The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2

simply could not be done accidentally or intentionally. Evidence strongly supports the theory that a wild bat virus jumped through other non-bat species, and then was transmitted to Humans in the Huanan market sometime in November 2019[2]. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35137080/ [2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337

basic logic errors that greatly weaken the result: https://x.com/nizzaneela/status/1686105717135097862 The paper was eventually corrected, but the authors haven't changed their exaggerated claims to the popular press, which already went beyond the original claims of their peer-reviewed paper. It seems like no one on the other side of the debate had the mathematical background to raise these issues, with the unfortunate result you see above. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337

away from where the bats that carry SARS live), the Wuhan Seafood Market spillover looks nearly identical - just 17 years later. Meanwhile, no evidence at all has emerged that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had anything to do with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. Scientists at the WIV were regularly publishing and giving talks about exactly what they were working on, and they never mentioned anything closely related to SARS-CoV-2. They were working with viruses much closer to the original SARS, which is what most people back then were interested in. After SARS-CoV-2 emerged, you could actually go back and look into the WIV's publications to find the most closely related virus. It's called RaTG13, and it was published by scientists at the WIV all the way back in 2014. However, it's way too distantly related to SARS-CoV-2 to be the progenitor virus, and in fact, more closely related viruses have since been found by a French team in Laos. Basically, all the evidence about who knew what when, the genetics of more closely related viruses that have been discovered since the pandemic began argue positively that the WIV had nothing to do with the origins of the pandemic. This is in addition to the strong evidence that the initial outbreak was not at WIV, but rather at a wild animal market (which is exactly what you'd expect for a natural spillover). None of this has made its way into the American public's consciousness, though. 0. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8715 1. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8337

patients with a direct link to the market. The observation that a substantial proportion of early cases had no known epidemiological link had previously been used as an argument against a Huanan market epicenter of the pandemic. However, this group of cases resided significantly closer to the market than those who worked there, indicating that they had been exposed to the virus at, or near, the Huanan market. For market workers, the exposure risk was their place of work not their residential locations, which were significantly further afield than those cases not formally linked to the market. This makes sense, but it's probably not something I'd have thought of myself. I also find figure 4[1] fascinating. Evidence points not just to the market, but to just a handful of stalls within it. The sibling study tracks two lineages in the early spread, both clustered around the market. The first study, citing this sibling, says: > This, along with the lineage A cases we report in close geographical proximity to the market in December, challenges the suggestion that the market was simply a superspreading event, which would be lineage-specific. Rather, it adds to the evidence presented here that lineage A, like lineage B, may have originated at the Huanan market then spread from this epicenter into the neighborhoods surrounding the market and then beyond. They conclude that they are likely the result of separate animal-to-human transmissions and that there were probably more jumps that quickly died off. This suggests that the virus was well-suited to infect humans before it jumped: > Successful transmission of both lineage A and B viruses after independent zoonotic events indicates that evolutionary adaptation within humans was not needed for SARS-CoV-2 to spread (49). We now know that SARS-CoV-2 can readily spread after reverse-zoonosis to Syrian hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus), American mink (Neovison vison), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), indicating its host generalist capacity (50–55). [0] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337 [1] https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.abp8715/asset/86...