Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by EACLucifer » Fri Apr 10, 2020 7:40 pm

Splitting some posts from the "Effective re-usable face-masks" thread as they were off-topic. Apologies for the slightly arbitrary choice of first post.

We simply haven't the faintest idea what Chinese deaths were, but estimates based on workload of crematoria suggest radically higher than their fascist regime admits.

And then consider; if they had behaved remotely responsibly, not sending police thugs round to rough up whistleblowers, or better yet, not running the dangerous, known to be a massive disease risk wildlife markets to cater to ignorant superstition, then there would be far fewer deaths worldwide, potentially. In a way, all deaths are on China. While this does not in any way absolve other leaders for failing to prepare, don't f.cking praise the country that started this, especially when there are far better role models out there - South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand, and so on.
Last edited by Stephanie on Thu May 14, 2020 9:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Moved from Weighty Matters

Herainestold
After Pie
Posts: 2029
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Herainestold » Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:07 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 7:40 pm
We simply haven't the faintest idea what Chinese deaths were, but estimates based on workload of crematoria suggest radically higher than their fascist regime admits.

And then consider; if they had behaved remotely responsibly, not sending police thugs round to rough up whistleblowers, or better yet, not running the dangerous, known to be a massive disease risk wildlife markets to cater to ignorant superstition, then there would be far fewer deaths worldwide, potentially. In a way, all deaths are on China. While this does not in any way absolve other leaders for failing to prepare, don't f.cking praise the country that started this, especially when there are far better role models out there - South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand, and so on.
*racist statement*

Yeah, okay, but what about the masks?
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:15 pm

EACLucifer makes a fair point. The Chinese authorities knew that this was a risk from keeping the wet markets open, but did so anyway for cultural reasons.

OTOH, had this pandemic originated in a Western factory farm, like the 2009 swine flu outbreak did, I suspect that far fewer people would be calling for their permanent closure.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by EACLucifer » Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:21 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:15 pm
EACLucifer makes a fair point. The Chinese authorities knew that this was a risk from keeping the wet markets open, but did so anyway for cultural reasons.

OTOH, had this pandemic originated in a Western factory farm, like the 2009 swine flu outbreak did, I suspect that far fewer people would be calling for their permanent closure.
That factory farms - notably also the use of prohpylactic antibiotics within them - are a risk to biosecurity is hardly an unheard of talking point in opposition to factory farms.

Also, the wild animal trade in China is not, at least when it comes to pangolins, about sustenance. It is purely about superstition.

I have no problem with holding all nations to the same standard. People here should consider for a moment how they would view a Western nation that sent police round to intimidate a doctor for warning a novel disease, or indeed, where a number of critics of how it has subsequently been handled have simply disappeared.

And anyone who is even remotely concerned with actual racism would be infinitely more bothered with the way the Chinese regime treats minorities than by criticism of the Chinese regime's handling of this crisis they caused.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:26 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:21 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:15 pm
EACLucifer makes a fair point. The Chinese authorities knew that this was a risk from keeping the wet markets open, but did so anyway for cultural reasons.

OTOH, had this pandemic originated in a Western factory farm, like the 2009 swine flu outbreak did, I suspect that far fewer people would be calling for their permanent closure.
That factory farms - notably also the use of prohpylactic antibiotics within them - are a risk to biosecurity is hardly an unheard of talking point in opposition to factory farms.

Also, the wild animal trade in China is not, at least when it comes to pangolins, about sustenance. It is purely about superstition.

I have no problem with holding all nations to the same standard. People here should consider for a moment how they would view a Western nation that sent police round to intimidate a doctor for warning a novel disease, or indeed, where a number of critics of how it has subsequently been handled have simply disappeared.

And anyone who is even remotely concerned with actual racism would be infinitely more bothered with the way the Chinese regime treats minorities than by criticism of the Chinese regime's handling of this crisis they caused.
Agree with all of this, and Herainestold was out of line accusing you of racism for criticising the Chinese regime.

