People treat bats like they are all the same when in reality there are over a thousand varieties. They are the second most diverse group of mammals after rodents and make up 20% of all mammals and with at least 50 million years of divergence among them represent a diversity that is done a disservice when they are treated as a single entity for convenience. With so many species, many of which are communal which increases disease transmission, it is not really surprising that they can be reservoirs for zoonotic diseases. I would hate for people to get the impression that bats are creatures to be feared or killed rather than respected as important parts of the ecosystem.

Furthermore, I disagree with calling SARS a “massive pandemic” when it infected less people that influenza kills each year in the United States. Let us not forget that in 2003, the anthrax attacks and World Trade Center were still fresh in our collective consciousness and I think the media coverage of SARS played into those fears. Similarly sensational outbreaks seem to happen almost seasonally with H1N1 (swine flu) and H5N1 (bird flu) which could sweep the globe in the modern age. Of course this makes them worth studying, but I would urge against any alarmism when discussing emerging diseases.

The high fatality rate among those diagnosed with HCoV-EMC may be an artifact of missed diagnoses (ie how many family care physicians would know of an emerging virus?) or a latent infection. Without dismissing the likelihood of a bat species as a reservoir, I would propose a different method of transition. Perhaps similarly to West Nile Virus, which manifests symptoms in less than 20% of infections but is severe in those effected, there may be a vector involved as bat species, like all animals, are not immune to parasites like mosquitoes.

And I don’t think there are many fruit bats in Europe, though I know there are some in the Middle East.

[CZ: I'm not picking on bats; I'm describing a consensus among scientists who study emerging viruses. Just consider the title of this new paper, "Bats and their virome: an important source of emerging viruses capable of infecting humans." Also, see this piece in Slate by microbiologist Tara Smith on bats. As for HCoV-EMC, there's no evidence that it's spread by a mosquito or another vector--I know of no coronavirus that's spread by a vector. As for SARS, I don't consider 8090 infections and 774 deaths something to dismiss--especially given that this was an entirely new disease.]

[CZ: It is possible for bats to be a source of human pathogens and to be important to ecosystems. And, in fact, that's what all the evidence scientists have suggests. The fact that HCoV-EMC is most closely related to bat coronaviruses is compelling evidence of its sources, although the hypothesis needs to be tested by looking at more animals in the Near East. Which is what scientists are doing right now. As for culling, that would be the wrong response to this situation. Better to leave the bats undisturbed in their ecosystems, reducing contact with farm animals.]

[CZ: If you'll notice, I explained that an expert on SARS mentioned this scenario to me. So I fail to see how you can consider this "journalistic color." The reason Frieman mentioned the coffee cherries is that human SARS was directly transmitted to us from civets, and that the civets got it from bats. This is the pattern reflected in the viruses themselves. While this particular scenario may not necessarily be what actually happened, the two species must have had some sort of interaction.]

Fortunately my coffee beans do not travel the civet route.