Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by COGlory 1062 days ago
No, they're two very different things, because one involves an adaptation. Once adapted, the rules of the game for cross-species transmission events are completely different.

Or do you maintain that a combination cross-species transmission and adaptation to the new host is as common as cross-species transmission of already-adapted viruses?
1 comments
DiogenesKynikos 1062 days ago
I see that you're trying to imply that SARS-CoV-2 was pre-adapted to humans, while SARS wasn't, so this is going in a conspiracy-theory direction.

I guess the Wuhan Institute of Virology also produced a special deer-adapted version which they released into the wilds of North America, and a mink-adapted version they released on farms in Denmark, and a hamster-adapted version, and a cat-adapted version, and on and on. Both SARS and SARS-CoV-2 have shown an ability to infect a range of different species.

link
COGlory 1062 days ago
Nope, but you're doing a nice job illustrating the point I made in my very first post in this thread.
link
DiogenesKynikos 1061 days ago
You haven't made a coherent point yet. You're trying to draw a distinction between zoonosis and animal-to-human transmission. The former literally means the latter.

And then claiming that the numerous independent clusters of SARS that popped up in wild animal markets across the Pearl River Delta aren't examples of zoonosis?

link