Novel Corona Virus: Nature Strikes Back

Something you all need to read.

 

EDIT

This comment by the post’s writer was left on Bob Vella’s post where I originally saw the link to the article.

Hi Robert,

Just wanted you to know that – for a variety of reasons – I have deleted this post so you might want to delete this link as well. Thanks always for your support!

Liked by 2 people


61 thoughts on “Novel Corona Virus: Nature Strikes Back

  1. Corona Virus: “The crisis in Wuhan is only the latest instance in a long history of human abuse of animals in our lust to consume flesh.” (it seems to be spread by bat droppings… 94% confidence)

    E Coli: “Raw fruits and vegetables, such as lettuce, alfalfa sprouts, or unpasteurized apple cider or other unpasteurized juices that have come in contact with infected animal feces.” So. The crisis in Wuhan is only the latest instance in a long history of human abuse of vegetable and fruits in our lust to consume plant matter.

    I mean, come on. What’s with the ideological bent on vilifying or blaming something as if immoral and applying it to real life health concerns. Remember how that worked for AIDS?

    Like

  2. Because bats seem to be the primary distributor of the novel corona virus dropped on fruits, vegetable and meat regardless, why isn’t everyone vilifying bats?

    Bats are an essential critter in all kinds of ecological ways so I would be critical of anyone suggesting we carry out a bat pogrom. But so are people. Look at how slavishly we spend time and effort and resources grooming and caring for them. From an extraterrestrial point of view, it would look very much like plants have enslaved humans to their own nefarious ends.

    Like

    1. Yes, viruses come from many places, but bring it back to reality, Tildeb.

      Oxford Academic

      The Origin and Prevention of Pandemics, 15 June 2010

      https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/50/12/1636/305066

      Abstract
      Despite the fact that most emerging diseases stem from the transmission of pathogenic agents from animals to humans, the factors that mediate this process are still ill defined. What is known, however, is that the interface between humans and animals is of paramount importance in the process. This review will discuss the importance of the human-animal interface to the disease emergence process.

      Until cultured meat replaces all live trade, which I hope is soon, we must adopt clean, humane treatment of animals. The Chinese (many nations, sadly) seem to lack any notion of this. Have you seen the images of the wildlife in cages they had at that market?

      Like

      1. That’s not the point, JZ. The virus is mutated and developed by bats and then transmitted to humans. This has almost nothing to do with meat, so talking about nature’s revenge of eating meat is, at best, a non sequitur but to introduce some measure of morality as if relevant to this terrible health threat is a complete misdirection used by those who wish to promote a vegetarian diet at what I think is at the expense of what’s actually true.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Tildeb makes a good point in dissecting a great human problem with inflated cause.

          But the bigger picture is missed. If EVO is the grand equalizer- than what’s the problem? If ‘science’ is both the surgeon by saving lives as well as destroying them, than I say to hell with science.

          But more. You all here will never admit as to what is the true ROOT of things like this.

          Like

          1. I’m saying the piggy-backing of this virus to the eating of meat is first imported and then ideologically attached for reasons other than recognizing and then treating the disease with a medical rather than a moral response. Importing the vegan-meat issue is nothing but virtue signalling. The two have nothing to do with each other. This is the same deplorable tactic used by those who decided AIDS was an opportunity to import a moral component to condemn gays as if the disease itself were a judgement, which made the treatment of the disease qua disease far more problematic. The only difference here is replacing God’s judgement vs AIDS with Nature’s judgement vs Corona. It serves no purpose other than allow the ‘virtuous’ to sit back and tut-tut in their judgement on those considered less moral than themselves. It is a ‘woke’ tactic and just as deplorable a tactic now as then. This is a disease not of human making and that’s the important point so it’s not any kind of ‘revenge’ by nature against mankind whatsoever; it’s a frickin virus, for crying out loud, and just as indifferent to its carriers as a tsunami.

            Like

          2. I’m saying the piggy-backing of this virus to the eating of meat is first imported and then ideologically attached for reasons other than recognizing and then treating the disease with a medical rather than a moral response.

