• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Government has imposed Code Red measures without calling the situation Code Red

from yahoo.com:

HSA approves Pfizer COVID vaccine storage in fridge for up to 31 days​


SINGAPORE — The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine can now be stored at refrigerator temperature for up to 31 days, following approval from the Health Sciences Authority (HSA).

"This will greatly facilitate the transportation and local distribution of this vaccine to vaccination centres, as well as their storage and use at the centres," said HSA. The approval last Thursday (20 May) came after HSA conducted a "thorough review" of the application and supplemental data submitted by Pfizer.

The agency, which serves as the national regulator for health products, determined that the thawed, undiluted COVID‐19 vaccine remains stable when stored at standard refrigerator temperatures (2 to 8 degrees Celsius) for 31 days.

The long-term storage of the vaccine remains at minus 70 degrees Celsius.

Last December, HSA approved the Pfizer vaccine's long-term storage at minus 70 degrees Celsius, and temporary storage after thawing at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for up to five days.

On 25 February this year, HSA authorised the vaccine's storage at standard freezer temperature (minus 20 degrees Celsius) for up to two weeks.
 
from yahoo.com:

HSA approves Pfizer COVID vaccine storage in fridge for up to 31 days​


SINGAPORE — The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine can now be stored at refrigerator temperature for up to 31 days, following approval from the Health Sciences Authority (HSA).

"This will greatly facilitate the transportation and local distribution of this vaccine to vaccination centres, as well as their storage and use at the centres," said HSA. The approval last Thursday (20 May) came after HSA conducted a "thorough review" of the application and supplemental data submitted by Pfizer.

The agency, which serves as the national regulator for health products, determined that the thawed, undiluted COVID‐19 vaccine remains stable when stored at standard refrigerator temperatures (2 to 8 degrees Celsius) for 31 days.

The long-term storage of the vaccine remains at minus 70 degrees Celsius.

Last December, HSA approved the Pfizer vaccine's long-term storage at minus 70 degrees Celsius, and temporary storage after thawing at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for up to five days.

On 25 February this year, HSA authorised the vaccine's storage at standard freezer temperature (minus 20 degrees Celsius) for up to two weeks.
heng ah i take liao
i wonder efficacy will be affected
 
from msn.com:

Paul Tambyah: Cleaner infected at SHN facility likely to have got Covid through a contaminated surface​


1622134641708.png


Singapore— The 53-year-old cleaner working at stay-home notice facilities identified as the likely source of the Covid-19 community cluster at Westgate and Jem malls in Jurong East might have touched a contaminated surface. That’s how she might have been infected with the virus, says Dr Paul Ananth Tambyah.


Infectious disease expert Dr Tambyah, who is also the Singapore Democratic Party chairman, is quoted as saying this in an article in The Straits Times.

According to Dr Tambyah, the cleaner was not likely to have had direct contact with the people serving stay-home notices where she worked.

So, she could have been infected by either airborne or surface transmission of the virus.

Transmissions via respiratory droplets are considered the most common source of Covid-19 infections, hence the need to wear a mask over one’s nose and mouth.

However, recent studies have made the case for airborne transmissions as well, as evidenced by a recent article in British medical journal The Lancet, as well as announcements from the World Health Organisation and the United States’ Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr Tambyah, president of the Asia Pacific Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infection, explained that the cleaner could have been infected either way, but is inclined to believe it was a case of surface transmission.

“Those in the first camp would assume that the infected person could have been coughing and the virus was carried through the air and the poor cleaner ended up breathing it in, even though she was wearing a surgical mask. The assumption is that the mask, if worn properly, still failed to block out very small virus particles,” Dr Tambyah is quoted by ST as saying.

But he pointed out that, as part of their job, cleaners do come into contact with very dirty surfaces, including toilets, which could have been the source of transmission.

However, he admitted that how Covid-19 is transmitted is still a subject of debate.”The mode of transmission is something which we have been debating for one year and we still haven’t come to a conclusive answer.”

Dr Alex Cook, vice-dean of research at the NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, is also quoted in the article as saying that lapses in personal hygiene occur and could have led to the infection.

