Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Two Schools of Thought

Undisputedly, the horseshoe bats are the nearest known genetic relatives of the Sars-CoV-2 virus. However, most intriguing question is to explain how did a bat RNA virus evolve into a human pathogen and became so virulent and deadly unlike its predecessors of the likes Sars-Co V (November 2002- February 2003 stared in Asia; 774 deaths) and MERS-CoV (September 2012 started in Saudi Arabia; 886 deaths) were also the bat coronaviruses but had infected very fewer humans (Ge et al., 2013). The scientists believe that either the Sars-CoV-2 virus had infected humans directly or via an intermediate temporary host such as pangolin, a palm civet or even a snake, i. e., the one that has an ACE2 cellular receptor (the molecule which allows cellular entry of the virus) intermediate in protein sequence (or at least structure) between the bat and the human one. They believe that the 6 miners who cleaned the facets of the bats from the abandoned mine (2012) situated in Mojiang after continuously working in the mine for long 15117 days fell severely ill and were treated in WIV, Wuhan. They had got infected with the bat virus RaTG13 having a genome resembling the extent of 98.7% to that of the Sars-CoV-2 virus. Their samples having RaTG13 virus continued to remain covered in the WIV, Wuhan for long 6-7 years got evolved (fully blown) to the extent of 100% Sars-CoV-2 virus. While working on these samples in 2019, some researcher/s unwittingly got infected with this virus and became the first unsuspected victim/s i.e., directly got infected with the now fully evolved Sars-CoV-2 virus. Some others believe that the infected researcher/s reached the Wet- market; situated at a distance of barely 300m from WIV and came in touch with the bulk pangolins, palms civet or even the snakes which received bat virus from the unsuspected patient/s and the chain of infection of Sars-CoV-2 virus started. Either way, this School of Scientists believes the Sars-CoV-2 virus has a Natural or Zoonotic Origin; irrespectively whether it reached human beings directly from the bat or via pangolins, palms civet or even the snakes. The ‘Second School of Thought’ of scientists suspects that the Coronavirus is man-made as indicated in the 2015 document where the Chinese scientists discuss using Coronavirus as a Bioweapon. But it remains to be an enigma for the scientists belonging to both the ‘Schools of Thought’ that the virus enters human cells using a viral spike protein that is a tremendous fit for its human receptor (a protein called ACE2). This close fit allows the virus to spread very efficiently between people, but such precision cannot plausibly have arisen by chance. Thus, the virus appears to have evolved in the presence of that human receptor. The present study discusses the arguments put forward by both Schools of Thought.

