Glad to see sustained acknowledgement that both natural and lab #OriginOfCovid need to be investigated.
However, I'd like to know what exactly is the virological evidence pointing strongly towards a natural origin.
*Not ancestral origin, but the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.
However, I'd like to know what exactly is the virological evidence pointing strongly towards a natural origin.
*Not ancestral origin, but the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1537466541435912195
For those wondering why I'm differentiating between ancestral vs proximal #OriginOfCovid pls know that some experts eg @WHO SAGO recently changed the definition of origin to mean the ancestral host rather than the pathway by which a virus emerges in human.
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1535031807661559812
@WHO So when some experts say that COVID / SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic origin, they might not mean that it didn't come through a lab or research activities.
It just means that it's most likely that at some point an ancestral version of the virus was in nature.
It just means that it's most likely that at some point an ancestral version of the virus was in nature.
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1522117270612451335
I think it's very confusing for some experts to suddenly re-define the origin of a pathogen as an ancestral host rather than how it came to cause an outbreak.
In some sense, it makes their statements about the #OriginOfCovid completely meaningless.
In some sense, it makes their statements about the #OriginOfCovid completely meaningless.
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1535036073226784784
Re-defining the origin of a pathogen to mean its ancestral host, rather than how it actually caused an outbreak in human beings, might be deeply misleading because others citing these expert statements may not be aware of the dramatic change in definition.
Now, when an expert says the evidence points strongly to a natural or zoonotic origin, we unfortunately have to ask them to clarify if they mean the evidence points to an ancestor in nature or to a recent, proximal origin of the virus in the wildlife trade.
For example, if an officer pulls you over & asks how many drinks you've had. The assumption is they're asking how many drinks you've had that day. Not since you were born or if your parents also had drinks before.
It makes no sense for the definition to be changed to the latter.
It makes no sense for the definition to be changed to the latter.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