“It is quite impossible for rules to be adhered to strictly 100 per cent. The index case could have taken off her mask to rub her nose after touching a surface and that could have resulted in her getting infected,” he said.
 
from msn.com:

Paul Tambyah: Cleaner infected at SHN facility likely to have got Covid through a contaminated surface​


View attachment 112073

Singapore— The 53-year-old cleaner working at stay-home notice facilities identified as the likely source of the Covid-19 community cluster at Westgate and Jem malls in Jurong East might have touched a contaminated surface. That’s how she might have been infected with the virus, says Dr Paul Ananth Tambyah.


Infectious disease expert Dr Tambyah, who is also the Singapore Democratic Party chairman, is quoted as saying this in an article in The Straits Times.

According to Dr Tambyah, the cleaner was not likely to have had direct contact with the people serving stay-home notices where she worked.

So, she could have been infected by either airborne or surface transmission of the virus.

Transmissions via respiratory droplets are considered the most common source of Covid-19 infections, hence the need to wear a mask over one’s nose and mouth.

However, recent studies have made the case for airborne transmissions as well, as evidenced by a recent article in British medical journal The Lancet, as well as announcements from the World Health Organisation and the United States’ Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr Tambyah, president of the Asia Pacific Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infection, explained that the cleaner could have been infected either way, but is inclined to believe it was a case of surface transmission.

“Those in the first camp would assume that the infected person could have been coughing and the virus was carried through the air and the poor cleaner ended up breathing it in, even though she was wearing a surgical mask. The assumption is that the mask, if worn properly, still failed to block out very small virus particles,” Dr Tambyah is quoted by ST as saying.

But he pointed out that, as part of their job, cleaners do come into contact with very dirty surfaces, including toilets, which could have been the source of transmission.

However, he admitted that how Covid-19 is transmitted is still a subject of debate.”The mode of transmission is something which we have been debating for one year and we still haven’t come to a conclusive answer.”

Dr Alex Cook, vice-dean of research at the NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, is also quoted in the article as saying that lapses in personal hygiene occur and could have led to the infection.

“It is quite impossible for rules to be adhered to strictly 100 per cent. The index case could have taken off her mask to rub her nose after touching a surface and that could have resulted in her getting infected,” he said.

Dr Tambyah is a well respected doctor in the field of infectious diseases. :thumbsup:
 
from msn.com:

Covid-19 vaccine effective against B.1.617.2 variant after second shot, shows UK study​


The UK — Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines protect against the B.1.617.2 variant of Covid-19 after the second dose. This was found in a recent study by Public Health England.

A group of 21 researchers across five medical organisations in the UK carried out the study.

Their research showed that no matter whether one takes Pfizer or AstraZeneca, one has to have two doses. For both the vaccines are significantly more effective after the second shot.

The study also found that two doses of either vaccine are just as effective at protecting against the B.1.1.7 variant, which first emerged in the UK.

Conducted between April and May, the research found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 88 per cent effective against symptomatic disease from the B.1.617.2 Covid variant two weeks after the second dose. The vaccine also proved to be 93 per cent effective against the B.1.1.7 variant two weeks after the second dose.

“It is likely that vaccine effectiveness against more severe disease outcomes will be greater, wrote the authors of the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

UK Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock praised the study as “groundbreaking”, noting the study “shows how important the secnd dose is to secure the strongest protection against Covid-19”.
 
from msn.com:

Covid-19 vaccine effective against B.1.617.2 variant after second shot, shows UK study​


The UK — Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines protect against the B.1.617.2 variant of Covid-19 after the second dose. This was found in a recent study by Public Health England.

A group of 21 researchers across five medical organisations in the UK carried out the study.

Their research showed that no matter whether one takes Pfizer or AstraZeneca, one has to have two doses. For both the vaccines are significantly more effective after the second shot.

The study also found that two doses of either vaccine are just as effective at protecting against the B.1.1.7 variant, which first emerged in the UK.

Conducted between April and May, the research found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 88 per cent effective against symptomatic disease from the B.1.617.2 Covid variant two weeks after the second dose. The vaccine also proved to be 93 per cent effective against the B.1.1.7 variant two weeks after the second dose.

“It is likely that vaccine effectiveness against more severe disease outcomes will be greater, wrote the authors of the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

UK Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock praised the study as “groundbreaking”, noting the study “shows how important the secnd dose is to secure the strongest protection against Covid-19”.

