Why drag bat and pangolin to make science, an affair of ‘gentle man of leisure’

Dilettante’s approach of science shall bring only hype and sensation and finally such science would end as wild guess; die and decompose. 

Today scientists are busy to trace the real or the possible ancestor of novel corona and finally they have ended up in some species of bats and the rampantly trafficked animal – Pangolin (scaly anteater) as the possible source or reservoir.   Scientists have discovered certain corona virus in bats and pangolin and therefore they are assuming the novel corona might have mutated from such source.  

Can we deny that corona doesn’t exist in crow, pigeon, rat, sparrow, parakeet etc.  Can we deny this virus doesn’t exist in any of the animals that humans cull and eat everyday like chicken, fish, ungulates etc.

Are we guessing too much because we are totally clueless? 

If novel corona can mutate from its ancestor in bats and pangolin means, how the mutant can be equally infective to man and animal? 

It was reported that a tiger in US zoological garden got infected by novel corona?  Another question also warrants definite answer is about various other species of microbes in these animals and why some strains of corona alone had skipped from its lineage and become novel corona to target man and not other species of microbes?

 

Are we coiling science in such a way none can re-coil and straiten it later?  When we sensationalize the half-cooked scientific guesses and incidental research outcomes, are we not pushing all those innocent animals to be culled by man harshly and heartlessly fearing they are the culprit of novel corona?

When we can’t target novel corona, are we not shifting our focus and changing the narrative by dragging bats and pangolin to the scene? 

The question is why the novel corona has evolved and even if we have to assume that it had mutated from the one that resides in bats and pangolin?  Is novel corona trying to occupy the space of Homo sapiens and hence targets man than beast?    Is there a scope, a virus might assume a man as its competitor and hence targets man? 

Every day man culls different species of fish, shark, prawns, shrimps, various avifauna, goat sheep, pig, cow etc.  Why no microbes from these animals have ever tried to mutate and become human pathogen as deadly as novel corona?  Microbes in the above list of animals would get better chance to evolve and hit man because they encounter man every day than those in bat and pangolin?

Is it, only the unfamiliar virus would mutate and not the familiar ones?  Should we assume none of the above list of animals suffers from any viral or bacterial or fungal or parasitic infection?  Won’t the pathogen of these animals likely to be more virulent to man? 

Should we imagine, the novel corona mutated from its ancestor in bat and pangolin to protect these animals as man huts them rampantly. 

The virus is likely to lose its host permanently if man hunts bats and pangolin continuously and hence the novel corona got mutated to live in man permanently because man only kills these animals so choosing man would be a wiser approach for the virus. 

That was the trigger means, then how can we assume corona to be a villain.  The problem that we face today with novel corona may be nothing but the transient interaction between man and the virus for the virus to achieve perfect syn-anthropophization and the anthropophization with man.   Soon our battle against corona would settle naturally?  Should we assume so?

If we allow our scientific guesses and imagination to rule our research, what would be the consequence of such imagination?  If someone has isolated a corona virus from bats and pangolin that may be an isolated event and a just coincidence on the eve of novel corona pandemic, that is all.  Can we stretch such findings beyond human imagination? 

Why we push many innocent animals to persecution and crucifixion by our ignorant and insensitive population in en mass because they will be forced to believe bats and pangolin carries novel corona? 

The scientist (s) may get some media attention in prime time news slot and in all possibility; the findings will carry no significance, afterward. 

Scientists should not mutate the term mutation conveniently to convert their scientific guesses, incidental observation and mere co-incidences to convert as ultimate scientific findings and to publish such research work in some premier research journal due to mere novelty.  

Establish conclusively then sensationalize otherwise when the science realize its mistake or error later, by the time, the poor bats and pangolin might have been exterminated by the ignorant brethren of our scientists who reported the above findings.