Berliner Boersenzeitung - Pair of new studies point to natural Covid origin

EUR -
AED 4.343054
AFN 77.464136
ALL 96.578481
AMD 443.001294
ANG 2.116924
AOA 1084.432259
ARS 1696.425045
AUD 1.722632
AWG 2.13043
AZN 2.015092
BAM 1.955364
BBD 2.363473
BDT 143.548016
BGN 1.986001
BHD 0.442401
BIF 3475.425631
BMD 1.182587
BND 1.500966
BOB 8.109193
BRL 6.256361
BSD 1.173439
BTN 107.717999
BWP 16.277373
BYN 3.32206
BYR 23178.695489
BZD 2.360074
CAD 1.622687
CDF 2578.039008
CHF 0.928842
CLF 0.026073
CLP 1029.489324
CNY 8.24689
CNH 8.21806
COP 4228.657801
CRC 580.770597
CUC 1.182587
CUP 31.338542
CVE 110.240437
CZK 24.267271
DJF 208.973438
DKK 7.466899
DOP 73.933527
DZD 153.154875
EGP 55.703589
ERN 17.738798
ETB 182.791072
FJD 2.661179
FKP 0.866817
GBP 0.872725
GEL 3.18162
GGP 0.866817
GHS 12.79115
GIP 0.866817
GMD 86.329235
GNF 10278.709772
GTQ 9.006993
GYD 245.515296
HKD 9.221278
HNL 30.954103
HRK 7.533317
HTG 153.905708
HUF 382.153287
IDR 19840.785951
ILS 3.707232
IMP 0.866817
INR 108.316693
IQD 1537.357457
IRR 49816.456691
ISK 145.777895
JEP 0.866817
JMD 184.718842
JOD 0.838501
JPY 184.146504
KES 151.256298
KGS 103.416722
KHR 4722.947667
KMF 496.686746
KPW 1064.451335
KRW 1710.387141
KWD 0.362349
KYD 0.977982
KZT 590.738376
LAK 25359.349612
LBP 105085.885516
LKR 363.548997
LRD 217.091629
LSL 18.94048
LTL 3.491871
LVL 0.715335
LYD 7.466336
MAD 10.748905
MDL 19.97255
MGA 5308.817127
MKD 61.616271
MMK 2482.599361
MNT 4215.258085
MOP 9.4253
MRU 46.916546
MUR 54.292994
MVR 18.271409
MWK 2034.84661
MXN 20.533372
MYR 4.736855
MZN 75.57955
NAD 18.94048
NGN 1680.526824
NIO 43.180379
NOK 11.555294
NPR 172.348599
NZD 2.007958
OMR 0.454249
PAB 1.173539
PEN 3.936823
PGK 5.018882
PHP 69.733624
PKR 328.342141
PLN 4.208885
PYG 7847.251532
QAR 4.278347
RON 5.101724
RSD 117.373848
RUB 88.840205
RWF 1711.518652
SAR 4.433442
SBD 9.606873
SCR 16.856244
SDG 711.330129
SEK 10.584272
SGD 1.505082
SHP 0.887246
SLE 28.859447
SLL 24798.24684
SOS 669.450838
SRD 45.081425
STD 24477.153012
STN 24.494542
SVC 10.267712
SYP 13078.904017
SZL 18.935781
THB 36.920787
TJS 10.972155
TMT 4.139053
TND 3.416239
TOP 2.847384
TRY 51.246799
TTD 7.971224
TWD 37.116428
TZS 3004.130641
UAH 50.599026
UGX 4148.075755
USD 1.182587
UYU 44.440098
UZS 14242.826515
VES 416.584326
VND 31036.982812
VUV 141.323792
WST 3.258724
XAF 655.810877
XAG 0.011483
XAU 0.000237
XCD 3.196
XCG 2.114929
XDR 0.815618
XOF 655.810877
XPF 119.331742
YER 281.814608
ZAR 19.0597
ZMK 10644.701884
ZMW 23.02187
ZWL 380.792372
  • RBGPF

    -0.8100

    83.23

    -0.97%

  • SCS

    0.0200

    16.14

    +0.12%

  • NGG

    1.3200

    81.5

    +1.62%

  • RYCEF

    0.3000

    17.12

    +1.75%

  • BCC

    -1.1800

    84.33

    -1.4%

  • CMSC

    0.1000

    23.75

    +0.42%

  • CMSD

    0.0900

    24.13

    +0.37%

  • BCE

    0.4900

    25.2

    +1.94%

  • VOD

    0.2300

    14.17

    +1.62%

  • GSK

    0.5000

    49.15

    +1.02%

  • RIO

    3.1300

    90.43

    +3.46%

  • RELX

    0.0600

    39.9

    +0.15%

  • JRI

    0.0100

    13.68

    +0.07%

  • BTI

    0.9400

    59.16

    +1.59%

  • BP

    1.1000

    36.53

    +3.01%

  • AZN

    1.2600

    92.95

    +1.36%

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."

(S.G.Stein--BBZ)