now, as to the exact origin of the virus, as I understand that has not been determined and most likely never will be. What has been determined through analysis of the public genome sequence data is that the evolution of the virus has been determined to have originated through natural processes - natural evolution; i.e., "not made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered". To this point, related studies have pointed to the origination as either:
=> the virus evolved to its current pathogenic state through natural selection in a non-human host and then jumped to humans. Given similarity to bat coronavirus, research has proposed bats as the most likely reservoir for COVID-19; however, as there are no documented cases of direct bat-human transmission, an intermediate host is believed to be involved between bats and humans
OR
=> a non-pathogenic version of the virus jumped from an animal host into humans and then evolved to its current pathogenic state within the human population. In this circumstance, a coronavirus in armadillo-like mammals found in Asia and Africa has a similarity to the COVID-19 virus... in this case either directly from "an anteater type mammal directly to a human, or through intermediaries like civets or ferrets to a human.
from your own linked article: "Prof Andrew Cunningham of Zoological Society of London (ZSL) said it was important not to jump to conclusions from the paper. "The source of the detected coronavirus really is unknown - it might have been a natural pangolin virus or have jumped from another species between capture and death.""
and most certainly, there is no scientific based consensus that the virus originated at a Wuhan so-called 'wet market'; in particular, study analysis shows that some of the first known patients had no direct exposure to the/a wet market. Most pointedly, study analysis shows that about a third of the first 41 confirmed infected patients had no direct exposure to the/a wet market... among them the first known patients where, in addition, "no epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases":
Counterproposal: you find an expert willing to state with any confidence that the outbreak isn't related to the Wuhan seafood market. I doubt that even the source of your sciency-looking graph is making such a claim.
And once your graph does reach numbers where a trend becomes apparent, what becomes apparent is that the majority can be traced to that market.
oh my, you're such a heavyweight! I've re-quoted a few pertinent posts of mine above; ones that definitely show I've NOT taken a position in regards the market origination/correlation or lack thereof... rather, I've emphasized the lack of scientific consensus on the origin point. You on the other hand have stated factual certainty in regards the Wuhan market (and wild animal trafficking) as the origin point... and I've called you on it. Once again, you scored
a member kimmy own-goal - you know, where I pointed out your linked article provided an expert statement advising against drawing conclusions... that the source is (and remains) unknown. Somehow, you skipped right over that lil' gem, hey!
I note you shifting goal-posts: you're now stating "related to" and you've dropped your emphasis on wild-animal trafficking! Is that cause you found something that aligned with the waldo's mentioning that, "it's just as likely the intermediary animal was a domestic one brought into the market for sale... one that might have been bit by a bat (the bat being the
developing consensus as to the most likely source animal) - the key point, as I stated, no known circumstance of a direct bat-to-human virus exchange has ever been shown to have occurred; hence, the likely transference via an intermediary animal between bat and human.
as for showing more of your SquirrelChops, the study you're wigged out over, isn't relying upon your clueless reference to 'basic trend analysis' - if you could fathom it, the study leverages field related tests for statistical analysis and determining statistical significance... for conditions that emphasize quartile determinations, standard deviation, p values from chi-square tests, etc... but with an overall aim to describe (ICU versus non-ICU) epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of the study's (n=41) patients; those earliest identified patients confirmed to have the COVID-19 infection. But yes, as I mentioned, the study does include the finding, as graphed, of those 41 patients (including "patient zero") with exposure versus without exposure to the Wuhan market... and you keep referring to the study graph as "your/my graph"... when you're not labeling it "sciency-looking"!
since you beaked off about data points and trend (which has no bearing/relevance to the study), within regression analysis the typical accepted number of data points to determine a statistically significant trend is 30... again, the referenced study has n=41. I suggest you just go silent here - you've embarrassed yourself enough - yes?
as for idiotic counterproposal challenge: you find an expert willing to state with certainty that the outbreak origin point was a trafficked wild-animal that transferred the virus to a human within the Wuhan seafood market... meanwhile, I'll continue as I have to-date, suggesting there is no scientific consensus on the origin point/source of the virus.