Moderna should be making their case quite soon. :wink:
 
from msn.com:

Covid-19 vaccine effective against B.1.617.2 variant after second shot, shows UK study​


The UK — Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines protect against the B.1.617.2 variant of Covid-19 after the second dose. This was found in a recent study by Public Health England.

A group of 21 researchers across five medical organisations in the UK carried out the study.

Their research showed that no matter whether one takes Pfizer or AstraZeneca, one has to have two doses. For both the vaccines are significantly more effective after the second shot.

The study also found that two doses of either vaccine are just as effective at protecting against the B.1.1.7 variant, which first emerged in the UK.

Conducted between April and May, the research found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 88 per cent effective against symptomatic disease from the B.1.617.2 Covid variant two weeks after the second dose. The vaccine also proved to be 93 per cent effective against the B.1.1.7 variant two weeks after the second dose.

“It is likely that vaccine effectiveness against more severe disease outcomes will be greater, wrote the authors of the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

UK Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock praised the study as “groundbreaking”, noting the study “shows how important the secnd dose is to secure the strongest protection against Covid-19”.

If the vaccines are not more effective after the second shot, why take the second shot? :rolleyes::eek::biggrin:
 
from yahoo.com:

Can people vaccinated against COVID-19 still spread the coronavirus?​


Takeaways:

  • Vaccines can be great at preventing you from getting sick, while at the same time not necessarily stopping you from getting infected or spreading the germ.
  • Preliminary evidence seems to suggest the COVID-19 vaccines make it less likely someone who’s vaccinated will transmit the coronavirus, but the proof is not yet ironclad.
  • Unvaccinated people should still be diligent about mask-wearing, physical distancing and other precautions against the coronavirus.
When the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed its guidelines about mask-wearing on May 13, 2021, plenty of Americans were left a little confused. Now anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physical distancing.

Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Biden, said the new guideline is “based on the evolution of the science” and “serves as an incentive” for the almost two-thirds of Americans who are not yet fully vaccinated to go ahead and get the shot.


But some people cannot be vaccinated because of underlying conditions. Others with weakened immune systems, from cancer or medical treatments, may not be fully protected by their vaccinations. Children aged 12 to 15 became eligible for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine only on May 10, 2021. And no COVID-19 vaccines are yet authorized for the nearly 50 million children in the U.S. younger than 12.

As restrictions are lifted and people start to leave their masks at home, some people worry: Can you catch COVID-19 from someone who’s vaccinated?

Vaccines don’t always prevent infection​

Researchers had hoped to design safe COVID-19 vaccines that would prevent at least half of the people vaccinated from getting COVID-19 symptoms.

Fortunately, the vaccines have vastly outperformed expectations. For example, in 6.5 million residents of Israel, aged 16 years and older, the Pfizer–BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was found to be 95.3% effective after both shots. Within two months, among the 4.7 million fully vaccinated, the detectable infections fell by 30-fold. Similarly in California and Texas, only 0.05% of fully vaccinated health care workers tested positive for COVID-19.

Vaccine developers often hope that, in addition to preventing illness, their vaccines will achieve “sterilizing immunity,” where the vaccination blocks the germ from even being able to get into the body at all. This sterilizing immunity means someone who’s vaccinated will neither catch the virus nor transmit it further. For a vaccine to be effective, though, it doesn’t need to prevent the germ from infecting an immunized person.

The Salk inactivated polio vaccine, for instance, does not completely stop polio virus from growing in the human gut. But it is extremely effective at preventing the crippling disease because it triggers antibodies that block the virus from infecting the brain and spinal cord. Good vaccines provide effective and durable training for the body’s immune system, so when it actually encounters the disease-causing pathogen, it’s ready to mount an optimum response.

When it comes to COVID-19, immunologists are still figuring out what they call the “correlates of protection,” factors that predict just how protected someone is against the coronavirus. Researchers believe that an optimum amount of “neutralizing antibodies,” the type that not only bind the virus but also prevent it from infecting, are sufficient to fend off repeat infections. Scientists are also still assessing the durability of immunity that the COVID-19 vaccines are providing and where in the body it’s working.

