|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2020 1:46:51 GMT
As confirmed cases of a novel virus surge around the world with worrisome speed, all eyes have so far focused on a seafood market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the outbreak. But a description of the first clinical cases published in The Lancet on Friday challenges that hypothesis. The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases,” they state. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. “That’s a big number, 13, with no link,” says Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. Earlier reports from Chinese health authorities and the World Health Organization had said the first patient had onset of symptoms on 8 December 2019—and those reports simply said “most” cases had links to the seafood market, which was closed on 1 January. Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts. The Lancet paper’s data also raise questions about the accuracy of the initial information China provided, Lucey says. At the beginning of the outbreak, the main official source of public information were notices from the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission. Its notices on 11 January started to refer to the 41 patients as the only confirmed cases and the count remained the same until 18 January. The notices did not state that the seafood market was the source, but they repeatedly noted that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission and that most cases linked to the market. Because the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission noted that diagnostic tests had confirmed these 41 cases by 10 January and officials presumably knew the case histories of each patient, “China must have realized the epidemic did not originate in that Wuhan Huanan seafood market,” Lucey tells ScienceInsider. (Lucey also spoke about his concerns in an interview published online yesterday by Science Speaks, a project of the Infectious Disease Society of America.) Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin, says the 1 December timing of the first confirmed case was “an interesting tidbit” in The Lancet paper. “The scenario of somebody being infected outside the market and then later bringing it to the market is one of the three scenarios we have considered that is still consistent with the data,” he says. “It’s entirely plausible given our current data and knowledge.” The other two scenarios are that the origin was a group of infected animals or a single animal that came into that marketplace. Andersen posted his analysis of 27 available genomes of 2019-nCoV on 25 January on a virology research website. It suggests they had a “most recent common ancestor”—meaning a common source—as early as 1 October 2019. Bin Cao of Capital Medical University, the corresponding author of The Lancet article and a pulmonary specialist, wrote in an email to ScienceInsider that he and his co-authors “appreciate the criticism” from Lucey. “Now It seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus,” he wrote. “But to be honest, we still do not know where the virus came from now.”
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 18, 2021 4:50:15 GMT
The origin story of Covid-19 remains a mystery mired in contentious geopolitical debate. But a research paper that languished in publishing limbo for a year and a half contains meticulously collected data and photographic evidence supporting scientists’ initial hypothesis—that the outbreak stemmed from infected wild animals—which prevailed until speculation that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a nearby lab gained traction. According to the report, which was published in June in the online journal Scientific Reports, minks, civets, raccoon dogs, and other mammals known to harbor coronaviruses were sold in plain sight for years in shops across the city, including the now infamous Huanan wet market, to which many of the earliest Covid cases were traced. The data in the report was collected over 30 months by Xiao Xiao, a virologist whose roles straddled epidemiology and animal research at the government-funded Key Laboratory of Southwest China Wildlife Resources Conservation and at Hubei University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. In May 2017, Xiao began surveying 17 shops at four Wuhan markets selling live wild animals. He was trying to find the source of a tick-borne, Lyme-like disease that had spread in Hubei province years earlier. He kept up monthly visits until November 2019, when the discovery of mysterious pneumonia cases that heralded the start of the Covid pandemic brought his visits to an abrupt end. As the virus started to explode, Xiao recognized the potential significance of his data. In January of 2020, he collaborated with Zhou Zhaomin, a researcher at a wildlife resources laboratory affiliated with China’s Ministry of Education, and three seasoned scientists from the University of Oxford’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, on a manuscript that was submitted to a journal the following month. (They declined to name the publication). “We’d imagined that the journal we sent