- Recordings of all known coronavirus family exists.
- I did not ask you about the 75%+, but about the 25%+ data and how it is different.
- Your previous link doesn't show anything about the dissimilarities.
From your first link: https://doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJMoa2001017
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?
From your second link: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41586-020-2008-3
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?
From your third link: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41586-020-2012-7
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!
- Recordings of all known coronavirus family exists.
- I did not ask you about the 75%+, but about the 25%+ data and how it is different.
- Your previous link doesn't show anything about the dissimilarities.
From your first link: https://doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJMoa2001017
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 ignored 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
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?
From your third link: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41586-020-2012-7
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 an 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!