Your first sentence is kind of my point, though. Factory farms are also a known risk for producing treatment-resistant pandemics and yet they continue unabated. To be consistent, and cautious, there's a reasonable argument for at least limiting animal densities and reforming husbandry practices in both wet markets and factory farms.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by EACLucifer » Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:30 pm

AFAICT, though, the risk levels are not the same. There's a reason pretty much every epidemiologists predicted likely location of an outbreak of something novel prior to this pandemic was southern China.

And animal feed practises were changed after Foot and Mouth, something of only economic impact, as far as human health was concerned. Industry and dietary practises did change after BSE/CJD

Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Millennie Al » Sun Apr 12, 2020 3:24 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 7:40 pm
We simply haven't the faintest idea what Chinese deaths were, but estimates based on workload of crematoria suggest radically higher than their fascist regime admits.

And then consider; if they had behaved remotely responsibly, not sending police thugs round to rough up whistleblowers, or better yet, not running the dangerous, known to be a massive disease risk wildlife markets to cater to ignorant superstition, then there would be far fewer deaths worldwide, potentially. In a way, all deaths are on China. While this does not in any way absolve other leaders for failing to prepare, don't f.cking praise the country that started this, especially when there are far better role models out there - South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand, and so on.
China deserves praise for something which is both very valuable and very rare - rapidly realising that they were wrong and fixing their mistake. They had to learn everything the hard way, as there was no previous experience to guide them, yet they implemented the correct strategy and suppressed the outbreak. There are plenty examples around the world where leaders ignored the Chinese experience, denied the problem, and kept denying it until the outbreak got out of control.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Tessa K » Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:57 am

A quick note on wet markets from James Wong

https://twitter.com/botanygeek/status/1 ... 0049291264
Just a quick note to those RTing petitions to ban ‘Asian wet markets’.

Before doing so, have a read of what ‘wet market’ actually means in Asia: A fresh food market.

As opposed to ‘dry’ markets, that sell clothes, electronics, etc.

It’s like a petition to ban farmers markets.

Herainestold
After Pie
Posts: 2029
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Herainestold » Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:55 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:57 am
A quick note on wet markets from James Wong

https://twitter.com/botanygeek/status/1 ... 0049291264
Just a quick note to those RTing petitions to ban ‘Asian wet markets’.

Before doing so, have a read of what ‘wet market’ actually means in Asia: A fresh food market.

As opposed to ‘dry’ markets, that sell clothes, electronics, etc.

It’s like a petition to ban farmers markets.
I dunno. I've spent quite a bit of time in China and SE Asia and I am familiar with wet markets.
Most of them are pretty unhygienic. I think the ones in Singapore that James is familar with are probably quite a bit more sanitary than the norm.

I see three problems with wet markets. The keeping of live animals in close proximity without regard to hygiene. That is how diseases spread.
Although this recent bat virus probably did not originate in the wet market as they don't sell bats there.

The consumption of wild and endangered species in China - you could have wet markets without the exotic animals.

General unhygienic conditions. Some commenters have said that an abattoir in the developed world is the same or worse. Not really true. Abattoirs are not nice and pleasant places to visit, but hygiene standards are way better than most of Asia (Singapore may be an exception here). Also the general public isn't allowed to wander through the abattoir as you can in a wet market.

The proper solution is get rid of the wild and exotic animal trade, regulate how live animals are housed, improve the sanitation by a lot.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again

User avatar
Pucksoppet
Snowbonk
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:13 pm
Location: Girdling the Earth

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Pucksoppet » Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:48 pm

Herainestold wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:55 pm


The proper solution is get rid of the wild and exotic animal trade, regulate how live animals are housed, improve the sanitation by a lot.
If you try to get rid of the wild animal trade, you will get strong pushback from the hunt'n, shoot'n, and fish'n lobby in the UK. I agree that trade in endangered species should be halted, but preventing the sale of game in general will be difficult.

Enacting legislation protecting endangered species, and other animals on clear and consistent sanitary grounds is reasonable from our point of view, but Chinese medicine is rather popular, and changing that is going against centuries if not millennia of cultural practice.

