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

EUR -
AED 4.291906
AFN 74.188104
ALL 95.612363
AMD 433.156007
ANG 2.091768
AOA 1072.830672
ARS 1638.484029
AUD 1.630045
AWG 2.106512
AZN 2.010972
BAM 1.956061
BBD 2.354674
BDT 143.446706
BGN 1.949446
BHD 0.442057
BIF 3479.049841
BMD 1.168661
BND 1.492893
BOB 8.078044
BRL 5.785104
BSD 1.169136
BTN 111.336396
BWP 15.888054
BYN 3.309685
BYR 22905.757712
BZD 2.351274
CAD 1.590986
CDF 2706.619162
CHF 0.916447
CLF 0.027048
CLP 1064.499798
CNY 7.982247
CNH 7.98296
COP 4357.294507
CRC 531.861943
CUC 1.168661
CUP 30.969519
CVE 110.279259
CZK 24.381188
DJF 208.186919
DKK 7.472927
DOP 69.658113
DZD 154.76695
EGP 62.802792
ERN 17.529917
ETB 183.829569
FJD 2.568011
FKP 0.863475
GBP 0.863413
GEL 3.137805
GGP 0.863475
GHS 13.105695
GIP 0.863475
GMD 85.904498
GNF 10260.194951
GTQ 8.924039
GYD 244.591626
HKD 9.158166
HNL 31.077151
HRK 7.535554
HTG 153.00782
HUF 362.844148
IDR 20396.642314
ILS 3.43906
IMP 0.863475
INR 111.23761
IQD 1531.478363
IRR 1536789.356921
ISK 143.406371
JEP 0.863475
JMD 183.973001
JOD 0.828547
JPY 184.397214
KES 150.956306
KGS 102.16494
KHR 4689.606366
KMF 491.427992
KPW 1051.798729
KRW 1721.507961
KWD 0.360123
KYD 0.974226
KZT 543.250242
LAK 25673.319558
LBP 104693.036799
LKR 374.113571
LRD 214.527738
LSL 19.565079
LTL 3.450752
LVL 0.706912
LYD 7.416927
MAD 10.805343
MDL 20.178609
MGA 4869.629643
MKD 61.597109
MMK 2453.84549
MNT 4182.178877
MOP 9.43682
MRU 46.681437
MUR 54.868938
MVR 18.061679
MWK 2027.262125
MXN 20.373444
MYR 4.630822
MZN 74.689153
NAD 19.565414
NGN 1599.452824
NIO 43.025011
NOK 10.801864
NPR 178.138795
NZD 1.987606
OMR 0.449355
PAB 1.169151
PEN 4.098677
PGK 5.083679
PHP 72.064337
PKR 325.795044
PLN 4.2543
PYG 7083.91595
QAR 4.273153
RON 5.219126
RSD 117.37212
RUB 88.235831
RWF 1709.421028
SAR 4.385311
SBD 9.37952
SCR 15.61227
SDG 701.753321
SEK 10.839335
SGD 1.492357
SHP 0.872524
SLE 28.807603
SLL 24506.234619
SOS 668.186396
SRD 43.773389
STD 24188.925413
STN 24.502854
SVC 10.229191
SYP 129.17296
SZL 19.561613
THB 38.141008
TJS 10.931113
TMT 4.096157
TND 3.408455
TOP 2.813856
TRY 52.845214
TTD 7.924923
TWD 36.940799
TZS 3041.441932
UAH 51.378143
UGX 4413.514019
USD 1.168661
UYU 47.076288
UZS 14069.638616
VES 571.408376
VND 30762.66634
VUV 138.515007
WST 3.174003
XAF 656.041826
XAG 0.015872
XAU 0.000256
XCD 3.158365
XCG 2.106972
XDR 0.815298
XOF 656.041826
XPF 119.331742
YER 278.871774
ZAR 19.503961
ZMK 10519.353599
ZMW 22.066853
ZWL 376.3084
  • RYCEF

    0.3500

    16.35

    +2.14%

  • RBGPF

    1.6000

    64.7

    +2.47%

  • GSK

    -0.6600

    50.24

    -1.31%

  • CMSC

    -0.0727

    22.7974

    -0.32%

  • RELX

    -0.2250

    36.135

    -0.62%

  • BTI

    0.3000

    58.65

    +0.51%

  • BCE

    0.0600

    23.99

    +0.25%

  • CMSD

    -0.0300

    23.22

    -0.13%

  • BCC

    1.0700

    75.4

    +1.42%

  • NGG

    -0.5000

    87

    -0.57%

  • VOD

    -0.3250

    15.725

    -2.07%

  • AZN

    -2.3700

    181.09

    -1.31%

  • JRI

    0.0350

    12.965

    +0.27%

  • BP

    -0.8850

    46.055

    -1.92%

  • RIO

    1.1500

    99.78

    +1.15%

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)