WHO says all Covid-19 origin theories still open, after inconclusive study
GENEVA: All hypotheses on how the Covid-19 pandemic began remain open, the World Health Organization said on Friday (Jun 27), following an inconclusive four-year investigation that was hamstrung by crucial information being withheld.
The global catastrophe killed an estimated 20 million people, according to the WHO, while shredding economies, crippling health systems and turning people's lives upside-down.
The first cases were detected in Wuhan in China in late 2019, and understanding where the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid came from is key to preventing future pandemics.
However, a lengthy investigation launched by the UN's health agency said that pending further data, the origin of Covid and how it first spread remains elusive.
"As things stand, all hypotheses must remain on the table, including zoonotic spillover and lab leak," WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a press conference, referring to the two main hypotheses as to how the pandemic began.
EXPERT INVESTIGATION
An initial WHO-Chinese joint report in March 2021 concluded that the virus most likely jumped from bats to humans via an intermediate animal.
It deemed a leak from Wuhan's virology laboratories, known for their research on coronaviruses, to be "extremely unlikely".
However, that investigation faced harsh criticism for lacking transparency and access, and for not seriously evaluating the lab-leak theory.
Tedros launched another investigation, setting up the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), comprising 27 international experts, in July 2021.
Their 78-page report was published on Friday.
It said the weight of available evidence suggests a spillover from animals, either directly from bats, or through an intermediate host.
However, it could not conclude with certainty where and when this happened, nor whether the Wuhan wet market was where the virus first spilled over into humans.
That said, the market "appears to be the location for amplification of infection in humans", leading to widespread transmission.
"Evidence for widespread infections or cases in any other countries prior to December 2019 is lacking," it added.
While spillover was the best supported theory on the evidence currently available, "until further requests for information are met, or more scientific data becomes available, the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and how it entered the human population will remain inconclusive," SAGO chair Marietjie Venter said at the press conference.
Lab leak theories "could not be investigated or excluded", she said, because much of the needed information had not been made available.
The experts requested unpublished information from other countries, notably Germany and the United States, but without success, she said.
Earlier this week, one SAGO member resigned and three others asked for their names to be removed from the report.
CRUCIAL QUESTION
"Over the past five years, we have learned a lot about Covid-19 but there is one crucial question about the pandemic that we have not yet answered, how it started," Tedros said.
"Despite our repeated requests, China has not provided hundreds of viral sequences from individuals with Covid-19 early in the pandemic, more detailed information on animals sold at markets in Wuhan, and information on work done and biosafety conditions at laboratories in Wuhan," he said.
He said WHO has requested access to intelligence reports by governments around the world on the origins of Covid-19.
US President Donald Trump's administration has officially embraced the lab leak theory.
MORAL IMPERATIVE
Tedros said finding out how Covid-19 started was a moral imperative for those who lost their lives in the pandemic and to prevent further outbreaks.
He said the virus was continuing to evolve, take lives and leave people suffering with post-Covid conditions, or so-called long Covid.
