From what I've read it came from bats. Most probably bats being eaten.[1]
Bats have been the source of at least 4 pandemics. It's interesting to note that current coronavirus spreading in China and the SARS outbreak of 2003 have two things in common: Both are from the coronavirus family, and both were passed from animals to humans in a wet market.[2]
I tried to put together a page for coronavirus in China here where I tried to gather all the information in one place in order for us to easily follow stuff (https://thestrife.co/wuhan-coronavirus-media-coverage) and photos[3].
I think you might be confused about "bats being eaten". A theory on SARS is that it was spread by bats eating fruit, leaving guano on it, civets eat the guano-laced fruit, people eat the civets. Just because bats are an important part of the vector doesn't mean that people are eating them directly. I haven't seen anyone claim, for example, that live bats were actually sold at the Wuhan wet markets. But civets are, illegally.
The Vice article that is cited by sdiw doesn't mention that the virus came from "bats being eaten.[1]" The article does state "new report points to the original animal source: bats" but nothing about bats being eaten. Maybe I missed something, please let me know. :)
The National Geographic article states the following:
> "[T]he highest prevalence of coronaviruses tend to be extruded by animals through feces, or guano in the case of bats. Coronaviruses not only spread via the air and the respiratory tract, but also if fecal matter comes in contact with another creature’s mouth. Bats aren’t exactly clean, so if one nibbles on a fruit, the food may get contaminated with fecal matter. If the fruit drops to the ground, then it can serve as a viral crossover point for farmed animals like civets." [2]
It seems more likely the virus jumped from the bat to another animal that ate something contaminated with bat guano infected with the virus. That animal was then traded at this market where the virus somehow spread to humans.
This lead me to find the following Wikipedia article on Civets[3]. This mentions how Civets are farmed and fed coffee cherries then the partly digested coffee beans are harvested from the Civets fecal matter. This is purely speculation, but this could be one way that the virus could have spread to humans. A Civet ate a coffee cherry that an infected horseshoe bat had contaminated with guano infected with the virus. The Civet was traded at this market and the virus spread to humans. Once again, this is pure speculation on my part but it shows how there are other mechanisms in which the virus could spread to humans without someone 'eating bats'.
It looks like it's really too early to tell and so far it looks like initial reports of it having a nexus in the market were premature. It's still uncertain where the first patients got it from. Originally Wuhan gov was saying their first patients were on Dec 27, but that's being revised to Dec 1. So it seems given the disparity in dates the assertion of the epidemic having started in the market is unconfirmed at this time and Is more the result of speculation (or misinformation).
> Could be even simpler? Someone is going out and killing the bats right? They are physically handling dead bats in bulk, why can’t that be enough?
Because the specific claim was "most probably bats being eaten[1]" (not found in citation). The commenter above took an article which claims that the virus is linked to those found in bats, to "most probably" being caused by bats being eaten.
That is the speculation/claim that is under dispute.
The claim is the virus originated from a wet market where animals like bats sold for food, so it’s not inaccurate to suggest it was transmitted by bats meant for human consumption.
> The claim is the virus originated from a wet market where animals like bats sold for food, so it’s not inaccurate to suggest it was transmitted by bats meant for human consumption.
It absolutely is. You don't have any evidence for this, just speculation. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it "most probably" (as the commenter above suggested, linking to a source)? No, there's no evidence cited that the disease was spread by eating bats in the article.
So yes, it is inaccurate to make a claim, and then cite a source which doesn't make that claim, without making it clear that you're just speculating, and have no actual information to add.
I did not see any links to any official government documents on that page. Indeed, I saw very little attribution for many claims. The article is fraught with cultural bias against China, and additionally, I noticed multiple misleading remarks.
Starting from the title. The “TV show” the article refers to was actually just an internet video post. Additionally, this was a one-off event from 2016, and it caused outrage and she was forced to publicly apologize[1]. In many places, the Zerohedge author implies it is a current event, stating:
> The video shows the woman breaking apart the corpse of a boiled bat, dipping its wing in sauce and eating it.
> Meanwhile, the scale of the coronavirus outbreak continues to escalate.
This is clearly misleading. Additionally, the description of the bat’s “corpse” is reminiscent of PETA writing about meat farms. I suspect this writing style only appears when the author is projecting a bias.
Next, the first photo featuring a girl holding a bat has a Chinese caption. Below this Chinese caption is an English caption, somewhat loosely implying a translation. This English caption mentions eating bats as a commonplace event in China. Not only is this fact itself debatable, but it does not translate any part of the Chinese caption, which roughly says “As the Coronavirus news spreads, the news about bats containing lots of viruses is once again garnering attention.”
