When will science provide the evidence for the zoonosis hypothesis of SARS-CoV2?
That is open.
This way one has to understand question 8 from a publication of March 16, 2020, cf.
- Yuen et al., “SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: The most important research questions.”, Cell Biosci. 2020 Mar 16;10:40, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32190290
“The jury is still out as to what animals might serve as reservoir and intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2. Although Huanan seafood wholesale market was suggested as the original source of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, there is evidence for the involvement of other wild animal markets in Wuhan. In addition, the possibility for a human superspreader in the Huanan market has not been excluded. Further investigations are required to shed light on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.”
The zoonosis hypothesis is crucial because it is supposed to provide the reason for an increased death rate in contrast to classic corona viruses that are since long time present in the human body.
However, the majority of those infected with SARS-CoV2 show mild or no symptoms. Numbers given in the literature, range from 80% up to 93%.
How does this work when the pathogen is new to the entire world population? What protects these people from the new pathogen?
"Further investigations are required."
How long is that supposed to take? On what basis have decisions been made here?
The conditions in Germany now defy description. VW, BMW, Daimler closed, automotive supplier in short-time work, temporary staff laid-off, small businesses closed, hotels and restaurants closed, schools closed, Lufthansa down, car rental closed, the first went bankrupt. Minijobs gone, people without income. The list gets longer every day. And in other countries it is the same.
And science retreats to the laboratory? How long is this supposed to take?
Are the assumptions that are currently presented still ethical science? Shouldn’t such questions not better have been clarified before switching off the world?
Virology seems to have lost all standards.
b) How does the situation in Italy really look like?
These age specific effects are supposed to be the result of a brandnew infectious agent of zoonotic origin? With a mortality that is almost exclusively restricted to people with preexisting conditions? Cf.
- ISS, “Characteristics of COVID-19 patients dying in Italy Report based on available data on March 20th, 2020”, Mar 20, 2020, https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-COVID-2019_20_marzo_eng.pdf
“The present report describes characteristics of 3200 COVID-19 patients dying in Italy* (*COVID-19 related deaths presented in this report are those occurring in patients who test positive for SARSCoV-2 RT by PCR, independently from pre-existing diseases.)”
“Mean age of patients dying for COVID-2019 infection was 78.5.”
“Women dying for COVID-2019 infection had an older age than men (median age women 82 - median age men 79).”
“Data on diseases were based on chart review and was available on 481/3200 patients dying in-hospital (15.0% of the sample). Mean number of diseases was 2.7 (median 2, SD 1.6). Overall, 1.2% of the people presented with no comorbidities, 23.5% with a single comorbidity, 26.6% with 2, and 48.6% with 3 or more, cf.”
“To date (March the 20th), 36 of 3200 (1.1%) COVID-19 positive patients under the age of 50 have died. In particular, 9 of these were younger than 40 years, 8 men and 1 woman (age range between 31 and 39 years). For 2 patients under the age of 40 years, no clinical information is available; the remaining 7 had serious pre-existing pathologies (cardiovascular, renal, psychiatric pathologies, diabetes, obesity).”
The actual situation in Spain does not look very different, cf.
- Telemadrid, “Perfil por edad del coronavirus en España: el 67% de los fallecidos tienen más de 80 año”, 22 marzo 2020, http://www.telemadrid.es/coronavirus-covid-19/Perfil-edad-coronavirus-Espana-fallecidos-0-2215578436--20200322040212.html
“De esta manera vemos, que el el 87,57% de las personas fallecidas en España, hasta el momento tenía una edad mayor a los 70 años. Mientras que el 70% de los ingresados en la UCI tenían más de 60 años.”
Are these the signs of an alone(!) dangerous infectious agent?
It's just like Dr. Wodarg says that if you hadn't measured it, nobody would have noticed this proportion in relation to the average annual numbers. But the virologists scream virus and the world is put into an artificial coma.
Now we are waiting to see whether overall mortality will increase in 2020 and whether there will be an extra contribution. Everything else is completely irrelevant. Despite all the assumptions and promises made by the virologists, it is only then that one can say with certainty whether there has been an additional death factor. The statisticians can then try to separate the stress, panic and weeks of sitting around inside.