Tedros said the WHO is appealing to countries with information about the origins of Covid-19 to share information.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
Singapore to raise age limit for first-time blood donors from 60 to 65
SINGAPORE: In a move to expand Singapore's pool of blood donors, the Health Sciences Authority will raise the maximum age for first-time blood donors from 60 to 65, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung announced on Saturday (June 28). The rule relaxation, which kicks in on Jan 1, 2026, is aligned with longer life expectancy and better health in older age, said Mr Ong. He also said local data showed that adverse donor reaction actually decreases with age among Singapore's first-time donors up to the current limit of 60 years old. "There is no reason to believe that once you cross 60 years old, suddenly the adverse reaction prevalence rate is going to shoot up," said Mr Ong during an event at Marina Bay Sands marking World Blood Donor Day. Currently, first-time whole blood donors in Singapore must be aged 60 or below. Repeat donors can donate until they are 65, or beyond if they meet health criteria and have donated recently. Under the revised policy, healthy people will be able to donate blood for the first time until the age of 65, bringing Singapore in line with jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Ireland, the Netherlands, South Korea and the United Kingdom. BLOOD BANK CHALLENGES Mr Ong, who is also the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies, noted that Singapore faces structural challenges in maintaining a stable blood supply. An ageing population is driving up demand for blood products, while the pool of eligible donors is shrinking, he said. The number of new blood donors has also declined, from over 20,000 in 2013 to around 18,000 in 2024. At the same time, demand is rising, said Mr Ong. Last year, more than 35,000 patients in Singapore received blood transfusions, which are needed for surgeries, cancer treatment and childbirth complications. "Each blood donation saves up to three lives," said Mr Ong. But if blood stocks run low, surgeries will be postponed, treatments delayed and lives could be at risk, he warned. Singapore also contends with seasonal fluctuations in supply, with donor numbers falling during festive periods, school holidays and long weekends when many travel overseas. Early last year, Group O blood stocks in Singapore dropped to critical levels as the country's stockpile stood at less than six days' worth of blood. A personal appeal by Mr Ong, he said, resulted in the blood stock rising by almost 2.3 times in a week. Mr Ong said that this experience showed how people are willing to step forward, adding that authorities would work to make donation more convenient, and to minimise rejection of willing donors. ENCOURAGING MORE TO STEP FORWARD Beyond the policy change, Mr Ong shared that he himself had been unable to donate blood for years because he had lived in the UK during the 1980s, when there was a risk of exposure to Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) - also known mad cow disease - a rare brain disorder linked to contaminated beef. However, a revision in donor guidelines now allows him to donate via apheresis, which he said makes the risk of blood contamination by vCJD "negligible". During donation by apheresis, only specific blood components like platelets or plasma are collected, while the rest is returned to the donor. Despite structural changes and policy reviews, Mr Ong stressed that the success of the national blood programme still hinges on community involvement. At the event on Saturday, over 2,000 champion blood donors were recognised, alongside 34 community organisations that had run donation campaigns, including student groups, businesses and even fan clubs of visiting pop stars. "Giving is a very joyous thing," said Mr Ong.
CNA
7 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: This health insurance clash is a chance to fix issues in Singapore's healthcare system
SINGAPORE: Tensions had been simmering for months, with insurer Great Eastern encouraging its panel doctors and agents to avoid Mount Elizabeth and Mount Elizabeth Novena hospitals and instead seek care elsewhere. Things came to a sudden head on Jun 17 when the insurer announced it was suspending pre-authorisation certificates at both hospitals, citing higher charges with no discernible differences in clinical outcomes. This was unprecedented in the decades-long history between healthcare payers and providers. It is a game-changing salvo in Singapore's healthcare landscape. Now, social media is awash with accusations of 'greedy' insurers and 'predatory' hospitals. Doctors and patients scramble to shift care to other facilities for fear of rejected claims later on. IHH, the operator of the two hospitals and by far the largest private healthcare group in Singapore, argued that the Mount Elizabeth Hospitals 'house facilities and equipment that allow specialists to manage patients and perform surgeries that are not available at other hospitals' and catered to more complex patients, thus justifying higher charges. The Ministry of Health (MOH) stated it was seeking clarification from Great Eastern, cautioning that the insurer must ensure 'policyholders continue to be able to access the full benefits of their policies in accordance with the terms and conditions for claims, as stated in their policy contracts'. What should we make of all this? There are two realities to recognise and two next steps to consider. HARD REALITIES OF SINGAPORE'S HEALTHCARE LANDSCAPE The first reality is the clear mutual dependence between insurers and private healthcare providers. Without private providers, there would be no need for private health insurance. Without private health insurance, many may not be able to afford private healthcare. That said, mutual dependence does not mean mutual interests. Insurers pool risk by collecting premiums from many to cover the claims of a smaller subset, but they cannot simply be passive conduits of our money without value-adding. They seek to optimise value for claims paid out, and managing the fees charged would be expected. Conversely, private sector doctors and facilities would seek to maximise fees and charges – within ethical boundaries – for example in opportunities to sell branded drugs instead of generics or use the latest equipment when the conventional would suffice for a good outcome. Doctors' fees, traditionally 50 per cent of the total bill, have been moderated after years of insurer interventions, such as encouraging use of panel doctors with pre-agreed fees or imposing fee guidelines. Facility fees, on the other hand, have largely escaped scrutiny and today can make up two-thirds of the total bill. It is unsurprising that insurers have now turned their attention to these. The second reality is that healthcare costs are rising unsustainably and left unchecked, this will be bad for everyone. The cost of healthcare insurance benefits – which is a useful proxy for private healthcare spending – has increased in Singapore by about 12 to 13 per cent every year in the last three years. Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung has stated that the government healthcare budget doubled in the last decade, jumping from S$9 billion in 2015 to S$21 billion this year and is projected to reach more than S$30 billion by 2030. BETTER PROTECTION FOR HEALTHCARE CONSUMERS Two actions taken in unison might help with the way forward. First, strengthen consumer protection. In the ongoing saga, it's surprising that policyholders have not publicly sought more reassurance from the insurer. While Great Eastern has said policyholders 'can still receive treatment and submit claims as usual with no impact to their benefits', customers may need to pay upfront and be reimbursed some time after receiving care in the affected hospitals. But they will be hardly reassured of their benefits, without knowing if there could be disputes over services rendered and fees. There should be, at least on an exceptional basis, an appeal process and mechanisms to enable pre-authorisation for patients with more complex needs, so the affected hospitals would still be accessible without worries about advance payments. Should people be allowed to freely switch insurers? Due to underwriting at enrolment, this is fraught with challenges (particularly if one has been diagnosed with a health condition) and is not realistic in practice. MOH said in November 2024 that it ' does not believe that mandating full portability for IPs is the right solution '. This leaves customers effectively captive with only two options: exiting private insurance with relying only on MediShield Life, or accepting new policy terms and premium increases, no matter how unjust these are perceived to be. Both are poor alternatives. The former further stresses an already stretched public healthcare system and increases current and future funding commitments by the government which it may struggle to honour in prolonged economic downturns. The latter worsens public frustration with 'Big Business' and risks fomenting the perception of an elitist government pandering to commercial ahead of citizens' interests. HELP PATIENTS MAKE BETTER DECISIONS Second, focus on data and transparency for decision-making. No two patients are the same. Hence to fairly compare across doctors and facilities, multiple other data points are collected for risk adjustment. Consider two surgeons each with a patient undergoing gallbladder removal surgery: One patient has kidney and heart issues and the other an otherwise healthy marathon runner. They would have very different care protocols and journeys, such as the need for post-operative intensive care, despite going through the same surgery. With appropriate risk adjustments, policymakers, insurers and healthcare providers can assess and compare the quality and cost-effectiveness of the surgeons and facilities despite them having very different patient profiles. Customers would really prioritise only three factors for healthcare services: clinical outcome, patient experience such as waiting time and service hospitality, and price. In choosing insurance products, beyond the current terms offered, customers would want to know the historic rates of declining claims, the number of disputes between insurer and policy holder as well as the patterns of premium adjustments over the years. MOH already puts out comparisons of insurers' lifetime premiums, sample contracts, claims processing duration and pre-authorisation turnaround times. Combining these with clinical data is necessary now. Surely in a Smart Nation, all this data could be collected, analysed and made available so that all stakeholders can make better decisions. We all want the best available for the lowest costs, and in finding value, such data would greatly aid customer selection of the insurers that best meet their needs and budgets. Different facilities do have different sophistication and expertise and these should be aligned to the needs of the specific patients. GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN TRANSPARENCY The role of the government deserves re-examination. Singapore traditionally prefers light-touch regulation, opting for market mechanisms instead. Former health minister Khaw Boon Wan used to describe healthcare as the classic case of market failure and said that when the healthcare market fails, the government should explore how to step in to make the market work better as a first step. One condition for a perfect market is typically information transparency and the government has a role in enabling meaningful public availability of information. Strong government encouragement of both insurers and providers (doctors and facilities) to collect data in standardised manners and make it available is essential. Any data framework and analytics won't be perfect – especially when we first start, but anything would be better than the current 'he says, she says' situation with customers caught in the middle with no way of understanding whose arguments are founded. Facilitated negotiations would also help tremendously. MOH already has a regular platform to facilitate discussion across insurers, facilities and doctors on industry-wide issues. It is timely to ask how this can be made more effective, perhaps by involving the insurance regulator, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). A combined MOH-MAS team with expert knowledge and regulatory powers could convene the stakeholders to find effective solutions, without resorting to heavy-handed policy that could crush innovation and compel the industry into a downward spiral with only pricing as the differentiator. DON'T WASTE A 'GOOD CRISIS' The dispute between Great Eastern and IHH is a harbinger of worse things to come if this degenerates into a cesspool of misinformation and wild accusations. Yes, healthcare costs are escalating beyond society's ability to cope and effective solutions are needed. Yes, all parties seek and will need a fair profit to continue. But the public interest must be paramount. Insurers and healthcare providers need to recognise the mutual dependence despite divergent interests, and work together. Customer rights must also be better and more forcefully represented to balance the power of the insurers and providers. The government should step in to bring the disputing parties together in constructive dialogue and actionable solutions starting with better data, better analytics and better decision-making. The pragmatic Singapore way is not to waste a 'good crisis', but seize the opportunity to correct long-festering perversions in the current system. Else, patients and policyholders could get hurt while public confidence in both the healthcare and insurance sectors erodes, to the ultimate detriment of all of us. Jeremy Lim is a public health physician and author of Myth or Magic - The Singapore Healthcare System. Taufeeq Wahab is a doctor and senior preventive medicine resident with the National University Health System (NUHS).
