使用CN2/CN2GIA顶级线路,支持Shadowsocks/V2ray科学上网,支持支付宝付款,每月仅需 5 美元
## 加入品葱精选 Telegram Channel ##


回答很有意思, 关于”非常不可能”

Q: At Friday’s press conference in Geneva, WHO director-general Tedros seemed to contradict you by saying that with respect to the origins of SARS-CoV-2, “all hypotheses are on the table.” Was it a mistake to call the lab origin hypothesis “extremely unlikely?”

A: No. We first developed a pathway of all the possible ways the virus could be introduced into the human population in late 2019. A lab accident is one hypothesis, another is the direct introduction from an animal host, and the others are different versions of intermediary hosts.

For each hypothesis, we tried to put facts on the table, look at what we had in terms of arguments, and then make an assessment of each. It was already a big step to have Chinese colleagues assess and evaluate such a hypothesis based on what we had on the table, which was not much.Yes, lab accidents do happen around the world; they have happened in the past. The fact that several laboratories of relevance are in and around Wuhan, and are working with coronavirus, is another fact. Beyond that we didn’t have much in terms of looking at that hypothesis as a likely option.



**Q: But will someone else investigate? **

A: Remember that the report is the outcome of a joint team of Chinese experts and international experts. If others want to pursue that hypothesis, it’s there, it’s being discussed openly and accepted. As I said, this would not be something that this team, or I believe even WHO alone, would be able to move forward on. That would have to be, I believe, a United Nations-wide approach in consultation with member states, if that was something that the international community would want to move forward with.

另:他在接受cnn采访中说武汉病毒因该早在12月之前就在武汉传播,因为掌握了13个变种。而且希望再次回到武汉调查。(在发布会开始中国代表说没有显示武汉病毒12月之前爆发, 在武汉的调查到此结束…)

品葱用户 CV121 评论于 2021-02-17

小弟不才,稍為整理一下(大意)。原文大概有14 條問題,答案實在太長就不 POST了。


1)   這次任務有那些最為驚訝的地方
2)   譚書記似乎對你們的"極不可能" 結論有懷疑
3)   什麽導致調查組得出"極不可能"的結論
4)   有甚麽新發現令你們得出"極不可能"的結論
5)   會否由另外團隊繼續調查
6)   其他人會否繼續調查
7)   不用"極不可能"字眼會否更好
8)   病毒經冷鏈傳播說法有否証據
9)   調查組如何繼續
10) 記者會中結論武漢在12/19 前沒有廣泛傳播,但有報導說中國並未充份分享所有資訊
11) 因何有人說曾跟中方有激烈討論
12) 有否其他激烈討論
13) 最有可能病毒傳播的情形為何
14) 全世界都在關注你們,有人說你們在武漢新聞發佈會像是中國的PR又一次勝利


Politics was always in the room.’ WHO mission chief reflects on China trip seeking COVID-19’s origin
By Kai KupferschmidtFeb. 14, 2021 , 8:00 AM

**Science’**s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Heising-Simons Foundation.

The World Health Organization (WHO) mission to China to probe the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic had a bumpy start, so it’s perhaps no surprise that the team’s departure from China didn’t go entirely smoothly either. A 9 February press conference in Wuhan to summarize the mission’s findings was widely hailed within China, but criticized elsewhere.

During the press conference, WHO program manager and mission leader Peter Ben Embarek and team member Marion Koopmans praised China’s cooperation during the 4-week investigation. They said it was “extremely unlikely” that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a Chinese laboratory and said the team would not investigate that hypothesis further. But they kept open the possibility that the virus arrived in Wuhan on frozen food, a route promoted aggressively by Chinese media to suggest the virus was imported from elsewhere in the world.

See all of our coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

Some journalists and scientists called the event a double win for China and demanded more evidence for the rejection of the lab theory. And on 12 February, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appeared to publicly push back against the team, saying, “All hypotheses are on the table” with respect to the pandemic’s origins. Meanwhile, media reports have suggested WHO team members were disappointed about not getting access to certain data, for instance on Chinese patients with respiratory symptoms who may have been some of the earliest COVID-19 cases.

WHO plans to release a summary report of the mission’s finding as early as next week; a full report will come later.

Science had an hourlong video interview with Ben Embarek on Saturday after his return to Geneva. An epidemiologist and food safety scientist, he has experience both with China—he worked at WHO’s Beijing office between 2009 and 2011—and with coronaviruses, as the head of the agency’s effort to investigate the animal origin of the Middle East respiratory syndrome virus after its emergence in 2012.

Ben Embarek defended the much-debated press conference, explained why the lab escape hypothesis has not been ruled out, and summarized what was learned about when, where, and how SARS-CoV-2 first infected humans. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: What was the most surprising experience during your mission?

Q: At Friday’s press conference in Geneva, Tedros seemed to contradict you by saying that with respect to the origins of SARS-CoV-2: “All hypotheses are on the table.” Was it a mistake to call the lab origin hypothesis “extremely unlikely”?

Q: But what led you to use the “extremely unlikely” label? Did you learn anything that made it less likely?

Q: But my question is whether you learned anything new in China. Now that you’ve been there, do you have more reason to say it’s “extremely unlikely” than before?

Q: So, it will be investigated further, just not by you and your team?

Q: But will someone else investigate?

Q: Would it have been better to project less certainty at the press conference in Wuhan? The way most journalists understood it, the way I understood it, was that this has been ruled out.

Q: Another scenario that you outlined was that the virus was transmitted through frozen food. What is the evidence for that?

Q: How are you moving forward on this?

