5 ms·

I really don't understand why people immediately want to discredit the idea that US patient zero was not the first in US. Or that this virus was around earlier

I really don't understand why people immediately want to discredit the idea that US patient zero was not the first in US. Or that this virus was around earlier and that there are limitations in contact tracing capabilities. This seems to have the toughest aspect of gaining consensus. Need antibody tests now, and ones that work reliably.

sjg007 6y ago
Because it's not true.
- vmception 6y ago
  okay, now it is true, ready for a discussion? https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Autopsy-report-of-first-known-15226422.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Autops... https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/us/california-woman-first-coronavirus-death/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/us/california-woman-first-cor... tl;dr first covid death (feb 6) is nearly a month earlier than previously official first US covid death (feb 26), and also from community spread. suggesting it was in the bay area at least half a month earlier than that.
- pm_me_ur_fullz 6y ago
  Why is that the most preposterous hypothesis that doesn't warrant any review? We have no reliable antibody tests, and then won't give the unreliable ones people because they are so rare. So where does the confidence come from that we can rule out this possibility? What if this is already the "second wave". Something with lower symptoms wouldn't have warranted checking for a new strain, complications and deaths would fit into the normal distribution of last fall's flu season with no outlier spikes. We would then be deep into the second wave and can't even test most for people currently exposed to it, much less having already been exposed. This is enough not to dismiss the hypothesis.
  - MaulingMonkey 6y ago
    > Why is that the most preposterous hypothesis that doesn't warrant any review? It's not. What is preposterous is advancing the hypothesis without any meaningful evidence, to the detrement of more useful topics, or even useful discussion of the same topic. It's one thing to be an epidemiologist saying "hey, let's see how we can double check the exact origins of this", which is a potentially useful line of inquery. It's another to take some hypochondriac's third hand retelling of someone else's flu symptoms back in December and jump to the same untested unproven unscientific fear-driven conclusions they did on little more than their wild speculation. Even if they do somehow end up being right, they'll be right in the "broken clock is right twice a day" sense rather than a bringing anything useful to the table sense. So far, alternative suggestions as to the virus's origins have looked more similar to the latter - with perhaps some undertones of (completely understandable and expected) attempted political diversion (I sure wouldn't want fault for this mess hanging on my neck!) If you have some epidemiologist's proposed study that you're trying to drive funding towards - something that even remotely looks like the former - it'd be a welcome breath of fresh air on the topic, and I'd suggest sharing that as a far more useful and constructive way of advancing the hypothesis.
    - pm_me_ur_fullz 6y ago
      People don't advance a hypothesis without enough anecdotes to say "look over there" People like you can help fill gaps of savants saying "this isn't a constructive methodology but it isn't inherently without merit" versus "I don't want to believe that because thats not consensus right now" versus "hm thats interesting maybe worth a look sometime before the 2022 congressional committee to fund the epidemiologists?"
      - sjg007 6y ago
        We would have seen a higher death rate if the virus was here earlier. As for hiding within the flu statistics, we test for influenza so these deaths would not have been classified as flu related. It's possible to have flu and covid-19 but early on it would have been rare. It's probably still somewhat rare. I am sure flu surveillance samples will be retroactively tested for the virus that causes covid-19. Stanford did this and they have mid to late Feb.
Daishiman 6y ago
This hypothesis has already been tested by Stanford and found to be false.
- vmception 6y ago
  okay, now it is true, ready for a discussion? https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Autopsy-report-of-first-known-15226422.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Autops... https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/us/california-woman-first-coronavirus-death/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/us/california-woman-first-cor... tl;dr first covid death (feb 6) is nearly a month earlier than previously official first US covid death (feb 26), and also from community spread. suggesting it was in the bay area at least half a month earlier than that.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- casefields 6y ago
  New signs suggest coronavirus was in California far earlier than anyone knew: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-11/bay-area-coronavirus-deaths-signs-of-earlier-spread-california https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-11/bay-area...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pm_me_ur_fullz 6y ago
    Which is something people have been discussing for weeks here in San Francisco, including RNs that have been thinking back to early January. So how do we move this from a collection of anecdotes and immediate dismissal to prioritizing some antibody tests to the bay area. Possibly reopening it faster and keeping it open. Just acknowledging the possibility can influence public policy, and the research that some other people want to see before they can acknowledge it.
- 6y ago

sjg007 6y ago

Because it's not true.

