[jkqwzsoo]

> The claim is the virus originated from a wet market where animals like bats sold for food, so it’s not inaccurate to suggest it was transmitted by bats meant for human consumption.

It absolutely is. You don't have any evidence for this, just speculation. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it "most probably" (as the commenter above suggested, linking to a source)? No, there's no evidence cited that the disease was spread by eating bats in the article.

So yes, it is inaccurate to make a claim, and then cite a source which doesn't make that claim, without making it clear that you're just speculating, and have no actual information to add.

[jules-jules]

It's been reported that there are tv shows in China where bats are eaten [1] Not a great source but it links to official China Gov sources.

[1] https://www.zerohedge.com/health/chinese-government-forces-t...

[KozmoNau7]

Zero Hedge is not a reliable source, especially not for anything concerning foreigners or foreign countries.

[jules-jules]

Does official information relayed through somewhat unreliable sources invalidate the quality of said information?

[sezna]

I did not see any links to any official government documents on that page. Indeed, I saw very little attribution for many claims. The article is fraught with cultural bias against China, and additionally, I noticed multiple misleading remarks.

Starting from the title. The “TV show” the article refers to was actually just an internet video post. Additionally, this was a one-off event from 2016, and it caused outrage and she was forced to publicly apologize[1]. In many places, the Zerohedge author implies it is a current event, stating:

> The video shows the woman breaking apart the corpse of a boiled bat, dipping its wing in sauce and eating it.

> Meanwhile, the scale of the coronavirus outbreak continues to escalate.

This is clearly misleading. Additionally, the description of the bat’s “corpse” is reminiscent of PETA writing about meat farms. I suspect this writing style only appears when the author is projecting a bias.

Next, the first photo featuring a girl holding a bat has a Chinese caption. Below this Chinese caption is an English caption, somewhat loosely implying a translation. This English caption mentions eating bats as a commonplace event in China. Not only is this fact itself debatable, but it does not translate any part of the Chinese caption, which roughly says “As the Coronavirus news spreads, the news about bats containing lots of viruses is once again garnering attention.”

Next, there is a lengthy Chinese tweet quoted. The English of the article does not reference the content of this tweet a single time, instead appearing to imply that it supports whatever claims he is making and assuming the reader will not understand the tweet. The tweet itself says that, loosely, research has found that bats could be the source of the coronavirus and this older bat eating video is once again making the social media rounds, prompting another public apology from the woman in the video. The article says, directly preceding the quote: > The woman featured in the clip took to social media to profusely apologize for her role in encouraging the consumption of bats and encouraged everyone to start washing their hands more.

Indeed tangential, but not related.

Essentially every claim in the article is unsourced and largely unsubstantiated, and it paints the Chinese in a very negative light, with many heavily prejudiced and vulgar portrayals of China and Chinese food. So, in this case, yes this article is invalid.

On top of all of this, you took the invalid claim that a tv show featured a bat being eaten and turned it into “bats are eaten on tv, commonly”. This is disingenuous on your part, on top of an already disingenuous source.

[1] remember when Ozzy ate a bat’s head on stage?

[jules-jules]

I appreciate you taking time to respond to the article - which is indeed rubbish.

However, I would think it fairly uncontroversial, and readily provable, that bat meat is indeed eaten in China [1]- which is the claim that I was making earlier. Personally, I wouldn't claim at this point in time that the virus originated from bats or other animals - although it is certainly possible.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=bat+soup+delicacy+china&sour...

[jkqwzsoo]

So to

> It absolutely is. You don't have any evidence for this, just speculation. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it "most probably" (as the commenter above suggested, linking to a source)? No, there's no evidence cited that the disease was spread by eating bats in the article.

You replied

> It's been reported that there are tv shows in China where bats are eaten [1] Not a great source but it links to official China Gov sources.

But later stated

> However, I would think it fairly uncontroversial, and readily provable, that bat meat is indeed eaten in China [1]- which is the claim that I was making earlier.

Effectively, what you've said then was entirely a non-sequitur to what I was discussing, which was the specific claim about whether or not there is enough evidence (presented here, anyway) to claim that bat consumption is the "most probable" cause of the disease, or even if consumption at all will be linked to the disease (rather than proximity/hygiene).

In fact, you later stated that you agree with my point.

> Personally, I wouldn't claim at this point in time that the virus originated from bats or other animals - although it is certainly possible.

[sezna]

This claim is invalid. See my response here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22151968

[tempsy]

It came from a wet market for exotic meats. If it wasn’t a bat it was some other animal that was illegally trafficked and shouldn’t have been sold for consumption.

[jkqwzsoo]

> It came from a wet market for exotic meats. If it wasn’t a bat it was some other animal that was illegally trafficked and shouldn’t have been sold for consumption.

And this has what to do about making specific claims without evidence? With passing off sources as supporting your claims when they make no such claim?

[moulei]

https://time.com/5770904/wuhan-coronavirus-wild-animals/

Several media outlets have confirmed that the "seafood market" actually sells a wide variety of wildlife meat

And a reference pic in Chinese here On this board, it says "Wildfowl Market". They put a price on some meats, including Masked palm civet, which suspected to be the intermediate host of the disease.

https://www.6parknews.com/newspark/view.php?app=news&act=vie...

[jkqwzsoo]

> Several media outlets have confirmed that the "seafood market" actually sells a wide variety of wildlife meat

I'm sorry, but as I've said numerous times, the specific claim that I was disputing was that the commenter above claimed that they had an article stating that bat consumption was the "most probable". In fact, the article you linked specifically says what I'm saying. Namely, don't speculate!

> The West Blames the Wuhan Coronavirus on China’s Love of Eating Wild Animals. The Truth Is More Complex

Wonder what this could mean?

> The 2002-2003 SARS pandemic was eventually traced to civet cats sold in a similar style of wet market in southern Guandong province, and some foreign tabloids are circulating unsubstantiated claims that the Wuhan coronavirus originated from everything from bat soup to eating rats and live wolf pups.

This certainly doesn't sound like Time magazine is speculating that bat consumption is the "most probable" cause to me.

> However, Adam Kamradt-Scott, associate professor specializing in global health security at the University of Sydney, says this way of thinking is often flawed. While scientists first thought that Ebola started with the consumption of bat meat in a village of south-eastern Guinea, they now believe that the two-year-old girl known as Child Zero was likely infected via bat droppings that contaminated an object she put in her mouth. MERS was also primarily spread from live camels to humans through association, rather than the eating of camel meat.

This, rather, seems to support my claim that we shouldn't speculate on things that we don't have any information or expertise about.

[tempsy]

That is a fact that has been reported by dozens of news outlets. The market in question has been shut down.

[jkqwzsoo]

Once again, the claim was:

> From what I've read it came from bats. Most probably bats being eaten.[1]

This claim is not found in

> 1. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xgqy3n/scientists-now-thi...

Simple as that.

[tempsy]

There are more news outlets reporting this fact than Vice. I’m commenting on the actual facts not the legitimacy of whatever source OP decided to cite.

[beaunative]

Facts in this case can only be reached through consensus of the scientific community. Journalism can only confirm so far as to when who did what, they simply don’t possess the professional knowledge to assert the truthfulness of a scientific theory.