Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Waiting for the truth: is reluctance in accepting an early origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 delaying our understanding of viral emergence?
  1. Marta Canuti1,
  2. Silvia Bianchi1,2,
  3. Otto Kolbl3,
  4. Sergei L Kosakovsky Pond4,5,
  5. Sudhir Kumar4,5,6,
  6. Maria Gori1,2,
  7. Clara Fappani1,2,
  8. Daniela Colzani1,2,
  9. Elisa Borghi1,2,
  10. Gianvincenzo Zuccotti7,8,
  11. Mario C Raviglione9,
  12. Elisabetta Tanzi1,2,
  13. Antonella Amendola1,2
  1. 1Department of Health Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
  2. 2Coordinated Research Center “EpiSoMI”, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
  3. 3Faculty of Arts, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
  4. 4Department of Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  5. 5Institute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  6. 6Center for Excellence in Genome Medicine and Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
  7. 7Department of Pediatrics, Ospedale dei Bambini, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
  8. 8Romeo and Enrica Invernizzi Pediatric Research Center, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
  9. 9Centre for Multidisciplinary Research in Health Science, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Marta Canuti; marta.canuti{at}gmail.com; Dr Silvia Bianchi; silvia.bianchi{at}unimi.it; Professor Antonella Amendola; antonella.amendola{at}unimi.it

Abstract

Two years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, key questions about the emergence of its aetiological agent (SARS-CoV-2) remain a matter of considerable debate. Identifying when SARS-CoV-2 began spreading among people is one of those questions. Although the current canonically accepted timeline hypothesises viral emergence in Wuhan, China, in November or December 2019, a growing body of diverse studies provides evidence that the virus may have been spreading worldwide weeks, or even months, prior to that time. However, the hypothesis of earlier SARS-CoV-2 circulation is often dismissed with prejudicial scepticism and experimental studies pointing to early origins are frequently and speculatively attributed to false-positive tests. In this paper, we critically review current evidence that SARS-CoV-2 had been circulating prior to December of 2019, and emphasise how, despite some scientific limitations, this hypothesis should no longer be ignored and considered sufficient to warrant further larger-scale studies to determine its veracity.

  • SARS
  • COVID-19
  • epidemiology
  • public health

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • MC and SB are joint first authors.

  • Handling editor Seye Abimbola

  • Twitter @OttoKolbl

  • MC and SB contributed equally.

  • Contributors MC, SB and AA conceived the initial idea for the manuscript, and MC wrote the first draft. All authors provided critical feedback and approved the final submission.

  • Funding This study was funded by Romeo and Enrica Invernizzi Pediatric Research Center, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.