it to would say, ‘Fantastic! Of course we want these data out as quickly as we can. The World Health Organization would be absolutely thrilled to receive this information,’” says Chris Newman, a British ecologist who is one of the paper’s co-authors. But it was rejected. “They did not think it would have widespread appeal,” says Newman. Had the study been made public right away, the search for the origins of the virus might have taken a very different course. Not only did the study contain conclusive evidence that live animals were being sold for human consumption at the epicenter of the outbreak, but Newman says he assumes Xiao collected blood-sucking ticks from the wild animals he studiously cataloged. The blood meals of frozen tick samples could be examined for traces of the coronavirus, which would be extremely helpful in identifying infected species prior to December 2019. Xiao didn’t respond to emails requesting comment. In the first months of the epidemic, local researchers asserted that the new coronavirus resembled a spillover from animals, reminiscent of the emergence of the virus that caused severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in wet markets in Guangdong almost 20 years ago. They also readily acknowledged the presence of “a variety of live wild animals” at Wuhan markets.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 19, 2021 1:04:50 GMT
Animal sales from Wuhan wet markets immediately prior to the COVID-19 pandemic Xiao Xiao, Chris Newman, Christina D. Buesching, David W. Macdonald & Zhao-Min Zhou Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 11898 (2021)
Abstract Here we document 47,381 individuals from 38 species, including 31 protected species sold between May 2017 and November 2019 in Wuhan’s markets. We note that no pangolins (or bats) were traded, supporting reformed opinion that pangolins were not likely the spillover host at the source of the current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. While we caution against the misattribution of COVID-19’s origins, the wild animals on sale in Wuhan suffered poor welfare and hygiene conditions and we detail a range of other zoonotic infections they can potentially vector. Nevertheless, in a precautionary response to COVID-19, China’s Ministries temporarily banned all wildlife trade on 26th Jan 2020 until the COVID-19 pandemic concludes, and permanently banned eating and trading terrestrial wild (non-livestock) animals for food on 24th Feb 2020. These interventions, intended to protect human health, redress previous trading and enforcement inconsistencies, and will have collateral benefits for global biodiversity conservation and animal welfare.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 19, 2021 6:07:53 GMT
Introduction Alongside extensive research into the epidemiology, virology and medical treatment of SARS-CoV-2, known generally as COVID-19, it is also vital to better understand and mitigate any role that may have been played by the illegal wildlife trade (IWT) in China, in initiating this pandemic1. COVID-19 was first observed when cases of unexplained pneumonia were noted in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province, in late 20192. Like the SARS-CoV epidemic (another coronavirus, for which there is still no cure) that began in Guangdong Province in 20023, this latest coronavirus most closely resembles types found in bats4. Initial media coverage suggesting that COVID-19 may have spilled-over via pangolins has been refuted5, 6; probably pangolins are simply a natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-27,8,9 along with palm civets (Paguma larvata)10. The World Health Organization (WHO) sent an investigative team to Wuhan, from 14 January–10 February 2021, to try to retrospectively ascertain what wildlife was being sold in local wet markets in this region1. Their findings were inconclusive, with markets having been closed down completely at that point for 4 months; however, they did recommend that pangolins should be included in the search for possible natural hosts or intermediate hosts of the novel coronaviruses1. Here we present a unique and original dataset recording wild animal sales across Wuhan City’s animal markets between May 2017 and November 2019. We investigate which wildlife species (including both wild-caught and farmed non-domesticated species) were actually being sold for food and as pets, what quantities were involved, and to what extent vendors violated their trading permits. We also list zoonotic pathogens recorded in Chinese wild animal markets and/ or farms since 2009, along with broader notes on infections established for these species. We evaluate these data in the context of China’s renewed commitment to enforce and build on pre-existing laws within a culture of traditional wildlife exploitation. Finally, we make pragmatic policy recommendations for better regulating the animal trade pervasive in China, integrating with ethics, education and enforcement. Materials and methods Serendipitously, prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, over the period May 2017–Nov 2019, we were conducting unrelated routine monthly surveys of