They had got infected with the bat virus RaTG13 having a genome resembling the extent of 98.7% to that of the Sars-CoV-2 virus. Their samples having RaTG13 virus continued to remain covered in the WIV, Wuhan for long 6-7 years got evolved (fully blown) to the extent of 100% Sars-CoV-2 virus. While working on these samples in 2019, some researcher/s unwittingly got infected with this virus and became the first unsuspected victim/s i.e., directly got infected with the now fully evolved Sars-CoV-2 virus. Some others believe that the infected researcher/s reached the Wet-market; situated at a distance of barely 300m from WIV and came in touch with the bulk pangolins, palms civet or even the snakes which received bat virus from the unsuspected patient/s and the chain of infection of Sars-CoV-2 virus started. Either way, this School of Scientists believes the Sars-CoV-2 virus has a Natural or Zoonotic Origin; irrespectively whether it reached human beings directly from the bat or via pangolins, palms civet or even the snakes.
The 'Second School of Thought' of scientists suspects that the Coronavirus is manmade as indicated in the 2015 document where the Chinese scientists discuss using Coronavirus as a Bioweapon. But it remains to be an enigma for the scientists belonging to both the 'Schools of Thought' that the virus enters human cells using a viral spike protein that is a tremendous fit for its human receptor (a protein called ACE2). This close fit allows the virus to spread very efficiently between people, but such precision cannot plausibly have arisen by chance. Thus, the virus appears to have evolved in the presence of that human receptor. The present study discusses the arguments put forward by both Schools of Thought.
(ability to infect), pathogenicity (ability to cause disease) and the number of virus particles needed to get infected determine the disease pattern. SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus, which spreads mainly through droplets that enter the nose and mouth. It can bind itself to a receptor, typically in our lungs. Some new strains of the virus have also emerged over the last few months. Every individual is a host for SARS-CoV-2. Health condition, risk of exposure and medical history determine an individual's response to the agent. In the press and the scientific literature, scenarios by which this natural zoonotic transfer might have occurred have been endlessly mulled were fueled by early findings that many of the earliest COVID-19 cases seem to have occurred in and around Wuhan's Huanan live animal market. Another point which could well be cited that there is a precedent that the two previous coronavirus nearpandemics of SARS (2002-3) and MERS (2012) both probably came from bats and both are thought (but not proven) to have transitioned to humans via intermediate animals (civets and dromedaries respectively), a natural zoonotic pathway is a reasonable first assumption [1]. On the contrary, the latest data are that 14 of the 41 earliest cases, including the first, had no connection to the animal market [2]. They destroyed evidence of it in laboratories and also refused to provide live samples to international scientists who were working on a vaccine. Many reports in the past have appeared that China deliberately suppressed or destroyed evidence related to the coronavirus outbreak and silenced doctors and whistle-blowers who spoke about the virus.
Reuters adds that a whistle-blower, who worked in the Chinese health care system, provided 117 pages of internal documents from the Hubei Provincial Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to CNN. The files, which CNN had verified by six experts, showed how the region struggled to manage the coronavirus between October 2019 and April 2020. According to a report published in CNN, a document marked as "internal document, please keep confidential,". Irrespective of this observation of the expert committee of WHO, the scientists throughout the world remain divided into two schools of thought on the origin of COVID-19, but it was the former US President Donald Trump who had commented that implied that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, was made in a laboratory. Dr. Michael Ryan, an Irish, Executive Director of the World Health Organization's Health Emergencies Program responded to these claims by repeating that the novel coronavirus is believed to be natural in origin. Of course, the two laboratories, located close to the Wuhan wet market where China said the outbreak began, study bat-origin coronaviruses; laxity about safety requirements is quite common.

Discussion
The author would try to argue supporting WHO at times while differing with its observations pending the complete report of WHO is made public.

Two Schools of Thought Regarding Origin of SARS-CoV-2 Virus
There are many theories around the origin of the virus, from being leaked of the Wuhan virus Lab to many of them linking it to the wet market in Wuhan. In all fairness, we shall discuss the arguments forwarded by the researchers belonging to two diagonally opposed schools of thoughts, i.e. the one that believes that SARS-CoV-2 has originated naturally the one that believes that is lab-made.

Did SARS-CoV-2 Originate Naturally or had Zoonotic Origin?
We offer a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and discuss scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. The following arguments may prove it to have originated naturally.

M M P (Mojiang Miners Passaging) Theory
The story dates back to April 2012 when 6workers working in Mojiang mine, an abandoned situated) in Mojiang Hani, Yunnan Province, China) fell ill from a mystery illness while removing bat faeces. Three of the six subsequently died. For investigation swab samples of 20 bats (Rhinolophus ferrumiquinum) 9 rats (R. Flavipectus) and 5 musk shrews (Crucidura dracula) were collected by researchers from the lab of Zheng-li Shi, named as bat-woman, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (henceforth WIV). The specifics of this mystery disease have been virtually forgotten. However, they are described in a Master's thesis written in the Chinese language in 2013 (later translated in English) by a doctor who supervised the treatment of the six ill miners who were admitted to the No. 1 myalgia (sore limbs). Some patients had hiccoughs and headaches.
They were given treatment like ventilation (3 patients), steroids (all patients), antivirals (all except one), and blood thinners (two patients). They were also given antibiotics and antifungal medicines to counter secondary but significant co-infections.
These Samples, which were later sent to the WIV in Wuhan and Zhong Nanshan, further confirmed that viral disease was strongly suspected. Some miners did test positive for coronavirus, though their number not given in the thesis. It was also concluded that Rhinolophus sinicus, a horseshoe bat was the source of this viral disease and the "the unknown virus lead to severe pneumonia could be: The SARS-like-CoV from the Chinese rufous horseshoe bat." In short, the miners had a coronavirus, but it was not SARS itself. The new virus was called MojV after Mojiang, the locality of the mine [3]. All these symptoms and even the line of treatment, which caused the recovery of three of the six patients, point towards a very strong probability that they were the CORONA-19 patients [4,5]. The sampling by the Shi lab found that bat coronaviruses were unusually abundant in the mine [6]. They also found two beta-coronaviruses, the most-deadly of all coronaviruses both in SARS and MERS. One of which RaTG13, then known as BtCoV/4991, are the most closely related sequences to SARS-CoV-2 (98.7% and 96.2% identical respectively) has a special pandemic potential as was already reported by the Shi lab [7].

