[ad_1]
An out of context quote suggesting that the new coronavirus may have originated in South Africa has led to a virtual collapse on social media.
Following the publication of an online story in the UK Daily Express newspaper published on Monday, the Humane Society International-Africa (HSI-Africa) has released a clarifying statement on the “misleading nature of its headline and various quotes” attributed Audrey Delsink, Director of Wildlife, HSI-Africa.
The article was added by other publications, including The South African, which published a story with the headline: “The disease may have come from SA, not Wuhan: the experts’ claim is causing an uproar.”
Both publications have updated their articles since then.
Delsink addressed the global wildlife trade in a recent telephone interview with the Express. Delsink detailed the sad reality that pangolins are the most trafficked land mammals and are smuggled from South Africa to China, to be eaten as delicacies and used in traditional medical elixirs, said Leozette Roode, media and outreach manager for HSI-Africa.
Delsink also explained that pangolins have been cited as one of the possible intermediate hosts for the virus, to which scientists believe humans were first exposed at a wildlife market in Wuhan, China.
The virus did not originate from SA
“While Delsink acknowledged that it is not inconceivable, a pangolin trafficked from South Africa could have ended up at a wildlife market in Wuhan, China, where conditions were such that Covid-19 first evolved, he did not suggest at all that the virus originated in South Africa. “
Roode said the article incorrectly implied that a South African pangolin was the “host” and transmitted the disease from South Africa, which is not Delsink’s or HSI’s view, and for this reason HSI-Africa has contacted Express UK , requesting that the article be corrected.
“Trade in wildlife through incredibly inhumane methods is not only an atrocity of animal welfare, but poses risks to public health. Scientists have linked the Covid-19 pandemic to wildlife trade, specifically the consumption of wildlife at a market in Wuhan, China, “said Roode.
According to Delsink, animals worldwide, including endangered animals, are found in wildlife markets, are kept in confinement, and are sold for consumption, fashion, medicine, and the pet trade.
“We urge governments to learn from this crisis and ban wildlife trade for these purposes to minimize the risks of future outbreaks of zoonotic diseases,” said Delsink.
HSI, along with many other international organizations, has called on governments to urgently ban the trade and consumption of wild animals worldwide.
Last month, HSI published a science-based white paper “Wildlife Markets and Covid-19” that addresses the links between zoonotic diseases and the wildlife trade.
Fast facts:
– Zoonotic diseases are responsible for more than 2 billion cases of human disease and more than 2 million human deaths each year;
– Zoonosis represents 58% of all known human pathogens, and 73% of all emerging infectious diseases affecting humans;
– The risk of disease transmission is prevalent in all aspects of the wildlife trade, which also supplies products to the traditional medicine industry;
– Chinese scholars have asked the government to support the transition of the wildlife farming industry away from traditional medicine production, as studies have shown that more than 80% of traditional medicine consumers would consider herbal alternatives or synthetic to wild animal products;
– In South Africa, there is a legal trade in lion bones that mainly feeds the Asian market for traditional medicine, as well as luxury items that serve as a status symbol;
– Currently, there are approximately 12,000 lions living in captive facilities to supply this industry, four times more than the entire South African population of wild lions;
– The consumption of wildlife products such as lion bones has been linked to zoonotic diseases, and conditions in captivity are conducive to the development of new emerging pathogens.
Social media users initially caused a stir when the original incorrect information attributing the outbreak to South Africa was published:
[ad_2]