            >The problem, however is that, if we are to act in a humane manner toward animals then the way in which they are bred and raised – which is causing the problems – and slaughtered is inhumane /immoral.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. No, the problem isn’t how animals are bred and raised; the problem is about coming into contact with contagions… in this case one introduced by bat droppings. Part of the solution has to be how we come into contact with animals and the conditions in which they are more or less likely to produce a contagion. You may know, for example, you should put on a face mask and wear protective clothing around your dogs and cats, but the likelihood of you doing so is next to zero because SOME risk will always be present. That doesn’t make you a bad person for not implementing stricter health protocols when you know better. It makes you a better person overall for being concerned about the welfare of critters you care for. It doesn’t matter, to hold the analogy, if you are a dog person or a cat person and neither effects the issue of contagions by living in proximity to them.

            Like

          4. When MNT contacted the WHO for comment, their spokespeople emphasized:

            “We don’t yet know [what the specific source of 2019-nCoV was]. Researchers in China are studying this but have not yet identified a source.“

            Like

          5. True, but I was listening to an infectious disease researcher who indicated the bat genome in the virus gave high confidence to bat droppings as the source. Plus, bats don;t get the flu even when actively sick with a new virus strain. Impedes their ability to fly, apparently..

            Like

        2. That is the point, and I’m not talking about natures ‘revenge.’ Quite the opposite; man has brought this on himself by 1) conditions of animals kept for diet, 2) including wild animals in diet.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. No, any more than man has brought devastation by tsunami to his shores. This is a virus passed on by bats that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the eating of meat.

            Like

          2. Well, exactly the same way you can get e coli from lettuce. What I don’t get is this insistence that it is self-produced, that we’ve brought this on ourselves because of this that and the other practice. The world, including you inside and out, is covered with all kinds of critters. Occasionally, some of these critters can mutate into something virulent. It’s not blameworthy; it just is. Bat droppings – like e coli – can be on anything – fruit, vegetable, meat – and transference can occur without any knowledge or intention of doing so. Isolating the Chinese open air meat market and its practices and claiming THAT is the problem is not fact; it’s ideology. That’s what I’m pointing out.

            Like

          3. Just so we’re clear: Do you agree that if this market did not keep bats in filthy conditions, for human consumption, then in all likelihood we wouldn’t have this current corona outbreak?

            Like

          4. No, I don’t agree at all. The bat droppings with this novel corona virus could have come from anywhere and could have contaminated anything. That said, it does not help but rather raises the odds for such a contamination to have contact where hygiene is so poor. But that’s true throughout the world where humans and animals and birds share space. This is where various avian flu arise. This is where various swine flu arise. This is where various rodent plagues arise. Proximity without stringent hygiene produces viral mutations and then easy cross-contamination. So it’s a public health through proper and responsible hygiene issue and not a meat issue.

            This is why strict regulation is usually a priority for foods likely to come into contact with feces… because under good hygiene practices, various kinds of outbreaks still occur. The real discussion about a response policy, then, should be about control and containment and hygiene and one of the ways this has to be done is to change the practices of these kinds of magnet locations like open air markets. We used to have the same problem with central water sources and plagues so it’s not like we have to reinvent how to address it. Vilifying meat or those who eat it is just a distraction. Bats will be bats and will be attracted to anything that is easily edible or that increases populations of edible insects. And that means they will pop almost every time they take off to fly.

            Like

          5. Found this …..

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6356540/
            Although bats are known to harbor a wide variety of coronaviruses, the mechanisms for virus spillover into humans or livestock are widely unknown. There is evidence that there are seasonal fluctuations in virus replication [74,75], however, the interconnectedness of virus replication rates and virus spillover have not been explored for bats. Typically, coronaviruses found in bats have or require an intermediate host before spilling over into humans, like what is observed with MERS-CoV and camels. Unlike the amount of information available from studies of other bat viruses such as Nipah, Hendra, Ebola, and Marburg viruses, we know very little, if anything about how coronaviruses are transmitted directly to humans or if direct human transmission does not occur and spillover via an intermediate host is required.