Note that version 11 of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD-11, released on 18 June 2018 included, for the first time, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

Integrative Practitioner: WHO latest ICD includes Traditional Chinese Medicine Katherine Rushlau March 28, 2019

Orac has written on this, you can probably guess his opinion, but the articles are worth reading for the background. TCM has an 'interesting' history:

Respectful Insolence: The World Health Organization: Integrating quackery into the ICD-11 Orac March 26, 2018

Respectful Insolence: Mao triumphant: The World Health Organization officially embraces traditional Chinese medicine quackery Orac May 29, 2019

How you go about convincing people not to eat rare animals is a mystery to me: I suspect a sustained campaign will be about as successful as pro-abortion, pro-vaccination, anti-homeopathy, anti-chiropractic campaigns. In other words, not quickly successful.

Herainestold
After Pie
Posts: 2029
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Herainestold » Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:14 pm

Pucksoppet wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:48 pm
Herainestold wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:55 pm


The proper solution is get rid of the wild and exotic animal trade, regulate how live animals are housed, improve the sanitation by a lot.
If you try to get rid of the wild animal trade, you will get strong pushback from the hunt'n, shoot'n, and fish'n lobby in the UK. I agree that trade in endangered species should be halted, but preventing the sale of game in general will be difficult.

Enacting legislation protecting endangered species, and other animals on clear and consistent sanitary grounds is reasonable from our point of view, but Chinese medicine is rather popular, and changing that is going against centuries if not millennia of cultural practice.

Note that version 11 of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD-11, released on 18 June 2018 included, for the first time, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

Integrative Practitioner: WHO latest ICD includes Traditional Chinese Medicine Katherine Rushlau March 28, 2019

Orac has written on this, you can probably guess his opinion, but the articles are worth reading for the background. TCM has an 'interesting' history:

Respectful Insolence: The World Health Organization: Integrating quackery into the ICD-11 Orac March 26, 2018

Respectful Insolence: Mao triumphant: The World Health Organization officially embraces traditional Chinese medicine quackery Orac May 29, 2019

How you go about convincing people not to eat rare animals is a mystery to me: I suspect a sustained campaign will be about as successful as pro-abortion, pro-vaccination, anti-homeopathy, anti-chiropractic campaigns. In other words, not quickly successful.
You are probably right. One thing to know the right thing to do, another to get people to do it.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:39 pm

Pucksoppet wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:48 pm
Herainestold wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:55 pm


The proper solution is get rid of the wild and exotic animal trade, regulate how live animals are housed, improve the sanitation by a lot.
If you try to get rid of the wild animal trade, you will get strong pushback from the hunt'n, shoot'n, and fish'n lobby in the UK. I agree that trade in endangered species should be halted, but preventing the sale of game in general will be difficult.

Enacting legislation protecting endangered species, and other animals on clear and consistent sanitary grounds is reasonable from our point of view, but Chinese medicine is rather popular, and changing that is going against centuries if not millennia of cultural practice.

Note that version 11 of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD-11, released on 18 June 2018 included, for the first time, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

Integrative Practitioner: WHO latest ICD includes Traditional Chinese Medicine Katherine Rushlau March 28, 2019

Orac has written on this, you can probably guess his opinion, but the articles are worth reading for the background. TCM has an 'interesting' history:

Respectful Insolence: The World Health Organization: Integrating quackery into the ICD-11 Orac March 26, 2018

Respectful Insolence: Mao triumphant: The World Health Organization officially embraces traditional Chinese medicine quackery Orac May 29, 2019

How you go about convincing people not to eat rare animals is a mystery to me: I suspect a sustained campaign will be about as successful as pro-abortion, pro-vaccination, anti-homeopathy, anti-chiropractic campaigns. In other words, not quickly successful.
Eating and selling local wildlife once it's dead is pretty different in terms of pandemic risk to collecting rare animals from all over the world then stacking them on top of each other in tiny cages covered in each others' sh.t for weeks at a time.