*Shi Zhengli, Head of bat Coronavirus Research at WIV is
Renowned as the Bat-Woman of China: Yet, there is an equal number of points to argue that considering the conditions inside the lungs of the miners were far from ordinary and the Ra TG13 might have evolved to the level of the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 in 7-8 years (2012-2020). They put forward the following arguments in their support.

1)
The rapid evolution in new hosts is well known among coronaand other viruses because the selection pressure on the invading pathogen is high [8][9][10][11]. According to the Master's thesis, the miners' immune systems were compromised and remained so even for those discharged. This weakness on the part of the miners may also have encouraged the evolution of the virus. The CT scans of all the miners showed severe infections in their lungs because the miners were exerting themselves and therefore inhaling the disturbed bat guano deeply. One miner had suspected pneumoconiosis and/or a particulate matter was present that irritated the tissues and may have facilitated viral entry initially. In contrast, standard coronavirus infections are confined to the throat and upper respiratory tract. They do not normally reach the lungs [12].
Lungs are far larger tissues by weight (kg vs gm) than the upper respiratory tract. The human aero-digestive tract is approximately 20cm in length and 5cm in circumference, i.e. approximately 100 cm 2 in the surface area while the surface area of a human lung ranges from 260,000-680,000 cm2. The amount of potentially infected tissue in an average lung is, therefore, approximately 4500fold (Appx average of 260000 and 68000) greater than that available to normal coronavirus infection [13]. There was, therefore, likely hood of a much larger quantity of virus inside the miners than would be the case in an ordinary coronavirus infection.
2) The length of infection experienced by the miners far exceeded that of an ordinary coronavirus infection-57-117 days excluding the 14 days of incubation period when they continued to work in the mine while the ordinary surviving coronavirus period takes 10-14 days to cure [14].

4)
Not only bat coronaviruses were abnormally abundant but also there were many different kinds, often causing co-infections of the bats [19]. It is an accepted fact the Viral co-infections are often more infectious or more pathogenic [20]. of coronavirus evolution" [21]. Combining these observations, it could be possible that the miners' lungs offered an unprecedented opportunity for accelerated evolution of a highly bat-adapted coronavirus into a highly human-adapted coronavirus and that the decades of ordinary coronavirus evolution could easily have been condensed into months [22]. ii. Based on computational structural studies [23][24][25] and biochemical experiments [25][26][27] SARS-CoV-2 is (appears to be) optimized for binding to the human receptor ACE2