            Like

          6. Probably? You are presuming the conclusion here, namely, that it was captured bats that introduced the virus. But we know there is 94% genetic matching with bats and that the typical transmission is through contact with feces. It’s not the bats; it’s the bat shit. That could come from any bat – wild or captive – that infests the open market especially at night, where they feed on everything from bugs to fruit to blood. Remember, any e coli contagion is the same – transmission through contact with feces – so the contaminated object doesn’t natter if it’s fruit, vegetable, or meat in the same way the corona virus spreads. If you condemned vegans for e coli outbreaks with the same willingness and gusto many people show here to assign some level of blame to meat eaters, I would not be commenting as I am. But I detect a significant bias at play here and wish to remind people that ideology – no matter how virtuous it may seem to be – is never a good replacement for reality, or building an appropriate policy response to an event like this (or the AIDS response). Morality – like religion – has no business intruding on describing reality and I think the acolytes of some ideology need to be reminded of this from time to time. The bandwagon should never be a comfortable ride.

            Like

          7. Presuming nothing. You’ve already conceded that these disease do not arise in a country like, say, Canada. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t, and many pathogens no doubt do arise in Canadian animal populations… But they do not make the jump to humans because of, well, Canada.

            No one is arguing that these diseases do not arise naturally in wild populations. What I’m saying is these diseases do not typically jump to humans in countries like Canada because of more humane, hygienic treatment of animals. These diseases do jump to humans in countries such as China due to inhumane, unhygienic treatment of animals.

            Like

          8. No, not humane treatment of animals but a much stricter sanitary control between humans and their food sources… including animals.

            Like

          9. Exactly, it’s the filthy, inhumane Chinese markets that are the principle reason for the pathogen jumping to humans.

            (And humane treatment includes sanitary conditions for the animal)

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Humane would generally equate to more hygienic.
            All animals fare better under such conditions.
            If an animal is under constant stress then this can hardly be considered hygienic.Zoos or Sea World for example.

            Consider

            Liked by 1 person

          1. Right. We don’t know how the strain mutated into bats. But, as I said, there is high confidence the bat is the transmitter and the contagion spread seems to be related to open air markets. .

            Like

    2. In WW2 the Yanks tried out live bats as a living weapon—trained ’em as incendiaries; to be liberated over Japanese housing (you know … paper houses and stuff?).

      The program was abandoned after the bats burned down the research facility and training grounds …

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Bats are plentiful – quite alive and thriving – around anything that is suitable for them. This includes open air markets. You are confusing the sale of bats as food with the bat droppings related to creating and spreading the corona virus. You don’t need dead bats being sold in an open air market for this; all you need is bat feces to contaminate anything edible in the same way e coli is transmitted by anything contaminated by feces.

    Like

      1. Various reasons… primarily because cats and dogs are the only wildlife we tend to live with (adopting was once fine but these days one must ‘rescue’ these critters to be higher in the virtue tree). They haven’t produced an effective virus against us… yet (I KNOW cats are working on this long term plan; you can see them thinking about it almost all of the time). We tend to specialize in water contamination and dump raw sewage and heavy metals, dioxins and furans into lakes we drink from and oceans we fish in. What could possibly go wrong? We also especially like to dump toxins into waterways that flow through the poorest areas and native reserves. Who knew this might have an adverse effect on human populations? But as long as we don’t use plastic straws and join in with the Birkenstock crowd to complain about meat eaters, we maintain our unparalleled virtue amongst our peers.

        Like

          1. Because it’s no such fact and so I’m conceding no such thing. The idea of holding a market itself promotes an increased likelihood of transmission as much as a person taking a city bus increases the risk of contagion. The bus is not the problem, nor is pretending the moral imperative to cycle rather than use busing offers a virtuous solution.