**Q: At the press conference you also said it was becoming clearer that there was no widespread transmission of the virus before December 2019. But there have been **reports that China did not share all of the data on 92 patients who had flulike symptoms in 2019. (One team member has tweeted that her quotes on that topic were “twisted,” however.) How confident are you that there was no spread of the virus prior to December 2019, what data are still missing, and why?

Q: Several people have said there was a heated debate about this. Why?

Q: Is there any other debate that got similarly heated?

Q: If you take all of this together, what do we know? What’s the most likely scenario for how and when SARS-CoV-2 started to circulate?

Q: You have the eyes of the world on you. You are working in a country that plays by its own rules. Isn’t there a danger that if you concentrate on the science, you end up being politically naïve? Some people have said the Wuhan press conference was basically a public relations (PR) win for the Chinese government.

Posted in: 


品葱用户 uefw328 评论于 2021-02-16

调查组里的Peter Daszak有利益冲突:The Lancet 关于SARS-CoV-2“自然起源”的声明之内幕世卫调查员谈冠状病毒(TWiV 615)


不过组长Ben Embarek 还是坚持他留下来:

The spokesman for Dr. Daszak told us that any questions about his potential conflict of interest should be referred to WHO. Dr. Ben Embarek said that he sees no problem in having Dr. Daszak on his investigative team: “Of course the WHO team will have discussion with the scientists and researchers in Wuhan. And therefore it is good to have on the team someone who knows the area well.”

2月15日的wsj的文章《Who Are the Covid Investigators?》中提到了调查组里Peter Daszak和Marion Koopmans的背景,指出他们有利益冲突:

A decade ago Ms. Koopmans’s deputy, Ron Fouchier, made international news by modifying a deadly flu virus to spread between ferrets. If an investigation finds it likely that the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by gain-of-function research, that would have repercussions for labs around the world, including at Erasmus MC.

品葱用户 五毛头目赵英俊 评论于 2021-02-17

联动世卫专家:2019年12月武汉市疫情范围比先前所想更广泛,且已发展出13种病毒株 - 新·品葱 (pincong.rocks)

品葱用户 台灣來的麻雀 评论于 2021-02-17


品葱用户 telsa10 评论于 2021-02-17

既然你們的中國同行們都調查過了, 你們又相信他們的調查結果, 請問你們這次去武漢是去幹什麼? 讓他們發個郵件/微信/whatsapp給你們不就好了嗎?

品葱用户 yongtaonunu 评论于 2021-02-17


品葱用户 nmff 评论于 2021-02-16


品葱用户 **五毛头目赵英俊

								NZRdlClr5** 评论于 2021-02-17

>> 説老實話,現在到這個時間了,病毒都在全世界趴趴走超過一年了要是真有什麽實驗室泄露的證據,也早就…


品葱用户 uefw328 评论于 2021-02-17

As I said, this would not be something that this team, or I believe even WHO alone, would be able to move forward on. That would have to be, I believe, a United Nations-wide approach in consultation with member states, if that was something that the international community would want to move forward with.


“If our studies point to a possible lab accident, then other international mechanisms would be involved to document such an event. It would take time and additional types of expertise.”

品葱用户 **killreddragon

								NZRdlClr5** 评论于 2021-02-16

>> 你找不到更早之前的病原體就是找不到傳染路徑啊……再說一年還不夠消滅證據嗎


品葱用户 **CV121

								fb_china_today** 评论于 2021-02-16

>> 记者问问题的角度大概可以说明科学杂志自己的立场


品葱用户 NZRdlClr5 评论于 2021-02-16


品葱用户 呆呆加速师 评论于 2021-02-16


品葱用户 **killreddragon

								NZRdlClr5** 评论于 2021-02-16



品葱用户 sousou 评论于 2021-02-17



品葱用户 九投习 评论于 2021-02-17


品葱用户 killreddragon 评论于 2021-02-16


品葱用户 有勞聖駕 评论于 2021-02-16


品葱用户 天下為公 评论于 2021-02-17


品葱用户 **killreddragon

								NZRdlClr5** 评论于 2021-02-17

>> 證明不可能比證明肯定要難得多而證明肯定,在現狀看來,也是無望(我是說沒有希望,這是一個比較實踐…


品葱用户 **killreddragon

								NZRdlClr5** 评论于 2021-02-17

>> 因為不存在這麼一個確實證據啊……如果真是非實驗室,那頂多在野外找到它的「祖先」,因為找到現在的…


品葱用户 HFirework 评论于 2021-02-16


品葱用户 fb_china_today 评论于 2021-02-17

罪犯都很想说服人们证据已经销毁追查是徒劳。发现武汉在12月已经有13种变种大概就是对这种叙事的驳斥, 不管WHO是什么渠道获得(没准两面人的贡献)。

品葱用户 **NZRdlClr5

								killreddragon** 评论于 2021-02-16

>> 当然,我也不相信who有可能还能找到实验室泄漏的证据,不过嘛,这种反复横跳,一边想要给不可能从…


品葱用户 **NZRdlClr5

								killreddragon** 评论于 2021-02-16

>> 要说难也没那么难,只要who能够调查出一个有确实证据支持的非实验室传染路径就行了,但你支不敢,…


品葱用户 **NZRdlClr5

								killreddragon** 评论于 2021-02-17

>> 流行病研究又不是单纯的找祖先,是要找传播路径的啊,看传播路径上有没有实验室不就行了,至少如果不…


品葱用户 **fb_china_today

								CV121** 评论于 2021-02-17

>> 小弟不才,稍為整理一下(大意)。原文大概有14 條問題,答案實在太長就不 POST了。如真有興…



最简单好用的 VPS,没有之一,注册立得 100 美金
comments powered by Disqus

See Also