January 10th: China Not Exactly Cooperative
Per Associated Press (Jan 11) the World Health Organization went to China recently, but after a long delay:
But in a sign of Beijing’s continuing efforts to control the investigation, the team of scientists and W.H.O. employees almost immediately ran into obstacles. Two scientists were unable to enter China at the last minute and remained in Singapore because they tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, the W.H.O. said in a Twitter post. The Chinese authorities required the remaining 13 experts to undergo two weeks of quarantine in Wuhan, where the virus first emerged in late 2019.
. . . The Chinese government, notoriously wary of outside scrutiny, has repeatedly impeded the arrival of the team — and the investigation. Even in the best of circumstances, a full inquiry could take months, if not longer. The team must also navigate attempts by China to politicize the inquiry.
The article describes why it took a whole year for an investigation to start. Back in July, two WHO experts were allowed into the country, but put into two weeks of quarantine and weren't allowed to visit Wuhan. For this larger investigation, China delayed the issuance of visas.
Negotiations for the visit have long been underway. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressed disappointment last week over delays, saying that members of the international scientific team departing from their home countries had already started on their trip as part of an arrangement between WHO and the Chinese government.
January 13th: WHO Delayed Due to Members Testing Positive for Antibodies
Per the New York Times (Jan 13th) report:But in a sign of Beijing’s continuing efforts to control the investigation, the team of scientists and W.H.O. employees almost immediately ran into obstacles. Two scientists were unable to enter China at the last minute and remained in Singapore because they tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, the W.H.O. said in a Twitter post. The Chinese authorities required the remaining 13 experts to undergo two weeks of quarantine in Wuhan, where the virus first emerged in late 2019.
. . . The Chinese government, notoriously wary of outside scrutiny, has repeatedly impeded the arrival of the team — and the investigation. Even in the best of circumstances, a full inquiry could take months, if not longer. The team must also navigate attempts by China to politicize the inquiry.
The article describes why it took a whole year for an investigation to start. Back in July, two WHO experts were allowed into the country, but put into two weeks of quarantine and weren't allowed to visit Wuhan. For this larger investigation, China delayed the issuance of visas.
I'll be honest, the two week quarantine is China acting like New Zealand. The question is was this anticipated or not? I could not deduce that from the article.
January 29th: WHO Visit a Hospital
Reuters (Jan 29th) reports:
On its second day after two weeks in quarantine, the team went to Jinyintan Hospital, where doctors had collected samples from patients suffering from an unidentified pneumonia in late 2019.
. . . Team members leaving the hospital did not speak to journalists, who have been kept at a distance since the group left its quarantine hotel on Thursday.
February 2nd: WHO Visit the Wuhan Institute of Virology
Associated Press (Feb 2) reports:
The WHO team’s visit to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a highlight of their mission to gather data and search for clues as to where the virus originated and how it spread.
. . . Reporters followed the team to the high security facility, but as with past visits, there was little direct access to team members, who have given scant details of their discussions and visits thus far.
. . . The team left after around three hours without speaking to waiting journalists.
Isn't it interesting that reporters weren't allowed to speak directly with the WHO team.
February 3rd: WHO Says Chinese Provided a "High Level of Cooperation"
Associated Press (Feb 3) reports:
In an earlier tweet, zoologist and team member Peter Daszak praised Wednesday’s meetings with staff at the key Wuhan Institute of Virology, including with Deputy Director is Shi Zhengli, a virologist who worked with Daszak to track down the origins of SARS that originated in China and led to the 2003 outbreak.
. . . It is likely to take years and multiple investigations in many parts of the globe to confirm the origins of the virus because of the exhaustive research, including taking animal samples, genetic analysis and epidemiological studies required to pin down an outbreak’s animal reservoir. One possibility is that a wildlife poacher might have passed the virus to traders who carried it to Wuhan but that has yet to be proven.
January 29th: WHO Visit a Hospital
Reuters (Jan 29th) reports:
On its second day after two weeks in quarantine, the team went to Jinyintan Hospital, where doctors had collected samples from patients suffering from an unidentified pneumonia in late 2019.