Can a vaccinated person spread coronavirus?​

Immunologists expect vaccines that protect against viral illnesses to also reduce transmission of the virus after vaccination. But it’s actually tricky to figure out for sure if vaccinated people are not spreading the germ.

COVID-19 poses a particular challenge because people with asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections can spread the disease – and insufficient contact tracing and testing mean those without symptoms are rarely detected. Some scientists estimate that the number of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections in the overall population could be 3 to 20 times higher than the number of confirmed cases. Research suggests that undocumented cases of COVID-19 in people who either were asymptomatic or experienced very mild disease could be responsible for up to 86% of all infections, though other studies contradict the high estimates.

In one study, the CDC tested volunteer health care personnel and other front-line workers at eight U.S. locations for SARS-CoV-2 infections weekly for three months, regardless of symptoms or vaccination status. The researchers found that fully immunized participants were 25 times less likely to test positive for COVID-19 than were those who were unvaccinated. Findings like this imply that if vaccinated people are so well protected from getting infected at all, they are also unlikely to spread the virus. But without contact tracing to track transmission in a larger population, it’s impossible to know if the assumption is true.

What we know for sure is that if someone does get sick with COVID-19 after vaccination, in what is called a “breakthrough infection,” symptoms will be milder. Studies have found that people who tested positive for COVID-19 after getting just their first vaccine dose had lower levels of virus in their bodies than unvaccinated people who tested positive. The researchers believe the decreased viral load hints that vaccinated people who do contract the virus will be less infectious because they will have much less virus that could be spread to others.

A preprint study which has not yet been peer-reviewed suggests that the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine can produce coronavirus-fighting antibodies in the oral and nasal fluid. Since that’s where SARS-CoV-2 makes its entry, antibodies in the mouth and nose should block the virus from getting into the body, effectively providing “sterilizing immunity.” This would also mean vaccinated people probably wouldn’t spread the virus through respiratory droplets.

These bits of evidence are promising. But without more studies, scientists cannot yet conclude that COVID-19 vaccines really do protect against all transmission. Studies attempting to directly answer this question through contact tracing are just beginning: Researchers will track COVID-19 infections among vaccinated and unvaccinated volunteers and their close contacts.

Protection and prevention go hand in hand​

Vaccines help slow down the spread of an infectious disease by breaking the chain of infection. Those who are infected eventually have fewer and fewer unprotected people to pass the virus on to. This is how a vaccine increases herd immunity – susceptible and not-yet-immunized people are surrounded by a “herd” of people who have become immune, thanks to vaccination or previous infection. But studies suggest that, for a combination of biological and social reasons, vaccination alone is unlikely to achieve herd immunity against COVID-19 and fully contain the coronavirus.

In fact, vaccination alone can take a long time to eradicate any disease. Even diseases that are nearly “eliminated” – such as chickenpox, measles and pertussis – can resurface with waning immunity and declining vaccine rates.

The recent outbreak of infections among the vaccinated New York Yankees shows that vaccinated people not only can still get infected, they might also transmit the coronavirus to close contacts. Highly tested groups, such as professional sports teams, spotlight the fact that mild, asymptomatic infections among the vaccinated in the general population might actually be more frequent than reported. A similar outbreak in airport workers in Singapore shows that, even among the fully vaccinated, new and more infectious variants can spread fast.

The CDC’s relaxed guidelines on masking are meant to reassure vaccinated people that they are safe from serious illness. And they are. But the picture is less clear-cut for the unvaccinated who interact with them. Until near herd immunity against COVID-19 is achieved, and clear evidence accumulates that vaccinated people do not spread the virus, I and many epidemiologists believe it is better to avoid situations where there are chances to get infected. Vaccination coupled with continued masking and social distancing is still an effective way to stay safer.
 
from msn.com:

Surge in Covid-19 swab tests; expect delays in receiving results, say lab officials​


Singapore – Those waiting for Covid-19 swab test results may experience delays as the number of swabs sent daily for laboratory testing has surged, according to Parkway Laboratories chief executive Daniel Tan.

The daily average number of swabs sent in the past two weeks has almost doubled from a month ago, said Mr Tan in a Straits Times report on Thursday (May 27).

Although Mr Tan did not reveal the figures as they were deemed confidential, he noted that machines processing the swabs are operating at full capacity.