Notable
(Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 The following three points will lend support to the above argument that it is the selected human ACE2 receptor that can easily bound with the RaTG13 virus as follows: a) The receptor-binding domain (RBD) is the region of the spike protein which is the most variable part of SARC-CoV-2, [25] in the region of the spike that physically contacts the human ACE2 receptor has recently been crystallized. Shang, et al [28] found close structural similarities between the spikes of SARC-CoV-2 and Ra TG13 in how they bound the human ACE2 receptor. Six RBD amino acids are shown to be critical for binding to ACE2* receptors and for determining the host range of SARC-CoV like viruses [23]. With the coordinates based on SARC-CoV, they are Y442, L472, N479, D480, T487 and Y4911, which correspond to L455, F486, Q493, S494, N501 and N505 in SARC-CoV-2 [23]. Five of these six residues differ between SARC-CoV-2 and SARC-CoV. The results based on the structural studies [23][24][25] and biochemical experiments [25][26][27] indicate that SARS-CoV-2 RBD binds with high affinity to ACE2 from humans, ferrets, cats and other species with high receptor homology [25] but not mice and rats. We found that, compared to human ACE2, rat ACE2 very less efficiently bound to the S1 domain of SARC-CoV-2 and supported less-efficient S proteinmediated infection [29].
*ACE2 or Angiotensin-converting Enzyme 2 exists in various oral mucosal tissues, so, the oral cavity is considered a potential route for the entry of the COVID-19 virus. ACE2 is a protein that provides the entry point for the coronavirus to hook into and infect a wide range of human cells,". "Research has shown that other than the common organs like dry mouth, another symptom of the dry tongue now also known as COVID Tongue is a manifestation when the body fails to produce saliva that protects your mouth from bad bacteria. COVID tongue is often accompanied by a change to the tongue's sensation, as well as muscle pain while chewing due to persistent ulcers.
Three points to note are: i. Mutations do take place in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2.
ii. Acquisition of polybasic cleavage site and O-linked glycans.
Both the polybasic cleavage site and the three adjacent sequences are a consensus generated from SRR10168377 and SRR10168378 (NCBI BioProject PRJNA573298). While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal [23] and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding [23,30]. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise [28] suggesting that there is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation. receptor [31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. The same is the case of the spike of RaTG13 that binds the human ACE2 receptor [38].
So, it looks highly probable that the RaTG13 virus, unlike most bat coronaviruses, in the mine was directly infected with the human lung cells. The main determinant of cell infection and species specificity of coronaviruses is initial receptor binding [39]. All this makes RaTG13 a highly likely direct ancestor of Sars-CoV-2 [40,41].
All this makes RaTG13 a highly likely direct ancestor of Sars-CoV-2.
From the thesis we also know that blood and other samples were extracted from the miners and some of these were sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). We suggest that these samples It also explains subsequent attempts to obscure the deaths of the miners and the Mojiang mine origin of RATG13. It looks improbable that SARS-CoV-2 that is closely related to SARS-CoVlike coronavirus could have been manipulated in the laboratory.
As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted. [23,29]. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for beta coronaviruses would probably have been used [42]. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone [43]. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARSCoV-2: (i) Natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) Natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer.
Mutations, insertions and deletions can occur near the S1-S2 junction of coronaviruses [44]. The finding of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses from pangolins with nearly identical RBDs, however, provides a much stronger and more parsimonious explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired these via recombination or mutation [42].

How did the Virus Reach Human Beings?
The Scientists are divided into two groups to put forwards two different arguments as follows There can be another way whereby? humans can get infected with this virus as follows: Coronaviruses are also known to undergo genetic recombination, in which they swap genetic material.
This happens when two different coronaviruses find themselves infecting the same host. It's therefore highly likely that SARS-COV-2 arose from a recombination event between two coronaviruses, possibly from bats and pangolins, which was then able to jump into humans.

Second School of Thought: SARS-Cov-2 is Cultured in a Laboratory
Other than assuming that the virus escaped accidentally or has been intentionally leaked by those who had been working in WIV on the covered samples of the 6 miners, another group of scientists suspect that the lab was genetically engineering or manipulating a in most of the cases and wherever some written work is available, their reproducibility, which is a must for any research work, was not available.

Serology of Ms. Shi and Her Colleagues was not Performed:
The serology of Ms. Shi and her colleagues should have been performed there and then. If they passed the virus, they must have the IgG (for details, just Google).

Death of 3 of 6 Miners not Discussed in 2 Original Papers:
Still another point: Six miners who cleared the debris (mainly bat faces) from the same mineshafts suffered from typical pneumonia and 3 of them died. This reference also has not been mentioned in and RaTG13 are the SL-coronaviruses from the same sample, why the sequencing of RaTG13 was performed after the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 [7].