vmception 6y ago
okay, now it is true, ready for a discussion? https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Autopsy-report-of-first-known-15226422.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Autops... https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/us/california-woman-first-coronavirus-death/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/us/california-woman-first-cor... tl;dr first covid death (feb 6) is nearly a month earlier than previously official first US covid death (feb 26), and also from community spread. suggesting it was in the bay area at least half a month earlier than that.
pm_me_ur_fullz 6y ago
Why is that the most preposterous hypothesis that doesn't warrant any review? We have no reliable antibody tests, and then won't give the unreliable ones people because they are so rare. So where does the confidence come from that we can rule out this possibility? What if this is already the "second wave". Something with lower symptoms wouldn't have warranted checking for a new strain, complications and deaths would fit into the normal distribution of last fall's flu season with no outlier spikes. We would then be deep into the second wave and can't even test most for people currently exposed to it, much less having already been exposed. This is enough not to dismiss the hypothesis.
- MaulingMonkey 6y ago
  > Why is that the most preposterous hypothesis that doesn't warrant any review? It's not. What is preposterous is advancing the hypothesis without any meaningful evidence, to the detrement of more useful topics, or even useful discussion of the same topic. It's one thing to be an epidemiologist saying "hey, let's see how we can double check the exact origins of this", which is a potentially useful line of inquery. It's another to take some hypochondriac's third hand retelling of someone else's flu symptoms back in December and jump to the same untested unproven unscientific fear-driven conclusions they did on little more than their wild speculation. Even if they do somehow end up being right, they'll be right in the "broken clock is right twice a day" sense rather than a bringing anything useful to the table sense. So far, alternative suggestions as to the virus's origins have looked more similar to the latter - with perhaps some undertones of (completely understandable and expected) attempted political diversion (I sure wouldn't want fault for this mess hanging on my neck!) If you have some epidemiologist's proposed study that you're trying to drive funding towards - something that even remotely looks like the former - it'd be a welcome breath of fresh air on the topic, and I'd suggest sharing that as a far more useful and constructive way of advancing the hypothesis.
  - pm_me_ur_fullz 6y ago
    People don't advance a hypothesis without enough anecdotes to say "look over there" People like you can help fill gaps of savants saying "this isn't a constructive methodology but it isn't inherently without merit" versus "I don't want to believe that because thats not consensus right now" versus "hm thats interesting maybe worth a look sometime before the 2022 congressional committee to fund the epidemiologists?"
    - sjg007 6y ago
      We would have seen a higher death rate if the virus was here earlier. As for hiding within the flu statistics, we test for influenza so these deaths would not have been classified as flu related. It's possible to have flu and covid-19 but early on it would have been rare. It's probably still somewhat rare. I am sure flu surveillance samples will be retroactively tested for the virus that causes covid-19. Stanford did this and they have mid to late Feb.

Daishiman 6y ago

This hypothesis has already been tested by Stanford and found to be false.

vmception 6y ago
okay, now it is true, ready for a discussion? https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Autopsy-report-of-first-known-15226422.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Autops... https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/us/california-woman-first-coronavirus-death/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/us/california-woman-first-cor... tl;dr first covid death (feb 6) is nearly a month earlier than previously official first US covid death (feb 26), and also from community spread. suggesting it was in the bay area at least half a month earlier than that.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
casefields 6y ago
New signs suggest coronavirus was in California far earlier than anyone knew: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-11/bay-area-coronavirus-deaths-signs-of-earlier-spread-california https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-11/bay-area...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pm_me_ur_fullz 6y ago
  Which is something people have been discussing for weeks here in San Francisco, including RNs that have been thinking back to early January. So how do we move this from a collection of anecdotes and immediate dismissal to prioritizing some antibody tests to the bay area. Possibly reopening it faster and keeping it open. Just acknowledging the possibility can influence public policy, and the research that some other people want to see before they can acknowledge it.
6y ago