"'More evidence suggests the early existence of the virus in the world before human beings became aware of it, and it points to multiple sources"
This from the WSJ:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1785/6012472
The question is whether antibodies to SARS-CoV---which were also reported in a study of samples in Italy taken from last fall--could have resulted from immune reaction to another coronavirus. Only one of the 100+ samples in this study bound to the S1 subunit of the spike protein, and one other to the RBD receptor binding domain. The others bound to some other portion of the virus. They did inactivate the virus, which is encouraging, but a recent study reported that antibodies to another, relatively harmless coronavirus also had such neutralizing activity:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/11/05/science.abe1107
This study is notable, because most of the antibodies, like those in the one reported in the WSJ link, did not bind to the S1 subunit. They were much more prevalent in children than in adults, which might provide at least part of the explanation why the fatality rate is so much lower in children. In any case, I don't think antibodies reactive towards SARS-CoV-2 prove that the people at that time were exposed to the virus.
The possibility that the antibodies resulted from exposure to another, relatively harmless coronavirus is also consistent with the study carried out in Italy. They reported that more than 11% of the samples had antibodies reacting with SARS-CoV-2. That is a rate almost as high as the estimated current seroprevalence in the U.S., with its 14 million documented cases. This raises the obvious question: if the virus was so prevalent in Italy at that time, why was there no evidence of a pandemic?
Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
journals.sagepub.com
Another possibility to consider is based on the well-established premise that SARS-CoV-2 jumped from a non-human to species. When this occurred, the virus might initially not have been SARS-CoV-2, but a closely related form that was not as infectious nor as deadly as SARS-CoV-2. This virus then mutated to SARS-CoV-2 while within the human population. This would explain why antibodies reactive to SARS-CoV-2 were present in populations before the virus actually began spreading.
Wrt the Barcelona study, only one positive sample was found, way back in March 2019. None was found in the intervening period. It seems implausible that the virus was present in Italy way back then, and did not spread even enough to appear in subsequent wastewater samples. In any PCR study like this, one has to consider the possibility of contamination.
Outrage over what? Even if could be proven definitively that SARS-CoV-2 was present in populations outside of China last year, the fact remains that the spread did not begin until in China in late December. Why would that be the case if the virus originated somewhere else?
Also, note that the virus with the highest sequence homology to SARS-CoV-2 has been found in a species of bat that lives in China. A virus with the highest sequence homology to RBD has been found in pangolins in China. AFAIK, no one has reported a virus with sequence homology to SARS-CoV-2 of more than 70% in an animal species outside of China--though to be fair, there hasn't been as much research directed to finding one.
Since we're discussing China's role again, I'll note that CNN just published a special report of leaked documents that suggest, among other things, that China was under-reporting its C19 statistics, though as far as I can tell, not grossly so.
It is not clear to what extent the central government was aware of the actions taking place in Hubei at that time, or how much information was being shared and with whom. The documents offer no indication that authorities in Beijing were directing the local decision-making process.
However, Mertha, the JHU academic, said the mismatch between the higher internal and lower public figures on the February death toll "appeared to be a deception, for unsurprising reasons."
"China had an image to protect internationally, and lower-ranking officials had a clear incentive to under-report -- or to show their superiors that they were under-reporting -- to outside eyes," he said.
Conversely, however, the leaked documents also provide something of a defense of China's overall handling of the virus. The reports show that in the early stages of the pandemic, China faced the same problems of accounting, testing, and diagnosis that still haunt many Western democracies even now -- issues compounded by Hubei encountering an entirely new virus.
Similarly, no mention is made by officials of a so-called laboratory leak, or that the virus was man-made, as some critics, including top US officials, have claimed without evidence. There is one mention of sub-par facilities at a bacterial and toxic species preservation center, though the point is not elaborated on, nor is its significance made clear.
China and its healthcare workers were under immense strain as the outbreak took hold, said Yang, from the Council of Foreign Relations.
"They had a massive run on the medical system. They were overwhelmed. There was truly despair among medical professionals by the end of January, because they were extremely overworked and they were also enormously discouraged by the high number of deaths that were occurring with a disease they had not treated previously," he added.
Hubei, which lags far behind Beijing, Shanghai and other major Chinese administrative divisions in terms of GDP per capita, was the first region to confront a virus that would go on to confound many of the world's most powerful countries.
Schaffner, from Vanderbilt University, said many of the comments in the documents might have been made in the US, "where, over the past 15 to 20 years, at particularly the state and the local level, public health funding has become constrained."
The documents show health care officials had no comprehension as to the magnitude of the impending disaster.
Nowhere in the files is it indicated that officials believed the virus would become a global pandemic.
At several critical moments in the early phase of the pandemic, the documents show evidence of clear missteps and point to a pattern of institutional failings.
cnnphilippines.com