all 17 wet market shops selling live wild animals for food and pets across Wuhan City (surveys were conducted by author X.X.). This was intended to identify the source of the tick-borne (no human-to-human transmission) Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (SFTS), following an outbreak in Hubei Province in 2009–2010 in which there was an unusually high initial case fatality rate of 30%11. These shops selling live, often wild, animals included two at Baishazhou market (a large market comprising c. 400 other types of shop), seven at Huanan seafood market (c. 120 other shops), four at Dijiao outdoor pet market (c. 100 other shops), and four at Qiyimen live animal market (c. 40 other shops). Other shops sold a variety of goods, such as live and butchered livestock and poultry, dairy produce, fish, shellfish, other food- related products and domesticated pets (Fig. 1 shows the appearance of these markets upon reopening on 8th April 2020). Figure 1 (a) Huanan Seafood market, (b) Qiyimen live animal market, (c) Baishazhou market and (d) Dijiao outdoor pet market (note stray dog) photographed on 10th April 2020. As an objective observer unconnected to law enforcement X.X. was granted unique and complete access to trading practices. On each visit, vendors were asked what species they had sold over the preceding month and in what numbers, along with the prices (US$1:RMB¥6.759) and origin of these goods (wild caught or captive bred/ farmed). Additionally, to substantiate interview data, the number of individuals available for sale at the time of each visit was noted, and animals were checked for gunshot wounds (from homemade firearms—gun ownership is strictly regulated in China12) or leg-hold (snap) trap injuries, indicative of wild capture. For 15 species (3 mammals and all 12 reptiles) sold by weight, vendors did not record the number of individuals sold. In these instances, we report numbers of individuals observed to be on sale during monthly visits. In China, wild animals are state property protected by the Wild Animal Conservation Law (WACL 1988, revised in 2004, 2009, 2016 and 2018), in concert with the Criminal Law (Article 341)13. Any convicted trader of species, and/or products derived thereof, protected by China’s list of Fauna under Special State Protection (LFSSP) and/or any non-native species listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix I, II could face up to 15 years fix-term imprisonment accompanied by fines and/or the confiscation of property. Additionally, if any animal protected by China’s List of Terrestrial Wild Animals of Significant Ecological, Scientific, or Social Value Protected by the State (LESS) is taken from a wild population and traded for the purpose of food, the offender could face up to 3 years fix-term imprisonment accompanied by criminal detention, surveillance and/or fines. Correspondingly, any utilization of these protected species should be approved by the wild animal conservation and animal quarantine administrations through various regulatory schemes. We therefore also noted if vendors had necessary permits allowing them to sell livestock; specifically a License for Domestication and Breeding of Wild Animals, a License for Trade and Processing of Wild Animals and the quarantine certificate, which must be displayed to customers according to the WACL (2018), Animal Epidemic Prevention Law (2013) and Special Provisions of the State Council on Strengthening the Food Safety Supervision and Administration (2007). All protocols in the market surveys were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Hubei University of Chinese Medicine (No. 20161111). All vendors provided informed written consent to participate in these surveys, and all protocols were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 19, 2021 20:35:18 GMT
Results Animal sales from Wuhan’s markets Across all 17 shops, vendors reported total sales of 36,295 individuals, belonging to 38 terrestrial wild animal species, averaging 1170.81 individuals per month (Standard deviation (SD) = 445.01, n = 31; Table 1). Including species sold by weight inflated this total to 47,381 individuals. Notably, no pangolin or bat species were among these animals for sale.
Table 1 List of 38 species sold in Wuhan City markets between May 2017–Nov 2019, including the mean number of live individuals sold per month and price (mean ± SD; n = survey rounds). From: Animal sales from Wuhan wet markets immediately prior to the COVID-19 pandemic
