I'm very surprised that the HKBWS should have picked out the statements suggesting this infection was from wild birds. This is similar to the scare tactics often used by the global (and HK) media that wild birds are responsible for spreading the infection across the world. This gives a misleading view of the contents of this report - I recommend that people read the report if they are interested in the actual conclusions.
Findings of the investigation include:
The source of infection is not proven. See section 6.4 of the report: "There are a number of possible routes of introduction of infection, including wild birds and the entry of items or people from outside the farm, coupled with or facilitated by biosecurity lapses". Wild birds may be a source, but the findings also suggest that biosecurity measures were not always applied, and there remains the possibility of infection from other sources (eg visitors to the site who have not been properly disinfected).
Genetic testing of the virus show that it is unrelated to most recent cases in wild birds in Hong Kong. The closest strains genetically involved a peregrine in March 2008 and a poultry market in June 2008, although these were not directly linked to the Ha Tsuen infection.
Birds (eg sparrows) may have been involved with the immediate spread of H5N1 within the farm, as they had access into the sheds. This is not the same as these wild birds being the source of the infection onto the farm.
I think the report is actually fairly balanced and does not jump to conclusions about the infection. The summary given in the previous post, however, does imply that wild birds are to blame.
