Seven year coronavirus trail from mine deaths to a Wuhan lab
This article is written in a highly conspiratorial tone, but the author does not appear to understand several basic things about coronavirus research.<p>&gt; Evidence seen by The Sunday Times suggests that a virus found in its depths — part of a faecal sample that was frozen and sent to a Chinese laboratory for analysis and storage — is the closest known match to the virus that causes Covid-19.<p>This has been publicly known for months. It was published in biorRxiv in January and appeared in <i>Nature</i> in early February.[1]<p>&gt; The virus was a huge discovery. It was a “new strain” of a Sars-type coronavirus that, surprisingly, received only a passing mention in an academic paper.<p>RaTG13 was one of hundreds of SARS-like coronaviruses discovered in these bat caves. In 2013, it was not considered a major discovery. One reason is that it is only 80% similar to the original SARS. At the time, researchers were much more interested in viruses that were more like 99% similar to SARS. Those viruses were studied much more intensively, and were the subject of numerous papers.<p>&gt; What happened to the virus in the years between its discovery and the eruption of Covid-19? Why was its existence tucked away in obscure records, and its link to three deaths not mentioned?<p>The article never provides any evidence that these people became sick from RaTG13. There are hundreds of known SARS-like coronaviruses, and there are estimated to be thousands of as-of-yet undiscovered ones. The author of this article seems to be under the impression that RaTG13 is the only known SARS-like coronavirus.<p>&gt; These produced a remarkable finding: while none had tested positive for Sars, all four had antibodies against another, unknown Sars-like coronavirus.<p>There was a study published in 2016 that found that 3% of people tested in a region of the countryside in Yunnan province had antibodies against SARS-like coronaviruses.[2] The sorts of spillover events described in this article are probably not uncommon at all. It has always just been a question of when a spillover event would lead to sustained transmission, instead of petering out.<p>The rest of the article goes on to try to suggest that RaTG13 leaked from a lab. RaTG13 is separated from SARS-CoV-2 by decades of evolution. It&#x27;s the closest <i>known</i> relative of SARS-CoV-2, but not its ancestor. It&#x27;s sad that tabloids are going after the people who have spent decades trying to understand these types of viruses, so that we would be prepared for new outbreaks.<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41586-020-2012-7" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41586-020-2012-7</a><p>2. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC6178078&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC6178078&#x2F;</a>