It's not, in fact, puzzling that research was being done on bat viruses in a place where such viruses are prevalent in bats and then such a virus naturally arose.
https://twitter.com/NYMag/status/1346084610292256769
The obnoxious thing about this article is that you don't even need that much pragmatic knowledge to identify this underlying logic as ridiculous.
-People study viruses in places where zoologic viruses are potentially prevalent & human-animal contact is frequent. These factors indicate the potential for an emergent novel virus
-A novel virus occurred in the environment in which it was *predicted* to probably occur
-A novel virus occurred in the environment in which it was *predicted* to probably occur
**What are the odds?**
The odds are that scientists understand zoologic viruses and then study them in places where they occur and then viruses end up transferring from animals to humans in those same places.
The odds are that scientists understand zoologic viruses and then study them in places where they occur and then viruses end up transferring from animals to humans in those same places.
Just realized I repeatedly tweeted "zoologic" when I meant "zoonotic." Embarrassment aside, my points still stand!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
