I've posted this a couple of times, and while based mostly on my own anecdotal experience and basic research (I am not an epidemiologist), it still seems to fit the pattern of evidence gradually coming out.
There were a spike in bacterial pneumonia cases in regional Australian hospitals in the middle of summer prior to the known outbreak. I know of 1/2 dozen people (including myself) who caught some highly contagious non-flu virus and had varying symptoms. One person developed pneumonia but tested negative for both the flu and SARS-CoV-2 at the time - which was how I heard about the spike in hospitalisations.
My pet theory is that someone infected with the milder version was co-infected with the bat originated virus in Wuhan resulting in a highly contagious version that can cause COVID-19.
Whether they worked in the lab or got it from the market is a matter of debate. I'm thinking lab as the market didn't have bats and patient zero didn't go to the market, while the lab did have bats at some point. There was a serious effort to hide the evidence which makes it all the more suspicious.
There was evidence of a human-specific immune response mutation which could indicate it was neither manufactured or required an intermediary host.
What I think we have to be careful of is that the milder version doesn't provide immunity for the more dangerous one.
There were a spike in bacterial pneumonia cases in regional Australian hospitals in the middle of summer prior to the known outbreak. I know of 1/2 dozen people (including myself) who caught some highly contagious non-flu virus and had varying symptoms. One person developed pneumonia but tested negative for both the flu and SARS-CoV-2 at the time - which was how I heard about the spike in hospitalisations.
My pet theory is that someone infected with the milder version was co-infected with the bat originated virus in Wuhan resulting in a highly contagious version that can cause COVID-19.
Whether they worked in the lab or got it from the market is a matter of debate. I'm thinking lab as the market didn't have bats and patient zero didn't go to the market, while the lab did have bats at some point. There was a serious effort to hide the evidence which makes it all the more suspicious.
There was evidence of a human-specific immune response mutation which could indicate it was neither manufactured or required an intermediary host.
What I think we have to be careful of is that the milder version doesn't provide immunity for the more dangerous one.
reply