Species on sale Monthly mean (and SD) number of individuals sold Price (mean ± SD) $ per individual Mammals Raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides)W,R,F,† 38.33 ± 17.24 (n = 30) 63.32 ± 15.46 (n = 5) Amur hedgehog (Erinaceus amurensis)R,F,† 332.14 ± 190.62 (n = 28) 2.66 ± 0.41 (n = 5) Siberian weasel (Mustela sibirica)W,R,F,† (10.06 ± 12.09, n = 31) 11.24 ± 3.07 (n = 5) Hog badger (Arctonyx albogularis)W,R,F,† (6.81 ± 5.37, n = 31) 72.79 ± 34.08 (n = 5) Asian badger (Meles leucurus)W,R,F,† 12.24 ± 7.39 (n = 29) 59.77 ± 15.89 (n = 5) Chinese hare (Lepus sinensis)W,R,F,† 168.96 ± 89.06 (n = 29) 16.87 ± 2.88 (n = 5) Pallas's squirrel (Callosciurus erythraeus)R,P,† 16.52 ± 4.87 (n = 23) 25.74 ± 7.59 (n = 5) Masked palm civet (Paguma larvata)F,† 10.69 ± 8.42 (n = 29) 62.73 ± 15.25 (n = 5) Chinese bamboo rat (Rhizomys sinensis)F,† 42.76 ± 20.68 (n = 29) 18.64 ± 7.58 (n = 5) Malayan porcupine (Hystrix brachyura)F,† 10.00 ± 0.00 (n = 29) 68.06 ± 14.23 (n = 5) Chinese muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi)F,† 10.00 ± 0.00 (n = 29) 142.62 ± 49.67 (n = 5) Coypu (Myocastor coypus)F 5.00 ± 0.00 (n = 29) 28.70 ± 5.08 (n = 5) Marmot (Marmota himalayana)F 15.00 ± 4.29 (n = 20) 81.37 ± 11.70 (n = 5) Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)F,† 30.00 ± 0.00 (n = 25) 60.96 ± 21.68 (n = 5) Mink (Neovison vison)F 10.37 ± 1.92 (n = 27) 34.62 ± 14.78 (n = 5) Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris)R,P,† 16.43 ± 9.51 (n = 28) 26.04 ± 8.14 (n = 5) Wild boar (Sus scrofa)W,R,F,*,† (4.17 ± 5.77, n = 29) 319.57 ± 55.95 (n = 5) Complex-toothed Flying Squirrel (Trogopterus xanthipes)F,P,† 5.17 ± 27.85 (n = 29) 28.11 ± 9.64 (n = 5) Birds Collared crow (Corvus torquatus)R,P 9.14 ± 20.18 (n = 29) 54.74 ± 8.43 (n = 5) Spotted dove (Spilopelia chinensis)R,F,† 200.00 ± 0.00 (n = 29) 7.54 ± 1.10 (n = 5) Eurasian magpie (Pica pica)R,F,P,† 21.54 ± 28.53 (n = 13) 10.21 ± 3.56 (n = 5) Crested myna (Acridotheres cristatellus)R,P,† 60.34 ± 20.61 (n = 29) 15.39 ± 16.23 (n = 5) Chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar)F,† 273.68 ± 45.24 (n = 19) 6.66 ± 1.38 (n = 5) Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus)F,† 80.00 ± 0.00 (n = 26) 14.80 ± 5.44 (n = 5) Peacock (Pavo cristatus)F,P,* 15.00 ± 0.00 (n = 15) 55.63 ± 20.33 (n = 5) Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris)F 35.00 ± 15.81 (n = 10) 12.13 ± 5.17 (n = 5) Reptiles Beauty rat snake (Orthriophis taeniurus)R,F,† (7.00 ± 10.90, n = 28) 22.78 ± 15.36 (n = 5) Red large-toothed Snake (Dinodon rufozonatum)R,F,† (7.78 ± 11.56, n = 27) 10.06 ± 4.84 (n = 5) Many-banded krait (Bungarus multicinctus)R,F,† (3.18 ± 3.32, n = 27) 11.24 ± 3.41 (n = 5) Ringed water snake (Sinonatrix annularis)R,P,† (19.00 ± 39.21, n = 29) 3.25 ± 1.24 (n = 5) Short-tailed pit viper (Gloydius brevicaudus)R,F,† (5.96 ± 10.30, n = 27) 7.84 ± 1.93 (n = 5) Chinese cobra (Naja atra)R,F,† (59.04 ± 54.93, n = 28) N/A Monocled cobra (Naja kaouthia)F,† (18.48 ± 48.50, n = 29) 20.42 ± 6.57 (n = 5) Oriental rat snake (Ptyas mucosa)F,† (11.76 ± 20.44, n = 29) 18.94 ± 3.21 (n = 5) Sharp-nosed pit viper (Deinagkistrodon acutus)F,† (3.69 ± 5.35, n = 26) 41.13 ± 16.65 (n = 5) Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis)F,* (2.07 ± 2.53, n = 27) N/A Big-eyed rat snake (Ptyas dhumnades)R,F,† (121.10 ± 138.11, n = 29) 10.36 ± 2.09 (n = 5) King rat snake (Elaphe carinata)R,F,† (104.97 ± 85.07, n = 29) N/A Individuals sourced directly from the wild were inferred from wounds (W) and/or according to vendor responses (R). Species were sold either for food (F) and/or pets (P). The permitted species listed on the vendor’s license are labelled with a * symbol. The 31 species labelled with † are protected under the LESS. Because all reptiles and 3 mammal species (Siberian weasel (Mustela sibirica), Hog badger (Arctonyx albogularis) and Wild boar (Sus scrofa)) were sold by weight, vendors did not record the number of traded individuals for these species. Therefore, we include in parenthesis the average number of individuals X.X. counted on sale on his monthly market visits. Similarly, because reptiles were priced by weight (Chinese cobra (Naja atra): $20.71 ± 4.68 (n = 5) per kg; Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis): $21.01 ± 5.38 (n = 5) per kg; King rat snake (Elaphe carinata): $21.90 ± 5.77 (n = 5) per kg), we cannot give a price per individual, and thus indicate this as N/A in the Table. Standard deviation per species reflects variation in sales per month; complete consistency (SD = 0) implies a regular supply of individuals.
Almost all animals were sold alive, caged, stacked and in poor condition (Fig. 2). Most stores offered butchering services, done on site, with considerable implications for food hygiene and animal welfare. Approximately 30% of individuals from 6 mammal species inspected (labelled W in Table 1) had suffered wounds from gunshots or traps, implying illegal wild harvesting (Table 1). Thirteen of these 17 stores clearly posted the necessary permits from Wuhan Forestry Bureau allowing them to sell legitimate wild animal species (e.g., Siamese Crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis), Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus), Common Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and Amur hedgehog (Erinaceus amurensis)) for food; four shops had no such permit. Species names were given in Chinese only, with no clear taxonomic binomial designation. None of the 17 shops posted an origin certificate or quarantine certificate, so all wildlife trade was fundamentally illegal. Notably, vendors freely disclosed a variety of protected species on sale illegally in their shops, therefore they would not benefit from specifically concealing pangolin trade or the trade in any particular species, and so we are confident this list is complete (Table 1).
|
|