5 ms·

Wait, what? The same virus? March 2019? Are we sure that's not an off-by-one typo, or an error? If that date stands up to scrutiny, wouldn't it call into quest

by cs702 6y ago

Wait, what? The same virus? March 2019? Are we sure that's not an off-by-one typo, or an error? If that date stands up to scrutiny, wouldn't it call into question everything we thought we knew about the origins and history of covid-19?

Izkata 6y ago
Not a typo. The abstract explicitly says "long before" the first declared case.
gallexme 6y ago
According to the paper : All samples came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019, in which both IP2 and IP4 target assays were positive. This striking finding indicates circulation of the virus in Barcelona long before the report of any COVID-19 case worldwide.
bredren 6y ago
Yes. It would also stand in contrast to everything we know about how quickly it spreads. I am very skeptical of this claim.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  It would be very unlikely, but in theory this coronavirus could have spread very weakly for months up to a year before evolving the set of mutations that allow it to spread so rapidly in humans. Indeed, it's exceedingly unlikely that the coronavirus could have had an R0 of >3 right out just after the zoonotic crossing, it's much more likely that it would be significantly lower than one and needed to infect a few people and mutate to adapt to humans. But to such an extent, and in Barcelona? It's still quite unlikely, though in the realm of possibility.
  - tchaffee 6y ago
    > in theory this coronavirus could have spread very weakly for months up to a year The evidence from the study does not support that theory: "All samples from January 2018 to December 2019 came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019."
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      This is coherent with a weak infection that subsides after a few days, and was weakly transmissible so only infected one or two people.
      - tchaffee 6y ago
        Is it? Would it even show up in sewage if it only weakly infected one or two people? I thought only a percentage of Coronavirus infections result in the virus ending up in the feces. And the tests are that sensitive? Do you have a source?
- thu2111 6y ago
  How much do we really know about that? Recall the apparently 'exponential' increase in cases was in reality an exponential increase in testing - when viewed as a proportion of tests yielding a positive result the virus was spreading not especially fast, and the positive percentage went up quite slowly from a non-zero base.
elies 6y ago
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. Quote from article: ...”This possibility prompted us to analyze some archival WWTP samples from January 2018 to December 2019 (Figure 2). All samples came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019, in which both IP2 and IP4 target assays were positive. This striking finding indicates circulation of the virus in Barcelona long before the report of any COVID-19 case worldwide.”
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Green jelly beans cause acne, I guess. I take back anything I ever said about that one XKCD comic making a trivial point.
tchaffee 6y ago
I don't think so unless you make a lot of assumptions. That it was a variation that is just as contagious. That it was a variation that could cause as severe symptoms. That it even came from humans. All samples from January 2018 to December 2019 came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019. Why just one month and then nothing for so long before the outbreak? Per the study, sewage includes rainwater from open drains. A highly infected bat could have ended up dead in a sewer. Nature is full of unexpected possibilities. I bet there are other assumptions without which it doesn't call into question what we think we know.
- mark-r 6y ago
  I don't know how they do things in Barcelona, but in the US the rainwater has its own sewer system. If it didn't the waste water treatment plants would be overrun every time it rains.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    Combined sewers are common in the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_sewer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_sewer
    - mark-r 6y ago
      My understanding is that combined sewers are being phased out whenever possible for the reason I gave.
      - VBprogrammer 6y ago
        I'm not sure how much you know about Barcelona but it's an ancient city who's history can be traced back through to the Neolithic period with very narrow streets designed before motor vehicles. It's not really compatible to any US city.
      - roywiggins 6y ago
        They have exactly that problem, but it didn't stop dozens of American cities being built with them.
wokwokwok 6y ago
Honestly, its quite problematic. There are vested interests with a great deal to lose if no counter narrative to the origin of the virus turns up... and they’re already seeding all kinds of conspiracy theories all over the place. So, while I’m all for “science”, under the circumstances, the burden of “prove this isn’t a false positive” is overwhelmingly higher than the due diligence taken here. So, yes, it would, but no, it doesn’t.
- aasasd 6y ago
  > vested interests with a great deal to lose if no counter narrative to the origin of the virus turns up Guess I'm under the rock here—what are those interests? To my knowledge, Trump does the most, ahem, novel hypothesizing, which is pretty much expected routine by now.
loeg 6y ago
Yes, it would be an extraordinary result, if it wasn't deeply suspicious for exactly the reasons it's extraordinary.
vikramkr 6y ago
The date is very very unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. As others in the thread have pointed out, the data doesn't make much sense, it lacks consistency, they don't show their statistics, and it's very very likely to be a false positive finding that for some reason the authors decided to go ahead and use as the basis for a very out-there claim. Peer review isn't perfect, but it's generally good enough to at least catch something as sloppy as this paper. I'd be very very surprised if it stood up to scrutiny.
vmception 6y ago
I think people should remain open to possibilities. People started dropping like flies from AIDS in the 1980s from an otherwise completely benign virus they had for 10-12 years, which we didn't know existed and later identified as HIV. A virus which now we are still tracing further and further back, earliest human infection now being 1909. Everything that happened over the last century co-existed with a virus we didn't know was around and slowly incubating and slowly spreading. The similarity being that we know it is possible, and its really opportunistic infections that cause issues with HIV. With SARS-CoV-2 we have identified A virus and have been trying to trace its origin and are still trying to understand its actual effects. But maybe its not alone and isn't new. So therefore it is a non-negligible possibility that there is an additional opportunistic infection that causes issues with SARS-CoV-2. Or we can dismiss it as a false positive and not mention it at all.

