

    -0.02%

  • CMSD

    -0.1300

    21.69

    -0.6%

  • BTI

    0.1200

    57.19

    +0.21%

  • RELX

    -0.2350

    35.385

    -0.66%

  • RYCEF

    -0.2800

    20.57

    -1.36%

  • RBGPF

    -0.6200

    69.88

    -0.89%

  • BP

    -0.0250

    42.89

    -0.06%

  • AZN

    -0.0300

    161.86

    -0.02%

  • CMSC

    -0.1738

    21.57

    -0.81%

  • VOD

    0.0500

    15.8

    +0.32%

  • BCC

    0.8500

    85.68

    +0.99%

Pair of new studies point to natural Covid origin
Pair of new studies point to natural Covid origin / Photo: Hector RETAMAL - AFP/File

Pair of new studies point to natural Covid origin

An animal market in China's Wuhan really was the epicenter of the Covid pandemic, according to a pair of new studies in the journal Science published Tuesday that claimed to have tipped the balance in the debate about the virus' origins.

Text size:

Answering the question of whether the disease spilled over naturally from animals to humans, or was the result of a lab accident, is viewed as vital to averting the next pandemic and saving millions of lives.

The first paper analyzed the geographic pattern of Covid cases in the outbreak's first month, December 2019, showing the first cases were tightly clustered around the Huanan Market.

The second examined genomic data from the earliest cases to study the virus' early evolution, concluding it was unlikely the coronavirus circulated widely in humans prior to November 2019.

Both were previously posted as "preprints" but have now been vetted by scientific peer review and appear in a prestigious journal.

Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona, who co-authored both papers, had previously called on the scientific community in a letter to be more open to the idea that the virus was the result of a lab leak.

But the findings moved him "to the point where now I also think it's just not plausible that this virus was introduced any other way than through the wildlife trade at the Wuhan market," he told reporters on a call about the findings.

Though previous investigation had centered on the live animal market, researchers wanted more evidence to determine it was really the progenitor of the outbreak, as opposed to an amplifier.

This required neighborhood-level study within Wuhan to be more certain the virus was "zoonotic" -- that it jumped from animals to people.

The first study's team used mapping tools to determine the location of the first 174 cases identified by the World Health Organization, finding 155 of them were in Wuhan.

Further, these cases clustered tightly around the market -- and some early patients with no recent history of visiting the market lived very close to it.

Mammals now known to be infectable with the virus -- including red foxes, hog badgers and raccoon dogs, were all sold live in the market, the team showed.

- Two introductions to humans -

They also tied positive samples from patients in early 2020 to the western portion of the market, which sold live or freshly butchered animals in late 2019.

The tightly confined early cases contrasted with how it radiated throughout the rest of the city by January and February, which the researchers confirmed by drilling into social media check-in data from the Weibo app.

"This tells us the virus was not circulating cryptically," Worobey said in a statement. "It really originated at that market and spread out from there."

The second study focused on resolving an apparent discrepancy in the virus' early evolution.

Two lineages, A and B, marked the early pandemic.

But while A was closer to the virus found in bats, suggesting the coronavirus in humans came from this source and that A gave rise to B, it was B that was found to be far more present around the market.

The researchers used a technique called "molecular clock analysis," which relies on the rate at which genetic mutations occur over time to reconstruct a timeline of evolution -- and found it unlikely that A gave rise to B.

"Otherwise, lineage A would have had to have been evolving in slow motion compared to the lineage B virus, which just doesn't make biological sense," said Worobey.

Instead, the probable scenario was both jumped from animals at the market to humans on separate occasions, in November and December 2019. The researchers concluded it was unlikely that there was human circulation prior to November 2019.

Under this scenario, there were probably other animal-to-human transmissions at the market that failed to manifest as Covid cases.

"Have we disproven the lab leak theory? No, we have not. Will we ever be able to know? No," said co-author Kristian Anderson of The Scripps Research Institute.

"But I think what's really important here is that there are possible scenarios and they're plausible scenarios and it's really important to understand that possible does not mean equally likely."

H.Roth--NZN