Once again, your post reads as someone looking to confirm their conclusions.
First of all, no, not even medical specialists can know about a new virus without actual data telling them so. Specialists are not fortune tellers. An "unknown virus" does NOT automatically mean a new virus! It just means a virus that has not been identified. Each type of virus needs a specific test to be identified, and each test requires time to complete, often days. When faced with an unidentified virus, doctors need to narrow down the list of possible candidates based on their diagnosis and order the tests for the shortlisted candidates. In order to confirm that the virus is completely new, they would have needed to eliminate all other possibilities.
This takes time!
Second of all, limiting access to private, personal, health information, and only informing the person involved, is the normal and expected practice of most developed nations, and one of the primary reason for upholding this right to privacy is precisely because people can be discriminated against based on their medical conditions. When faced with rumors of a new SARS outbreak, it is perfectly reasonable to step up the handling of private information in order to prevent any panic and discrimination among the healthcare staff. Think about it for a minute: if you were infected with COVID-19 right now, would
you want your boss and your colleagues to find out before you did?
Third, the presence of lung infection among healthcare workers is
still not a smoking gun for a novel virus. CT scans do not reveal the genetic sequence of the pathogen. Those healthcare workers could have been infected by any number of infectious diseases that normally circulates during flu season. Healthcare authorities need to make decisions based on data, and there simply wasn't enough data at the time to determine the presence of a completely new and highly infectious virus.
Finally, I am no health expert, and perhaps
@manqiangrexue,
@vesicles, or
@Bltizo can provide more info, but it seems to me that location is necessary to establish the presence of an actual outbreak. You could have a group of people showing similar symptoms and testing positive for the same virus, but if they caught it because they were eating, just as an example, the same brand of contaminated food, then that would have very different implications than if they were all visiting the same market! Remember that at the time, they had no idea how the virus was transmitted. In any case, the doctor quoted in the article stated that it wasn't the location that was difficult to obtain, it was the genetic sequencing. I think it's pretty obvious that genetic sequencing is necessary to establish the presence of a new virus.