by cs702 6y ago

Izkata 6y ago

Not a typo. The abstract explicitly says "long before" the first declared case.

gallexme 6y ago

According to the paper : All samples came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019, in which both IP2 and IP4 target assays were positive. This striking finding indicates circulation of the virus in Barcelona long before the report of any COVID-19 case worldwide.

bredren 6y ago

Yes. It would also stand in contrast to everything we know about how quickly it spreads. I am very skeptical of this claim.

sudosysgen 6y ago
It would be very unlikely, but in theory this coronavirus could have spread very weakly for months up to a year before evolving the set of mutations that allow it to spread so rapidly in humans. Indeed, it's exceedingly unlikely that the coronavirus could have had an R0 of >3 right out just after the zoonotic crossing, it's much more likely that it would be significantly lower than one and needed to infect a few people and mutate to adapt to humans. But to such an extent, and in Barcelona? It's still quite unlikely, though in the realm of possibility.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  > in theory this coronavirus could have spread very weakly for months up to a year The evidence from the study does not support that theory: "All samples from January 2018 to December 2019 came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019."
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    This is coherent with a weak infection that subsides after a few days, and was weakly transmissible so only infected one or two people.
    - tchaffee 6y ago
      Is it? Would it even show up in sewage if it only weakly infected one or two people? I thought only a percentage of Coronavirus infections result in the virus ending up in the feces. And the tests are that sensitive? Do you have a source?
thu2111 6y ago
How much do we really know about that? Recall the apparently 'exponential' increase in cases was in reality an exponential increase in testing - when viewed as a proportion of tests yielding a positive result the virus was spreading not especially fast, and the positive percentage went up quite slowly from a non-zero base.

elies 6y ago

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. Quote from article: ...”This possibility prompted us to analyze some archival WWTP samples from January 2018 to December 2019 (Figure 2). All samples came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019, in which both IP2 and IP4 target assays were positive. This striking finding indicates circulation of the virus in Barcelona long before the report of any COVID-19 case worldwide.”

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Green jelly beans cause acne, I guess. I take back anything I ever said about that one XKCD comic making a trivial point.

tchaffee 6y ago

I don't think so unless you make a lot of assumptions. That it was a variation that is just as contagious. That it was a variation that could cause as severe symptoms. That it even came from humans. All samples from January 2018 to December 2019 came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019. Why just one month and then nothing for so long before the outbreak? Per the study, sewage includes rainwater from open drains. A highly infected bat could have ended up dead in a sewer. Nature is full of unexpected possibilities. I bet there are other assumptions without which it doesn't call into question what we think we know.

mark-r 6y ago
I don't know how they do things in Barcelona, but in the US the rainwater has its own sewer system. If it didn't the waste water treatment plants would be overrun every time it rains.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Combined sewers are common in the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_sewer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_sewer
  - mark-r 6y ago
    My understanding is that combined sewers are being phased out whenever possible for the reason I gave.
    - VBprogrammer 6y ago
      I'm not sure how much you know about Barcelona but it's an ancient city who's history can be traced back through to the Neolithic period with very narrow streets designed before motor vehicles. It's not really compatible to any US city.
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      They have exactly that problem, but it didn't stop dozens of American cities being built with them.

wokwokwok 6y ago

Honestly, its quite problematic. There are vested interests with a great deal to lose if no counter narrative to the origin of the virus turns up... and they’re already seeding all kinds of conspiracy theories all over the place. So, while I’m all for “science”, under the circumstances, the burden of “prove this isn’t a false positive” is overwhelmingly higher than the due diligence taken here. So, yes, it would, but no, it doesn’t.

aasasd 6y ago
> vested interests with a great deal to lose if no counter narrative to the origin of the virus turns up Guess I'm under the rock here—what are those interests? To my knowledge, Trump does the most, ahem, novel hypothesizing, which is pretty much expected routine by now.

loeg 6y ago

Yes, it would be an extraordinary result, if it wasn't deeply suspicious for exactly the reasons it's extraordinary.

vikramkr 6y ago

The date is very very unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. As others in the thread have pointed out, the data doesn't make much sense, it lacks consistency, they don't show their statistics, and it's very very likely to be a false positive finding that for some reason the authors decided to go ahead and use as the basis for a very out-there claim. Peer review isn't perfect, but it's generally good enough to at least catch something as sloppy as this paper. I'd be very very surprised if it stood up to scrutiny.

vmception 6y ago

I think people should remain open to possibilities. People started dropping like flies from AIDS in the 1980s from an otherwise completely benign virus they had for 10-12 years, which we didn't know existed and later identified as HIV. A virus which now we are still tracing further and further back, earliest human infection now being 1909. Everything that happened over the last century co-existed with a virus we didn't know was around and slowly incubating and slowly spreading. The similarity being that we know it is possible, and its really opportunistic infections that cause issues with HIV. With SARS-CoV-2 we have identified A virus and have been trying to trace its origin and are still trying to understand its actual effects. But maybe its not alone and isn't new. So therefore it is a non-negligible possibility that there is an additional opportunistic infection that causes issues with SARS-CoV-2. Or we can dismiss it as a false positive and not mention it at all.