            Like

          2. “There’s a very large gray area between viruses detected in bats and the virus now isolated in humans,” says Vincent Munster, a virologist at the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who studies coronaviruses in bats, camels, and others species.

            Also ….

            ”It’s not just a “curious interest” to figure out what sparked the current outbreak, Daszak says. “If we don’t find the origin, it could still be a raging infection at a farm somewhere, and once this outbreak dies, there could be a continued spillover that’s really hard to stop. But the jury is still out on what the real origins of this are.”

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Ark and JZ, the linked opinion piece’s thesis was that the novel corona virus was Nature Strikes Back, as if Nature was getting even with mankind’s desire for eating meat (and the deplorable conditions many animals suffer in this entire process). Hence, the article’s ‘conclusion’ was implied that not eating meat would stop the creation of such contagions. My original comment was to replace the use of meat with the use of vegetables and fruits and deadly outbreaks not equivalently vilified in the way meat had been targeted to reveal the bias in the thinking at work.

            Like

          4. Tilde—

            Your use of “nature strikes back” comes to me as if you are anthropowotevering Nature as being an intelligence organising a campaign? Wow …

            Like

          5. Whoa there little doggy… that was the title used on the post I was criticizing. I have long argued that Nature is completely indifferent to us and to suggest intention of any kind attributed to Nature is no different that believing the universe has some hidden agency named Clifford.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. This is interesting …

        Brief Summary:
        Several human Nipah virus (NiV) outbreaks have occurred in Bangladesh since 2001with 71% case fatality. Outbreak investigations have repeatedly identified drinking fresh date palm sap as a risk factor for NiV transmission. Bats are the reservoir of NiV and infected bats can shed virus through both saliva and urine and can contaminate the raw sap. The virus can transmit to humans through ingestion of contaminated sap. To interrupt bats access to the sap, sap harvesters (gachhis) occasionally use skirts make by local materials. These skirts have been found to be effective to interrupt bats’ access to the sap. As an indirect effect of the community level skirt promotion, some people stopped drinking raw sap. When trees have skirts, bats cannot access the sap and when people do not drink sap, they are at much lower risk of contracting Nipah virus. The purpose of this study is to design, implement and evaluate behavior change interventions to prevent human consumption of NiV contaminated sap through reducing raw sap consumption from unprotected trees in a district of the NiV affected regions in Bangladesh.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. … need is bat feces to contaminate anything edible

      Has it been established that bat droppings are the source of the virus?
      I can’t find anything.

      Like

    2. The suggestion that our eating of meat is the cause of coronavirus is missing the point, that the droppings of bats (whether they are eaten or not) is the cause, and if you consider that anything a bat hits with his droppings is contaminated, then you can conflate the whole blame game to include fruit and vegetables.
      How that turns into it being ‘our fault’ for the spread of the virus is beyond me.
      Granted, the food conditions are atrocious, but the root cause of this is not us eating meat, or vegetables, but the incontinent bat. Period.
      It also means that we should not be eating anything but rice and probably not even that. now, THAT would solve far more problems than bat droppings, for sure.

      Like

      1. “There’s a very large gray area between viruses detected in bats and the virus now isolated in humans,” says Vincent Munster, a virologist at the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who studies coronaviruses in bats, camels, and others species.

        Like

  4. Can we conclude that the obvious answer (for some—damn, I’m gonna have to stop being so … sarcastic? …) is for us all to line up out there with shotguns and pop off all them bats?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. … and camels, civit cats, ducks, chickens, and pigs, too, don’t forget. This one seems to be related to bats. We do know it’s about proximity and not food so perhaps we should just shoot the people who get close to any of these critters. I’m open to suggestions…

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I notice that part of the procedure for ‘protecting outselves” is 1) sneeze into your elbow and then 2) wash your hands. That means you will have very clean hands but your wet shirt/elbow is speading virus germs everywhere unless you take off the damn shirt and wash that too…
    sigh.

    Like

    1. That procedure had to have been written by an educated person? (Us dum-dums know enough to not suppress a sneeze at all) (lest we blow our eardrums out).

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s