|
|
|
|
|
by andromeduck
2253 days ago
|
|
This market is not known to have sold bats and by all accounts it did not. Consuming bats is a southern thing not a central thing. Your theory also doesn't along with the evidence, that the first known cases had a significant population with no known connection to the market, 27 with connection, 14 without; and that other than the market there are no other obvious connections. If it were just some hawker you'd expect a much stronger connection to the market. And over a longer period. |
|
Do we know that bats are the only (or only likely) nonhuman host? Was there a significant population of cases with a known connection to the lab?