Lab technicians have also been working 16-18 hours daily the last two weeks, said Mr Tan. Some offer to return on their rest days.

“This has been the busiest I’ve been since I joined in 2017. It’s even busier than the first wave last year as we did not have as much testing capacity then,” said Mr Tan.

Functioning under IHH Healthcare Singapore, Parkway Laboratories is in charge of processing swab tests for more than 200 general practitioner clinics, four IHH Healthcare hospitals, selected nursing homes, prisons and migrant worker dormitories.

Independent laboratories such as Innoquest Diagnostics are also experiencing a surge in swab test submissions, resulting in delays for even the most urgent cases, reported ST.

The lab has received an average of 15,000 to 20,000 swab tests daily since May 17, an increase from the 5,000 to 7,000 swab tests received in April.

Innoquest Diagnostics covers Covid-19 swab test processing for 500 general practitioner clinics, a few private and public hospitals as well as swabbing sites.

As a result, clinically urgent cases may experience a six-to-12-hour delay on results, said the lab’s chief executive Ginny Foo. Results for less urgent cases may take up to 24 hours compared to the usual 12-hour processing time.

Laboratories told ST that they are acquiring more machines and hiring more staff to meet the increased workload.
 
from msn.com:

Surge in Covid-19 swab tests; expect delays in receiving results, say lab officials​


Singapore – Those waiting for Covid-19 swab test results may experience delays as the number of swabs sent daily for laboratory testing has surged, according to Parkway Laboratories chief executive Daniel Tan.

The daily average number of swabs sent in the past two weeks has almost doubled from a month ago, said Mr Tan in a Straits Times report on Thursday (May 27).

Although Mr Tan did not reveal the figures as they were deemed confidential, he noted that machines processing the swabs are operating at full capacity.


Lab technicians have also been working 16-18 hours daily the last two weeks, said Mr Tan. Some offer to return on their rest days.

“This has been the busiest I’ve been since I joined in 2017. It’s even busier than the first wave last year as we did not have as much testing capacity then,” said Mr Tan.

Functioning under IHH Healthcare Singapore, Parkway Laboratories is in charge of processing swab tests for more than 200 general practitioner clinics, four IHH Healthcare hospitals, selected nursing homes, prisons and migrant worker dormitories.

Independent laboratories such as Innoquest Diagnostics are also experiencing a surge in swab test submissions, resulting in delays for even the most urgent cases, reported ST.

The lab has received an average of 15,000 to 20,000 swab tests daily since May 17, an increase from the 5,000 to 7,000 swab tests received in April.

Innoquest Diagnostics covers Covid-19 swab test processing for 500 general practitioner clinics, a few private and public hospitals as well as swabbing sites.

As a result, clinically urgent cases may experience a six-to-12-hour delay on results, said the lab’s chief executive Ginny Foo. Results for less urgent cases may take up to 24 hours compared to the usual 12-hour processing time.

Laboratories told ST that they are acquiring more machines and hiring more staff to meet the increased workload.

This machine may replace swab tests. :coffee:

1622298244489.png
 
from yahoo.com:

Get vaccinated in Hong Kong, win US$1.4 million new apartment​


(Bloomberg) — Hong Kong developers are offering a US$1.4 million apartment as a prize for residents who have been vaccinated for COVID-19, as local authorities grapple with widespread reluctance to get inoculated.

Sino Group’s philanthropic arm Ng Teng Fong Charitable Foundation and Chinese Estates Holdings Ltd. are offering a brand-new apartment in their Grand Central project in the Kwun Tong area, the companies said in a statement Friday.

Hong Kong residents who have received two vaccine doses are eligible for the draw to win the 449 square-foot (42 square-metre) unit. Sino Group is the parent of Hong Kong-listed developer Sino Land Co.

The latest move comes after the government said it was studying options including donations for unused vaccine doses, some of which are set to expire as soon as August. Authorities have said that the surplus could hurt future procurement of shots.

Hong Kong’s government has been working to encourage residents to get their shots by providing policy incentives like reopening bars and shortening quarantines. Still, Chief Executive Carrie Lam this week rejected the call for any cash or in-kind incentives to boost the local inoculation rate amid high demand for vaccinations around the world.