Infects only Human ACE2 Receptor-Crafting Virus a
Possibility: The most compelling information was the finding that the COVID-19 virus binds 10-fold better to human ACE2 receptor than to the original SARS virus and that it shows no such affinity in other species.

SARS-CoV-2 Possesses Furin Site but its Originator RaTG13
Does into highly pathogenic forms [52]. The acquisition of polybasic cleavage sites by HA has also been observed after repeated passage in cell culture or through animals [53].

RaTG13 Needs Decades to Evolve to the Level of SARS-
CoV-2: Although RaTG13 is the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 is a bat virus that was kept at the W I V, yet Prof. Holmes [47,48] believes that it should take 20-50 years for RaTG13 to evolve to the level of the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2.

Confusion Compounded
There is a clear pattern of obfuscation and lack of transparency concerning the provenance of RaTG13, as well as its sequence data as follows: "How is it possible that the pandemic prevention at Wuhan University and indicated that they were uploaded to the US managed database' Sequence Read Archive' [62]. But when he looked for the Wuhan sequences, the search result returned a message that read: "no items found".

Chinese Scientists Discussed using Coronavirus as a Bioweapon in 2015
A document has been found in which Chinese scientists and health officials can be found discussing a "new era of genetic weapons" that could be "artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponized and unleashed". The document was written in 2015, five years before goes as follows: The report published in the paper suggested that the discussions between the Chinese officials suggested that the third world war would be fought with biological weapons. The paper also revealed that Chinese scientists were discussing the weaponization of co-operate… We've had the opposite of that," he noted. According to news.com.au, a cybersecurity specialist has analyzed leaked Chinese government documents and found them to be genuine.
"We reached a high confidence conclusion that it was genuine. It's not fake but it's up to someone else to interpret how serious it is," Robert Potter, the analyst, said. "It emerged in the last few years, but they (China) will almost certainly try to remove it now it's been covered" [63].

World Leaders Smell Fishy in the 'Natural Evolution' of SARS-CoV-2
Agreeing that the lab leak theory is not fool-proof, nor is it proven, yet many world leaders are coming around the argument that 'only a proper investigation can lead us closer to the truth of how we got here. and how not to get here again'.

They Suspect that China Using Coronavirus as a Bioweapon:
China, an iron-walled country, would neither allow free access to the outside world nor would permit the free press to reports the events as and when they happen. So most of the world leaders allege that China has intentionally let -lose the Coronavirus to use it as a Bioweapon that had caused a huge loss of human lives and wrecked the economy of almost all the countries of the world.
Following findings have given credence to this suspicion.

Brazilian President Suspects China on COVID-19 Origin:
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro ( officials "compared notes" over the theory that the pandemic may have originated from a leak from a lab in Wuhan, calling for further investigations. However, he asserted that the UK's "best information" remained that it "jumped" from animals to humans but admitted they did not have "all the answers". "That's why internationally we wanted the review to be able to go into China to get all the answers so that we have the full picture rather than these possible, potential, plausible options," Mr Raab told 'Sky News'. "But, on balance, we do not believe that it came from a laboratory. We think it is much more likely to have jumped from animal species," he said.

Likelihood of China having prepared Pre-Pandemic Vaccine
Now that the Chinese scientists had started synthesizing coronavirus as a Bioweapon in 2015, they were in the know of the acute fatality power, SOPs of its prevention as well as its genomes. In a way, the Chine were well aware of its highly infectious nature and thus the use of mask and keeping the social distance was the only way to control it from being spreading by the infected person/s. So it looks highly probable that they would have also been working on some sort of vaccine/s to control it and, thus, would have been able to prepare some vaccine well before they let the world know about this highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 pathogen causing COVID-19 disease. The following sequence of events points toward some sort of fraud that had been played on the whole of the word. In the above-stated document written in 2015 [63], it is mentioned that the Chinese vaccine for the Coronavirus was already prepared by 5 January 2020.
China declared the first death in Wuhan City on 11 January  The issue of greater concern is that when combined, these two It is entirely possible China released another pathogen'.