FWIW the legislation to prevent the trade in endangered species is decades old, and has been agreed to by China. However, in practice they don't bother to enforce it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CITES

I can't imagine why UK-based hunters or fishers would have any problem with any of that (the ones I know certainly don't).
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Pucksoppet
Snowbonk
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:13 pm
Location: Girdling the Earth

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Pucksoppet » Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:08 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:39 pm
Pucksoppet wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:48 pm
Herainestold wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:55 pm


The proper solution is get rid of the wild and exotic animal trade, regulate how live animals are housed, improve the sanitation by a lot.
If you try to get rid of the wild animal trade, you will get strong pushback from the hunt'n, shoot'n, and fish'n lobby in the UK. I agree that trade in endangered species should be halted, but preventing the sale of game in general will be difficult.

Enacting legislation protecting endangered species, and other animals on clear and consistent sanitary grounds is reasonable from our point of view, but Chinese medicine is rather popular, and changing that is going against centuries if not millennia of cultural practice.

Note that version 11 of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD-11, released on 18 June 2018 included, for the first time, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

Integrative Practitioner: WHO latest ICD includes Traditional Chinese Medicine Katherine Rushlau March 28, 2019

Orac has written on this, you can probably guess his opinion, but the articles are worth reading for the background. TCM has an 'interesting' history:

Respectful Insolence: The World Health Organization: Integrating quackery into the ICD-11 Orac March 26, 2018

Respectful Insolence: Mao triumphant: The World Health Organization officially embraces traditional Chinese medicine quackery Orac May 29, 2019

How you go about convincing people not to eat rare animals is a mystery to me: I suspect a sustained campaign will be about as successful as pro-abortion, pro-vaccination, anti-homeopathy, anti-chiropractic campaigns. In other words, not quickly successful.
Eating and selling local wildlife once it's dead is pretty different in terms of pandemic risk to collecting rare animals from all over the world then stacking them on top of each other in tiny cages covered in each others' sh.t for weeks at a time.

FWIW the legislation to prevent the trade in endangered species is decades old, and has been agreed to by China. However, in practice they don't bother to enforce it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CITES

I can't imagine why UK-based hunters or fishers would have any problem with any of that (the ones I know certainly don't).
Yah, well, I do know about CITES. I wish enforcement were effective.

As for H, S, and F: on the principle of reciprocity and equality, if we say the Chinese shouldn't eat wild animals, then the same should apply to us. Even eating local stuff is dangerous, as various diseases that originate in Africa are plausibly generated by the 'bushmeat' trade, which is predominantly local, even though suitcases full of gently rotting great-ape meat were discovered at Gatwick and Heathrow.

Making the fine distinction that it is OK to eat snipe, grouse, partridge, pheasant, venison, moose but perhaps not local Chinese delicacies like the Chinese Pangolin (which you can argue is endangered, and therefore shouldn't be eaten on that ground) is difficult. No doubt that there a non-endangered critters that are disease vectors that are native to China, just like there are in Africa.

I'm not saying that the status quo is OK, but I'm simply mindful that change will not be easy, even with the pandemic in full sway.

So the rule appears to be: go ahead and eat non-endangered, local wild stuff that is not a known or suspected disease vector. Snappy.

I mean, it seems reasonably clear and sensible to me, but enforcing it is a whole different kettle of fish.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Woodchopper » Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:23 pm

Pucksoppet wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:08 pm
I mean, it seems reasonably clear and sensible to me, but enforcing it is a whole different kettle of fish.
Cod, haddock and North Atlantic prawns are also wild animals. Of course there are very few pandemic risks from eating seafood. But politically, it would be easy for someone in China or elsewhere to point and ask why westerners should still be allowed to cull that kind of wild animal when are being told that they can't eat the wild things they like.

User avatar
Pucksoppet
Snowbonk
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:13 pm
Location: Girdling the Earth

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Pucksoppet » Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:46 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:23 pm
Pucksoppet wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:08 pm
I mean, it seems reasonably clear and sensible to me, but enforcing it is a whole different kettle of fish.
Cod, haddock and North Atlantic prawns are also wild animals. Of course there are very few pandemic risks from eating seafood. But politically, it would be easy for someone in China or elsewhere to point and ask why westerners should still be allowed to cull that kind of wild animal when are being told that they can't eat the wild things they like.
Sounds like we are in agreement. Intractable problems are us.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:52 am

I think there's a few separate issues getting conflated here:
- animal husbandry practices / marketplace biosecurity
- endangered species and effects on wild populations
- enforcing legislation intended to address the above

Most seafood is worrying on the second point (including stuff like Atlantic cod), but with the exception of things like bivalves and crustaceans from environments downstream of humans there's little pandemic threat. Even if something evolves the faecal-oral transmission route is comparatively easily tackled.