Despite being one of the few places in the world to make vaccines available to all adults, only 12.6% of the population of 7.5 million has been fully inoculated, according to Bloomberg’s Covid-19 Vaccine Tracker — far behind neighbouring financial hub Singapore at 28.3%.

A free apartment is bound to be attractive in Hong Kong, which has the world’s most expensive property prices. Private residential values climbed to a 21-month high in April, government figures show.

Parts of the U.S. have set up lotteries to entice people to get shots. New York, Ohio, Maryland, Kentucky and Oregon have offered lucky draws for vaccinated residents.
 
I want to know whether you would be infected if an infected person farted and if u accidentally sniffed his fart.
 
I want to know whether you would be infected if an infected person farted and if u accidentally sniffed his fart.

Depends on whether you are wearing a mask and whether both of you have been vaccinated. :wink:
 
from yahoo.com:

Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously​


Nearly a year and a half since Covid-19 was detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan, the question of how the virus first emerged remains a mystery.

But in recent weeks the controversial claim that the pandemic might have leaked from a Chinese laboratory - once dismissed by many as a fringe conspiracy theory - has been gaining traction.

Now, US President Joe Biden has announced an urgent investigation that will look into the theory as a possible origin of the disease.

So what do we know about the competing theories - and why does the debate matter?

What is the lab-leak theory?​

It's a suspicion that the coronavirus may have escaped, accidentally or otherwise, from a laboratory in the central Chinese city of Wuhan where the virus was first recorded.

Its supporters point to the presence of a major biological research facility in the city. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has been studying coronaviruses in bats for over a decade.

The laboratory is located just a few kilometres from the Huanan wet market where the first cluster of infections emerged in Wuhan.

Those who support the theory say it could have leaked from this facility and spread to the wet market.

Most argue it would have been an unaltered virus collected from the wild, rather than engineered.

The controversial theory first emerged early on in the pandemic, and was promoted by then-US President Donald Trump. Some even suggested it could have been engineered as a possible biological weapon.

While many in the media and politics dismissed these as conspiracy theories at the time, others called for more consideration of the possibility. Nevertheless, the idea resurfaced in recent weeks.

So why has it come up again?​

Because reports swirling around the US media have raised fresh concerns over the lab-leak theory. And some scientists who were once sceptical of the idea have expressed fresh openness to it.

A classified US intelligence report - saying three researchers at the Wuhan laboratory were treated in hospital in November 2019, just before the virus began infecting humans in the city - began circulating in US media this week.

But it was reported the Biden administration had shut down a US state department investigation, set up by President Trump, into the lab-leak theory.

"That possibility certainly exists, and I am totally in favour of a full investigation of whether that could have happened," Anthony Fauci, President Biden's chief medical adviser, told the US senate committee on 11 May.

President Biden now says he asked for a report on the origins of Covid-19 after taking office, "including whether it emerged from human contact with an infected animal or from a laboratory accident".

On Tuesday, Mr Trump sought to take credit for the renewed interest in an emailed statement to the New York Post. "To me it was obvious from the beginning but I was badly criticised, as usual," he said. "Now they are all saying: 'He was right.'"

What do scientists think?​

The issue is still being hotly contested.

A World Health Organization (WHO) investigation was supposed to get to the bottom of it, but many experts believed it produced more questions than answers.

A team of WHO-appointed scientists flew to Wuhan earlier this year on a mission to investigate the source of the pandemic. After spending 12 days there, which included a visit to the laboratory, the team concluded the lab-leak theory was "extremely unlikely".

But many have since questioned their findings.

A prominent group of scientists criticised the WHO report for not taking the lab-leak theory seriously enough - it was dismissed in a few pages of a several-hundred-page report.

"We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data," the scientists wrote in Science Magazine.

And there is growing consensus among experts that the laboratory leak should be looked at more closely.

Even the WHO's own director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has called for a new investigation, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study."

And Dr Fauci now says he's "not convinced" the virus originated naturally. That's a shift from a year ago, when he thought it most likely Covid had spread from animals to humans.

What does China make of this?​

China has hit back at suggestions the virus may have escaped from a laboratory by calling it a smear, and it has suggested the coronavirus may have have entered the country in food shipments from another country.

