Edit. Here’s a link but not sure if this was the one https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-22/queensland-boy-dies-o...
I just heard that for this particular virus (the bat virus believed to be the ancestor of 2019-nCov), transmission to human without an intermediary was very unlikely since the bat version used a receptor that doesn't have an equivalent in human to infect cells.
Any animal, wild or domestic, can theoretically transmit diseases to humans if the conditions are right.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389864/
Also, the lancet publication found that the first diagnoses on December 1st had no link to the seafood market
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Furthermore, university of Toronto just published a model showing likely start of the outbreak was November, which aligns with first reported diagnoses in December.
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/model-built-u-t-researchers-sug...
On that basis we should at the very least be cautious of the bat soup intermediary theory, and the media should stop reporting it as a fact that it was the source of the outbreak.
Seriously, the press is notoriously bad at reporting stuff like that, like all complex potetialy scary things. I just thought that a community like HN would be wiser than falling for Dunning-Kruger about the own competency when it comes to diseases, and to go down the twitter / Youtube / "dark corners of the internet" hole.
These are all peer reviewed journals. There are no links to twitter / youtube / dark corners of the internet here. You assume that commenters on HN don't have experience working in this field.
I feel like this comment has been made without an insight into a biosafety lab's day to day workings or reading those papers from an informed perspective - so assuming a Dunning-Kruger effect through a lack of understanding of the person submitting the comments on HN. I believe this would be classed as a relativist-fallacy.