Conversely, even with restrictions on trans-continental shipments of wildlife, Asian markets would be comparatively risky due to the presence of multiple species. Mix your farmed ducks, chickens, pigs and goats all together in each others' sh.t with some lax human hygiene and it's a matter of time.

Both practices are to be condemned for their effects on wild populations, for sure, but it would be pretty disingenuous for measures intended to prevent future pandemics to be countered with "well what about Newfoundland?"

And I say this as somebody who doesn't eat any meat.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

raven
Catbabel
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:58 pm

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by raven » Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:02 pm

I thought the main issue with wet markets from a pandemic point of view was potential cross-contamination between live wild animals and butchered meat for human comsumption. Saw a piece on BBC where they went round one in ? Hong Kong I think? to show how they'd regulated there, and that although they still have wet markets, the live animals had to be kept in a completely separate area from the meat and the hygeine was better.

Regulating is probably more effective than a ban, as that'll just push them underground.

Herainestold
After Pie
Posts: 2029
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Herainestold » Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:04 am

raven wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:02 pm
I thought the main issue with wet markets from a pandemic point of view was potential cross-contamination between live wild animals and butchered meat for human comsumption. Saw a piece on BBC where they went round one in ? Hong Kong I think? to show how they'd regulated there, and that although they still have wet markets, the live animals had to be kept in a completely separate area from the meat and the hygeine was better.

Regulating is probably more effective than a ban, as that'll just push them underground.
I think it is more keeping a bunch of live animals together in crowded unsanitary conditions, where the virus can mutate and jump from animal to human and then human to human transmission.
This particular pathogen is not transferred via food or contaminated meat. At least I havent seen that yet.
The whole sanitary and hygiene aspect is another issue. People talk about "wet markets" like they are unique to China, but I have seen some pretty bad ones in Philippines and Indonesia. I suspect they are better in Singapore and Hong Kong.

They won't be banned, but they can be improved.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by EACLucifer » Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:12 am

raven wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:02 pm
I thought the main issue with wet markets from a pandemic point of view was potential cross-contamination between live wild animals and butchered meat for human comsumption. Saw a piece on BBC where they went round one in ? Hong Kong I think? to show how they'd regulated there, and that although they still have wet markets, the live animals had to be kept in a completely separate area from the meat and the hygeine was better.

Regulating is probably more effective than a ban, as that'll just push them underground.
In China, a ban won't push them underground, it'll just be a nice supplement to the income of those whose job it is to supposedly enforce the ban. :roll:

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:54 pm

Herainestold wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:04 am
raven wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:02 pm
I thought the main issue with wet markets from a pandemic point of view was potential cross-contamination between live wild animals and butchered meat for human comsumption. Saw a piece on BBC where they went round one in ? Hong Kong I think? to show how they'd regulated there, and that although they still have wet markets, the live animals had to be kept in a completely separate area from the meat and the hygeine was better.

Regulating is probably more effective than a ban, as that'll just push them underground.
I think it is more keeping a bunch of live animals together in crowded unsanitary conditions, where the virus can mutate and jump from animal to human and then human to human transmission.
This particular pathogen is not transferred via food or contaminated meat. At least I havent seen that yet.
The whole sanitary and hygiene aspect is another issue. People talk about "wet markets" like they are unique to China, but I have seen some pretty bad ones in Philippines and Indonesia. I suspect they are better in Singapore and Hong Kong.

They won't be banned, but they can be improved.
Yes, it's this. There are a whole bunch of issues to be addressed:

- keeping animals in conditions that promote the spread of pathogens between individuals - lack of basic hygiene and biosecurity
- keeping multiple species together, promoting the spread of pathogens between species
- mixing wild and domestic animals
- importing live animals from all over the globe without e.g. quarantining and testing

on the pandemic-risk side, and then,

- hunting species of conservation concern
- inhumane conditions

on the biodiversity/welfare side of things.