Next, there is a lengthy Chinese tweet quoted. The English of the article does not reference the content of this tweet a single time, instead appearing to imply that it supports whatever claims he is making and assuming the reader will not understand the tweet. The tweet itself says that, loosely, research has found that bats could be the source of the coronavirus and this older bat eating video is once again making the social media rounds, prompting another public apology from the woman in the video. The article says, directly preceding the quote:
> The woman featured in the clip took to social media to profusely apologize for her role in encouraging the consumption of bats and encouraged everyone to start washing their hands more.
Indeed tangential, but not related.
Essentially every claim in the article is unsourced and largely unsubstantiated, and it paints the Chinese in a very negative light, with many heavily prejudiced and vulgar portrayals of China and Chinese food. So, in this case, yes this article is invalid.
On top of all of this, you took the invalid claim that a tv show featured a bat being eaten and turned it into “bats are eaten on tv, commonly”. This is disingenuous on your part, on top of an already disingenuous source.
I appreciate you taking time to respond to the article - which is indeed rubbish.
However, I would think it fairly uncontroversial, and readily provable, that bat meat is indeed eaten in China [1]- which is the claim that I was making earlier. Personally, I wouldn't claim at this point in time that the virus originated from bats or other animals - although it is certainly possible.
> It absolutely is. You don't have any evidence for this, just speculation. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it "most probably" (as the commenter above suggested, linking to a source)? No, there's no evidence cited that the disease was spread by eating bats in the article.
You replied
> It's been reported that there are tv shows in China where bats are eaten [1] Not a great source but it links to official China Gov sources.
But later stated
> However, I would think it fairly uncontroversial, and readily provable, that bat meat is indeed eaten in China [1]- which is the claim that I was making earlier.
Effectively, what you've said then was entirely a non-sequitur to what I was discussing, which was the specific claim about whether or not there is enough evidence (presented here, anyway) to claim that bat consumption is the "most probable" cause of the disease, or even if consumption at all will be linked to the disease (rather than proximity/hygiene).
In fact, you later stated that you agree with my point.
> Personally, I wouldn't claim at this point in time that the virus originated from bats or other animals - although it is certainly possible.
It came from a wet market for exotic meats. If it wasn’t a bat it was some other animal that was illegally trafficked and shouldn’t have been sold for consumption.
> It came from a wet market for exotic meats. If it wasn’t a bat it was some other animal that was illegally trafficked and shouldn’t have been sold for consumption.
And this has what to do about making specific claims without evidence? With passing off sources as supporting your claims when they make no such claim?
Several media outlets have confirmed that the "seafood market" actually sells a wide variety of wildlife meat
And a reference pic in Chinese here
On this board, it says "Wildfowl Market". They put a price on some meats, including Masked palm civet, which suspected to be the intermediate host of the disease.
> Several media outlets have confirmed that the "seafood market" actually sells a wide variety of wildlife meat
I'm sorry, but as I've said numerous times, the specific claim that I was disputing was that the commenter above claimed that they had an article stating that bat consumption was the "most probable". In fact, the article you linked specifically says what I'm saying. Namely, don't speculate!
> The West Blames the Wuhan Coronavirus on China’s Love of Eating Wild Animals. The Truth Is More Complex
Wonder what this could mean?
> The 2002-2003 SARS pandemic was eventually traced to civet cats sold in a similar style of wet market in southern Guandong province, and some foreign tabloids are circulating unsubstantiated claims that the Wuhan coronavirus originated from everything from bat soup to eating rats and live wolf pups.
This certainly doesn't sound like Time magazine is speculating that bat consumption is the "most probable" cause to me.
> However, Adam Kamradt-Scott, associate professor specializing in global health security at the University of Sydney, says this way of thinking is often flawed. While scientists first thought that Ebola started with the consumption of bat meat in a village of south-eastern Guinea, they now believe that the two-year-old girl known as Child Zero was likely infected via bat droppings that contaminated an object she put in her mouth. MERS was also primarily spread from live camels to humans through association, rather than the eating of camel meat.
This, rather, seems to support my claim that we shouldn't speculate on things that we don't have any information or expertise about.
There are more news outlets reporting this fact than Vice. I’m commenting on the actual facts not the legitimacy of whatever source OP decided to cite.
Facts in this case can only be reached through consensus of the scientific community. Journalism can only confirm so far as to when who did what, they simply don’t possess the professional knowledge to assert the truthfulness of a scientific theory.
Not at all making light of it, but with the cats and the bats, my mind wanders to David Bowie's apocalyptic "Future Legend": "Fleas the size of rats sucked on rats the size of cats..." The lyrics actually speak to the sort of fear this elicits: "And in the death,/As the last few corpses lay rotting on the slimy/Thoroughfare ... And red, mutant, eyes gaze down on Hunger City."