CNA
10 hours ago
- CNA
WHO says all Covid-19 origin theories still open, after inconclusive study
GENEVA: All hypotheses on how the Covid-19 pandemic began remain open, the World Health Organization said on Friday (Jun 27), following an inconclusive four-year investigation that was hamstrung by crucial information being withheld. The global catastrophe killed an estimated 20 million people, according to the WHO, while shredding economies, crippling health systems and turning people's lives upside-down. The first cases were detected in Wuhan in China in late 2019, and understanding where the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid came from is key to preventing future pandemics. However, a lengthy investigation launched by the UN's health agency said that pending further data, the origin of Covid and how it first spread remains elusive. "As things stand, all hypotheses must remain on the table, including zoonotic spillover and lab leak," WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a press conference, referring to the two main hypotheses as to how the pandemic began. EXPERT INVESTIGATION An initial WHO-Chinese joint report in March 2021 concluded that the virus most likely jumped from bats to humans via an intermediate animal. It deemed a leak from Wuhan's virology laboratories, known for their research on coronaviruses, to be "extremely unlikely". However, that investigation faced harsh criticism for lacking transparency and access, and for not seriously evaluating the lab-leak theory. Tedros launched another investigation, setting up the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), comprising 27 international experts, in July 2021. Their 78-page report was published on Friday. It said the weight of available evidence suggests a spillover from animals, either directly from bats, or through an intermediate host. However, it could not conclude with certainty where and when this happened, nor whether the Wuhan wet market was where the virus first spilled over into humans. That said, the market "appears to be the location for amplification of infection in humans", leading to widespread transmission. "Evidence for widespread infections or cases in any other countries prior to December 2019 is lacking," it added. While spillover was the best supported theory on the evidence currently available, "until further requests for information are met, or more scientific data becomes available, the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and how it entered the human population will remain inconclusive," SAGO chair Marietjie Venter said at the press conference. Lab leak theories "could not be investigated or excluded", she said, because much of the needed information had not been made available. The experts requested unpublished information from other countries, notably Germany and the United States, but without success, she said. Earlier this week, one SAGO member resigned and three others asked for their names to be removed from the report. CRUCIAL QUESTION "Over the past five years, we have learned a lot about Covid-19 but there is one crucial question about the pandemic that we have not yet answered, how it started," Tedros said. "Despite our repeated requests, China has not provided hundreds of viral sequences from individuals with Covid-19 early in the pandemic, more detailed information on animals sold at markets in Wuhan, and information on work done and biosafety conditions at laboratories in Wuhan," he said. He said WHO has requested access to intelligence reports by governments around the world on the origins of Covid-19. US President Donald Trump's administration has officially embraced the lab leak theory. MORAL IMPERATIVE Tedros said finding out how Covid-19 started was a moral imperative for those who lost their lives in the pandemic and to prevent further outbreaks. He said the virus was continuing to evolve, take lives and leave people suffering with post-Covid conditions, or so-called long Covid. Tedros said the WHO is appealing to countries with information about the origins of Covid-19 to share information.