The Chinese government points to new research published by one of its leading virologists into samples collected from bats in a remote abandoned mine.

Prof Shi Zhengli - often referred to as "China's Batwoman" - a researcher at the Wuhan Institute, published a report last week revealing that her team had identified eight coronavirus strains found on bats in the mine in China in 2015. The paper says that coronaviruses from pangolins pose more of an immediate threat to human health than the ones her team found in the mine.

China's state media have accused the US government and Western media of spreading rumours.

"The public opinion in the US has become extremely paranoid when it comes to the origin of the pandemic," an editorial in the Communist Party-owned Global Times newspaper said.

Instead, the Chinese government has been pushing another theory: that the virus reached Wuhan on frozen meat from China or South-East Asia.

Is there another theory?​

Yes, and it's called the "natural origin" theory.

This argues the virus spread naturally from animals, without the involvement of any scientists or laboratories.

Supporters of the natural origin hypothesis say Covid-19 emerged in bats and then jumped to humans, most likely through another animal, or "intermediary host".

That idea was backed by the WHO report, which said it was "likely to very likely" that Covid had made it to humans through an intermediate host.

This hypothesis was widely accepted at the start of the pandemic, but as time has worn on, scientists have not found a virus in either bats or another animal that matches the genetic make-up of Covid-19, casting doubt over the theory.

Why does this matter?​

Given the massive human toll of the pandemic - which has now claimed the lives of 3.5 million people worldwide - most scientists think understanding how and where the virus originated is crucial to prevent it happening again.

If the "zoonotic" theory is proved correct, it could affect activities such as farming and wildlife exploitation. In Denmark, fears about the spread of the virus through mink farming led to millions of mink being culled.

But there are also big implications for scientific research and international trade if theories related to a laboratory leak or frozen food chains are confirmed.

And confirmation of a leak may also affect how the world views China, which has already been accused of hiding crucial early information about the pandemic, and place further strain on US-China relations.

"From day one China has been engaged in a massive cover-up," Jamie Metzl, a fellow at the Washington-based Atlantic Council who has been pushing for the lab-leak theory to be looked into, told the BBC.

"As the evidence for the lab-leak hypothesis grows, we should be demanding the full investigation of all origin hypotheses that's required."

But others cautioned against pointing the finger at China too quickly.

"We do need to be a bit patient but we also need to be diplomatic. We can't do this without support from China. It needs to be a no-blame environment," Prof Dale Fisher, of Singapore's National University Hospital, told the BBC.
 
from yahoo.com:

Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously​


Nearly a year and a half since Covid-19 was detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan, the question of how the virus first emerged remains a mystery.

But in recent weeks the controversial claim that the pandemic might have leaked from a Chinese laboratory - once dismissed by many as a fringe conspiracy theory - has been gaining traction.

Now, US President Joe Biden has announced an urgent investigation that will look into the theory as a possible origin of the disease.

So what do we know about the competing theories - and why does the debate matter?

What is the lab-leak theory?​

It's a suspicion that the coronavirus may have escaped, accidentally or otherwise, from a laboratory in the central Chinese city of Wuhan where the virus was first recorded.

Its supporters point to the presence of a major biological research facility in the city. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has been studying coronaviruses in bats for over a decade.

The laboratory is located just a few kilometres from the Huanan wet market where the first cluster of infections emerged in Wuhan.

Those who support the theory say it could have leaked from this facility and spread to the wet market.

Most argue it would have been an unaltered virus collected from the wild, rather than engineered.

The controversial theory first emerged early on in the pandemic, and was promoted by then-US President Donald Trump. Some even suggested it could have been engineered as a possible biological weapon.

While many in the media and politics dismissed these as conspiracy theories at the time, others called for more consideration of the possibility. Nevertheless, the idea resurfaced in recent weeks.

So why has it come up again?​

Because reports swirling around the US media have raised fresh concerns over the lab-leak theory. And some scientists who were once sceptical of the idea have expressed fresh openness to it.

A classified US intelligence report - saying three researchers at the Wuhan laboratory were treated in hospital in November 2019, just before the virus began infecting humans in the city - began circulating in US media this week.

But it was reported the Biden administration had shut down a US state department investigation, set up by President Trump, into the lab-leak theory.