I've seen at least one report that says the first known patient (who is not necessarily the one who caught the disease from an animal) never visited the Wuhan market.
Despite all the media stating it as fact, it's not certain where it came from yet, just likely.
I’ve read virology reports that the virus originated most likely from bats but through an intermediary source — as to which animal, that’s unknown.
Another thing I’ve been pondering is since bats have been the source of deadly, infectious diseases in humans for so long, that’s where the historical myth of vampires and the living dead come from.
There’s plenty of actual research into the ancient origin of vampires you can read without resorting to baseless speculation. There is no single myth or origin and eastern europe has no vampire bats—in fact, the bats are named after the myth. The connection is likely due to them simply being nocturnal.
EDIT: My tone came off as completely dismissing your thinking, which I don't mean to, I just mean to say that there's already a lot written on the topic.
Bat "bites" are only half the story. Bat scratches are really nasty. In ancient times they would look like bites and most always would become infected. Even today, in much of the world (ie usa) any contact with wild bat should be taken very seriously. The link between bats and disease is no myth.
Bats are also the common wild reservoir for lyssaviruses, like rabies. Bats are not highly susceptible to rabies, and can remain asymptomatic for long periods of time. If you wake up in a room with a bat in it, or if you find a bat in a room with a child, or otherwise disabled person, rabies post-exposure prophylaxis is called for, even if you don't find a scratch, or bite mark.
Method of transmission does not stop bats from being a reservoir for the virus.
It was already capable of making the species jump (else it wouldn't), and could have further adapted to using other transmission routes once it got into humans.
The long incubation time makes me think it takes awhile for the virus to get a foothold.
The act of eating the bat is plausible from people catching them (alive), storied then, preparing them, and people coming to an area where that happens to consume them.
It is a specific mutation of the virus, that is able to infect lungs and spread by making you sneeze. The mechanism that makes you sick is also the way to spread for the virus. People get viruses all the time from eating bats, but if it doesn't make you sneeze (or spread fluids in another way) it won't be infectious.
The same could be said for plenty of meats, e.g. lobster ("who would eat these bottom-feeding saltwater cockroaches voluntarily?"). Different cultures can simply have different norms, and even where it's not normal, poor people will eat whatever is available and rich people will eat whatever is a curiosity.
In Asia people eat a lot of really weird stuff for us Westerners. I live in Thailand with my Thai girlfriend.
I don't understand why my girlfriend likes to eat various kinds of insects and larva and why people in my village like to eat a pigs' brains. Yesterday my girlfriend showed me a YouTube movie of a Chinese girl eating a live octopus. I also know some people like to eat snakes around here.
Different strokes for different folks and all that.
Eating a live octopus is a horrible practise. But seeing people reacting to it with distaste just because it is "yucky" makes me really sad. These animals are highly intelligent, many of them on par with dogs, and most surely capable of suffering as much as a dog would suffer, if it was being eaten alive.
The only creatures I'd ever consider eating alive are insects. I've stopped eating squid altogether.
There's a ragout made from lungs (Beuschel) that is enjoyed in the former Austro-Hungarian empire area and absolutely nowhere else. If you want to try it, the best can be had at the Meierei, just don't forget to reserve a seat a few weeks ahead especially if your lunch aligns with the strudel time, the place is packed to the gills then.
> that is enjoyed in the former Austro-Hungarian empire area and absolutely nowhere else
Nonsense, that's Austrian exceptionalism at its worst. All across Europe the dish (English speaking locales: "calf's lights") can be had in a minority of restaurants and also is occasionally cooked at home.
Thai food and drinks like coffee can be a bit cheaper for sure. Most dishes can be bought on the local markets or in local "restaurants" for 40 Baht or so. Smaller coffeeshops also offer drinks for around 40 Baht. I believe in bigger cities prices might be 50% higher or so.
Clothes and such can be had very cheap as well (maybe 200 Baht for jeans), but no brands of course.
Can confirm. Many dishes around Bangkok have been raised to around 50฿ now and I'd say your average 'indie' coffee shop with AC, wifi, and power outlets, drinks will be about 60-80฿.
Rent for a studio outside the city centers of Bangkok with AC and a hot shower (rare since locals don't like hot showers) is like 4000-8000฿ / mo.
Bats have been the source of at least 4 pandemics. It's interesting to note that current coronavirus spreading in China and the SARS outbreak of 2003 have two things in common: Both are from the coronavirus family, and both were passed from animals to humans in a wet market.[2]
I tried to put together a page for coronavirus in China here where I tried to gather all the information in one place in order for us to easily follow stuff (https://thestrife.co/wuhan-coronavirus-media-coverage) and photos[3].
1. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xgqy3n/scientists-now-thi...
2. https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/experts-think-th...
3. https://thestrife.co/wuhan-coronavirus-gallery