Going by their words, if the origin and the first transmission remains unknown for almost a year, then that means the virus already existed in some form prior to discovery! Also, the fact that they named it "2" doesn't necessarily scream novel isn't it?
75%+ ? Would you like to elaborate how the other 25%+ is different? While you're at it, please do state the percentage of differences between 2 RNA viruses.
The current virus has already been recorded before. That is the point of this discussion. There is nothing novel about this.
Complete genome sequences of the three novel coronaviruses were submitted to GISAID and have a 86.9% nucleotide sequence identity to a previously published bat SARS-like CoV genome. Since the sequence identity in conserved replicase domains (ORF 1ab) is less than 90% between 2019-nCoV and other members of betacoronavirus, the 2019-nCoV is a novel betacoronavirus belonging to the sarbecovirus subgenus of Coronaviridae family...."elude identification by traditional approaches"
So they called this novel because it is 3.1% short of 90% from a three patient study?? Really? Why did they ignore traditional approaches? Who authorized them to conclude the results from these inaccurate methods?
Phylogenetic analysis of the complete viral genome (29,903 nucleotides) revealed that the virus was most closely related (89.1% nucleotide similarity) to a group of SARS-like coronaviruses (genus Betacoronavirus, subgenus Sarbecovirus) that had previously been found in bats in China5.
So they called this novel because it is 0.8% short of 90% from a one patient study?? Really?
The sequences are almost identical and share 79.6% sequence identity to SARS-CoV. Furthermore, we show that 2019-nCoV is 96% identical at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus....However, the amino acid sequences of the seven conserved replicase domains in ORF1ab that were used for CoV species classification were 94.4% identical between 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV, suggesting that the two viruses belong to the same species, SARSr-CoV.
So they called this novel because it is 10.4% short of 90% from a 7 person study. But, they conclude saying that the replicase were 94.4% identical?
Look at the percentage variations in each of their studies. These are not accurate values, but approximations. You don't isolate and name a virus as novel based on numerous approximations! That's just wrong! The fact that these studies are done in China and the Chinese CDC's involvement should've made you question the authenticity of these tests, but you seem to ignore that!
They renamed it "2" because they "needed" to show people that the disease caused is different from the first and not because it is a second virus which evolved from the first. If they're sure that it evolved from a feline virus, they would've said so. If it is manufactured in a lab, it would appear so. But, the fact that they destroyed any and all records on this matter should ring some alarm bells.
Going by their words, if the origin and the first transmission remains unknown for almost a year, then that means the virus already existed in some form prior to discovery! Also, the fact that they named it "2" doesn't necessarily scream novel isn't it?
Do you want to go little deeper? Let's do it...
75%+ ? Would you like to elaborate how the other 25%+ is different? While you're at it, please do state the percentage of differences between 2 RNA viruses.
The current virus has already been recorded before. That is the point of this discussion. There is nothing novel about this.
From your first link: https://doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJMoa2001017
So they called this novel because it is 3.1% short of 90% from a three patient study?? Really? Why did they ignore traditional approaches? Who authorized them to conclude the results from these inaccurate methods?
From your second link: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41586-020-2008-3
So they called this novel because it is 0.8% short of 90% from a one patient study?? Really?
From your third link: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41586-020-2012-7
So they called this novel because it is 10.4% short of 90% from a 7 person study. But, they conclude saying that the replicase were 94.4% identical?
Look at the percentage variations in each of their studies. These are not accurate values, but approximations. You don't isolate and name a virus as novel based on numerous approximations! That's just wrong! The fact that these studies are done in China and the Chinese CDC's involvement should've made you question the authenticity of these tests, but you seem to ignore that!
It is named 2 because it is the second virus of the SARS family.
Novel means novel to science, not necessarily freshly created.
They renamed it "2" because they "needed" to show people that the disease caused is different from the first and not because it is a second virus which evolved from the first. If they're sure that it evolved from a feline virus, they would've said so. If it is manufactured in a lab, it would appear so. But, the fact that they destroyed any and all records on this matter should ring some alarm bells.