Multiple Mutations observed in SARS-CoV-2 in India Look Suspicious
Moreover, how is it that no major mutation observed in SARS-COV-2 till mid-March 2021? [71].

Yes, the two Schools of Thought do Overlap at Some Points as Follows
There are two ways to explain how RaTG13 could develop a furin site; though both need further investigation.
a) It arose due to the high selection pressure which existed in the miner's lungs which, in general, worked to ensure that the virus became highly adapted to the lungs. It also means that the furin site was not acquired by recombination with another coronavirus and simply represents convergent evolution.
b) another possibility is that SARS-CoV-2 acquired its furin site directly from the miner's lungs as follows: Humans possess an epithelial sodium channel protein called ENaC-a -whose furin cleavage site is identical over eight amino acids to SARS-CoV-2.
ENaC-a protein is present in the same airway epithelial and lung tissues infected by SARS-CoV-2 [1].
But it looks hard to believe as the high selection pressure alone could so much change because of the following two reasons:

How did this Genetic Change Occur in SARS-CoV-2?
Starting with an accepted conclusion that the mutation allows for increased pathogenicity, Genetic Change is possible to happen both ways whether we assume SARS-CoV-2 has Zoonotic Origin or it was Lab-made. It is explained as follows: f) The report is non-committal as to how the infection was introduced into the market".
In a way, the committee's views should be respected. If we assume that the bat virus infected some scholar directly who became the first patient of SARS-CoV-2, then a never-ending chain would start even without the involvement of any other livestock which may be present in the market.
g) It says that the infection transmitted to humans from bats via another animal like pangolins Maybe or may not be. Note the following three arguments.
i. As reported in 'Nature', pangolins were not listed on the inventory of items being sold in Wuhan, although this omission could be deliberate as it's illegal to sell them.
ii. "Whether the poor pangolin was the species at which it jumped, it's not clear," Turner says. i) Of course, the closest relative of the virus that causes COVID-19 has been found in bats.
The author agrees but with a rider, as follows: How to reconcile that BatCoVRaTG131 and BtCoV/4991 are two different viruses obtained from the bat j) However, it states that "the evolutionary distance between these bat viruses and SARSCoV-2 is estimated to be several decades, suggesting a missing link". k) It further stated that highly similar viruses have been found in pangolins, but also noted that mink and cats are susceptible to the COVID virus, which suggests they could be carriers.

A Word of Caution
There is a general reluctance on the part of Publishing Houses as given below. This is not because scientists fail to prove their points leading to its being man-made due to 'other points of conflicts'.
Anyone who doubts this pressure should read the interview with Birger Sørensen in Norway's Minerva magazine in which Sørensen discusses the "reluctance" of journals to publish his assessment that the existence of a virus that is "exceptionally well adjusted to infect humans" is "suspicious" and "cannot have evolved naturally".
The source of this reluctance, says Sørensen, is not rationality or scientific evidence. Yesterday a prominent Chinese virologist from Hong Kong who fled China and did early work on the Coronavirus said the genome pattern indicates the origin was a laboratory and has promised more paper on the assertion. The Chinese Communist Party has tried to silence her and she is in hiding. But she has been recently interviewed on the Fox news channel. The entire rest of the news media so far in the last 48 hours have ignored the story.
She promises more paper on the subject shorty. I highly suspect the WHO and most of the scientific world has been in complicit propaganda on this all along. People with unimpressive credentials in a chorus denied laboratory origin could be possible. Really?
Remember the SARS virus escaping from a Chinese laboratory?
Did they forget that? And the laboratory in Wuhan was criticized before this crisis for not having the properly trained staff for such a high containment facility. It's amazing how much information is censored. How much is hidden from us? Soon the entire world will be like China. All of our news will be filtered and controlled.
(16 September 2020). Though the Xi Jinping government rejected accusations outrightly made by the United States and other Western governments that it deliberately concealed information relating to the outbreak of the virus. The WHO team, headed by an Australian who was looking into this matter, has made certain observations.