An outright ban would make checking and enforcing most of those things much more difficult.

Instead, a set of legislation requiring decent biosecurity, not just within the markets but throughout the supply chain, would go a long way towards solving the problem (if enforced), both directly and indirectly, because by massively increasing the associated costs you'd arrive at a de facto ban.

So, enforcement is clearly the issue, with parts of it taking place at points of entry, part of it in rural areas and part of it in urban markets. That enforcement will certainly be partial and flawed. This is the case with all legislation introduced almost anywhere in the world - east Asian countries are not uniquely corrupt. The question is simply whether governments are actually serious about preventing the re-occurrence of a threat like this.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Tessa K » Tue Apr 21, 2020 1:12 pm

There's a piece here on the difference between wet markets and wildlife markets. https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/stop-conf ... naccurate/
In Asia, the term “wet market” refers to open air or enclosed food markets where fresh vegetables, fruit, tofu, meat and seafood are sold in an open environment – similar to farmers markets and Sunday markets in the Western world. International media outlets are now using the term wet market interchangeably with wildlife markets, in headlines linking the latter with the Covid-19 pandemic. This practice is ignorant, xenophobic, and quite frankly, not factual.
Wuhan’s Huanan wholesale seafood market, which has been associated with the outbreak of Covid-19 (some people suggest it is the pandemic’s point of origin though doubt has been shed about this too), is a “grey-area” market that showcases an entire section dedicated to selling exotic meats and wild animals in an open setting where illegal and cruel wildlife trading is allowed to thrive – think live civet cats and wolf pups.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Apr 21, 2020 2:38 pm

Splitting some posts from the "Effective re-usable face-masks" thread as they were off-topic.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Apr 21, 2020 2:48 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:57 am
A quick note on wet markets from James Wong

https://twitter.com/botanygeek/status/1 ... 0049291264
Just a quick note to those RTing petitions to ban ‘Asian wet markets’.

Before doing so, have a read of what ‘wet market’ actually means in Asia: A fresh food market.

As opposed to ‘dry’ markets, that sell clothes, electronics, etc.

It’s like a petition to ban farmers markets.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Apr 21, 2020 2:55 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 1:12 pm
There's a piece here on the difference between wet markets and wildlife markets. https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/stop-conf ... naccurate/
In Asia, the term “wet market” refers to open air or enclosed food markets where fresh vegetables, fruit, tofu, meat and seafood are sold in an open environment – similar to farmers markets and Sunday markets in the Western world. International media outlets are now using the term wet market interchangeably with wildlife markets, in headlines linking the latter with the Covid-19 pandemic. This practice is ignorant, xenophobic, and quite frankly, not factual.
Wuhan’s Huanan wholesale seafood market, which has been associated with the outbreak of Covid-19 (some people suggest it is the pandemic’s point of origin though doubt has been shed about this too), is a “grey-area” market that showcases an entire section dedicated to selling exotic meats and wild animals in an open setting where illegal and cruel wildlife trading is allowed to thrive – think live civet cats and wolf pups.
This article is a bit disingenuous - in many areas, the 'meat' sold is live animals, including wildlife, which is the problem people are talking about. The sale of exotic animals is not limited to a specific 'wildlife markets' as the second paragraph you quote illustrates.

Perhaps some online commenters (not in this thread) have been calling for an outright ban on 'wet markets' without specifying that they mean the live animals bit specifically rather than also including vegetables (though I'd be inclined to give such people the benefit of the doubt, as what they mean is really very obvious).
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

raven
Catbabel
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:58 pm

Re: Wildlife markets, wet markets and pandemic risks

Post by raven » Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:06 pm

I read somewhere that 'wet' markets referred to places that kept stuff on ice & hence were literally wet. Dunno if that was the case and the term has broadened or what.

Mixed markets of veg, fruit, fish and meat used to be the norm here too, before it was all supermarkets. The night markets I visited in Taipei a couple of years ago are not a million miles from Oxford covered market really, and the butchers there hang whole carcasses of deer and hogs up at Christmas, something that has quite shocked younger people we've taken there.

They were vegans though :mrgreen:

Post Reply