[crazygringo]

> But if there is an animal reservoir of the virus in China, then how could the Chinese government ever expect a lockdown to work?

Because if people avoid contact with the animals and it's a rare type of human-animal interaction to begin with, then it doesn't spread. And if you catch it again, you lock down instantly locally again.

I'm not taking any side on the source of the virus, but I don't think the Chinese government behavior makes either option more likely. Once vaccines had been developed, the Chinese lockdown went on for way longer than reason could ever have dictated, since Covid had turned endemic in the rest of the world. The extreme lockdown was never a good example of rational health policy in any scenario, post-vaccine.

[goolulusaurs]

Sure, but don't they have a vast network of contact tracing? Presumably if a bunch of cases showed up that weren't connected to any other cases because of the lockdowns then that would be a really good indication of where the animal reservoir was located. But they haven't found the animal reservoir yet either, even with all of the lockdowns.

[MichaelZuo]

If by 'animal reservoir' you mean the intermediary pangolin, or something similar, this 'reservoir' could be as small as 1 animal if it was a spontaneous mutation. Where do you get the idea that there must be a large population of such animals roaming around?

[Teever]

Wasn't the intermediate pangolin idea also discredited as exceedingly improbable relatively early in the pandemic?

[MichaelZuo]

Can you link to a source?

[Teever]

No, I can't, that's why I'm asking a question about it.

[MichaelZuo]

As far as I can tell authoritative source has ever made an on-the-record comment along those lines. But then again it's impossible to prove a negative.