"That possibility certainly exists, and I am totally in favour of a full investigation of whether that could have happened," Anthony Fauci, President Biden's chief medical adviser, told the US senate committee on 11 May.

President Biden now says he asked for a report on the origins of Covid-19 after taking office, "including whether it emerged from human contact with an infected animal or from a laboratory accident".

On Tuesday, Mr Trump sought to take credit for the renewed interest in an emailed statement to the New York Post. "To me it was obvious from the beginning but I was badly criticised, as usual," he said. "Now they are all saying: 'He was right.'"

What do scientists think?​

The issue is still being hotly contested.

A World Health Organization (WHO) investigation was supposed to get to the bottom of it, but many experts believed it produced more questions than answers.

A team of WHO-appointed scientists flew to Wuhan earlier this year on a mission to investigate the source of the pandemic. After spending 12 days there, which included a visit to the laboratory, the team concluded the lab-leak theory was "extremely unlikely".

But many have since questioned their findings.

A prominent group of scientists criticised the WHO report for not taking the lab-leak theory seriously enough - it was dismissed in a few pages of a several-hundred-page report.

"We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data," the scientists wrote in Science Magazine.

And there is growing consensus among experts that the laboratory leak should be looked at more closely.

Even the WHO's own director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has called for a new investigation, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study."

And Dr Fauci now says he's "not convinced" the virus originated naturally. That's a shift from a year ago, when he thought it most likely Covid had spread from animals to humans.

What does China make of this?​

China has hit back at suggestions the virus may have escaped from a laboratory by calling it a smear, and it has suggested the coronavirus may have have entered the country in food shipments from another country.

The Chinese government points to new research published by one of its leading virologists into samples collected from bats in a remote abandoned mine.

Prof Shi Zhengli - often referred to as "China's Batwoman" - a researcher at the Wuhan Institute, published a report last week revealing that her team had identified eight coronavirus strains found on bats in the mine in China in 2015. The paper says that coronaviruses from pangolins pose more of an immediate threat to human health than the ones her team found in the mine.

China's state media have accused the US government and Western media of spreading rumours.

"The public opinion in the US has become extremely paranoid when it comes to the origin of the pandemic," an editorial in the Communist Party-owned Global Times newspaper said.

Instead, the Chinese government has been pushing another theory: that the virus reached Wuhan on frozen meat from China or South-East Asia.

Is there another theory?​

Yes, and it's called the "natural origin" theory.

This argues the virus spread naturally from animals, without the involvement of any scientists or laboratories.

Supporters of the natural origin hypothesis say Covid-19 emerged in bats and then jumped to humans, most likely through another animal, or "intermediary host".

That idea was backed by the WHO report, which said it was "likely to very likely" that Covid had made it to humans through an intermediate host.

This hypothesis was widely accepted at the start of the pandemic, but as time has worn on, scientists have not found a virus in either bats or another animal that matches the genetic make-up of Covid-19, casting doubt over the theory.

Why does this matter?​

Given the massive human toll of the pandemic - which has now claimed the lives of 3.5 million people worldwide - most scientists think understanding how and where the virus originated is crucial to prevent it happening again.

If the "zoonotic" theory is proved correct, it could affect activities such as farming and wildlife exploitation. In Denmark, fears about the spread of the virus through mink farming led to millions of mink being culled.

But there are also big implications for scientific research and international trade if theories related to a laboratory leak or frozen food chains are confirmed.

And confirmation of a leak may also affect how the world views China, which has already been accused of hiding crucial early information about the pandemic, and place further strain on US-China relations.

"From day one China has been engaged in a massive cover-up," Jamie Metzl, a fellow at the Washington-based Atlantic Council who has been pushing for the lab-leak theory to be looked into, told the BBC.

"As the evidence for the lab-leak hypothesis grows, we should be demanding the full investigation of all origin hypotheses that's required."

But others cautioned against pointing the finger at China too quickly.

"We do need to be a bit patient but we also need to be diplomatic. We can't do this without support from China. It needs to be a no-blame environment," Prof Dale Fisher, of Singapore's National University Hospital, told the BBC.

It's great that this has been raised again. The country that started all this needs to be made accountable. :thumbsup:
 
Back
Top