. . . Team members leaving the hospital did not speak to journalists, who have been kept at a distance since the group left its quarantine hotel on Thursday.
February 2nd: WHO Visit the Wuhan Institute of Virology
Associated Press (Feb 2) reports:
The WHO team’s visit to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a highlight of their mission to gather data and search for clues as to where the virus originated and how it spread.
. . . Reporters followed the team to the high security facility, but as with past visits, there was little direct access to team members, who have given scant details of their discussions and visits thus far.
. . . The team left after around three hours without speaking to waiting journalists.
Isn't it interesting that reporters weren't allowed to speak directly with the WHO team.
February 3rd: WHO Says Chinese Provided a "High Level of Cooperation"
Associated Press (Feb 3) reports:
In an earlier tweet, zoologist and team member Peter Daszak praised Wednesday’s meetings with staff at the key Wuhan Institute of Virology, including with Deputy Director is Shi Zhengli, a virologist who worked with Daszak to track down the origins of SARS that originated in China and led to the 2003 outbreak.
. . . It is likely to take years and multiple investigations in many parts of the globe to confirm the origins of the virus because of the exhaustive research, including taking animal samples, genetic analysis and epidemiological studies required to pin down an outbreak’s animal reservoir. One possibility is that a wildlife poacher might have passed the virus to traders who carried it to Wuhan but that has yet to be proven.
Should one be concerned that the WHO put on the investigation team an individual with close ties to the Deputy Director of the laboratory being investigated? Isn't this a conflict of interest?
February 9th: Lab Leak Won't Even be an Avenue of Future Study
Associated Press (Feb 9th) reports:
Embarek, a WHO food safety and animal disease expert, said experts now consider the possibility of such a leak so improbable that it will not be suggested as an avenue of future study. But another team member, Danish scientist Thea Koelsen Fischer, told reporters that team members could not rule out the possibility of further investigation and new leads.
. . . He also noted that there were no reports of this virus in any lab anywhere before the pandemic. Liang Wannian, the head of the Chinese side, also emphasized that, saying there was no sample of it in the Wuhan institute.
February 9th: Lab Leak Won't Even be an Avenue of Future Study
Associated Press (Feb 9th) reports:
Embarek, a WHO food safety and animal disease expert, said experts now consider the possibility of such a leak so improbable that it will not be suggested as an avenue of future study. But another team member, Danish scientist Thea Koelsen Fischer, told reporters that team members could not rule out the possibility of further investigation and new leads.
. . . He also noted that there were no reports of this virus in any lab anywhere before the pandemic. Liang Wannian, the head of the Chinese side, also emphasized that, saying there was no sample of it in the Wuhan institute.
No reports of this virus in any lab anywhere before the pandemic. Did the WHO investigation team spend part of their 3 hours looking through the database or did they just trust their Chinese counterparts?
As mentioned here and here, maybe others aren't as convinced to list the possibility of a lab leak as "improbable." Is there a little conflict within the WHO: Embarek versus Fischer? I suppose that is something to keep an eye on in the future (this investigation will continue for years as reported on Feb 3rd) as the investigation progresses. If another team heads back to China, it'll be interesting to find out if Fischer is on that team.
February 12th: Lab Leak Still An Option
A few days after the WHO investigation team left China, there was a press conference in Geneva. Was the lab leak theory given a little more credibility once the team left China? Read the following from Aljazeera (Feb 12):
At a press conference in Geneva on Friday alongside mission head Peter Ben Embarek, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the team had conducted a “very important scientific exercise in very difficult circumstances”.
“Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded. Having spoken with some members of the team, I wish to confirm that all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis and studies.
“Some of that work may lie outside the remit and scope of this mission. We have always said that this mission would not find all the answers, but it has added important information that takes us closer to understanding the origins of the virus.
Interesting note that Embarek who said that the lab leak theory would not be an "avenue of future study" was sitting with the WHO director-general who contradicted him. Of course, maybe there is some wiggle room here. One might argue that Embarek was discussing what was in the "scope of this mission" while Tedros is saying that "some of that work my lie outside" of the scope.
No comments:
Post a Comment