3 ms·
Yes. It would also stand in contrast to everything we know about how quickly it spreads. I am very skeptical of this claim.
by 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 agoIt 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 agoThis 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 agoIs 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 agoHow 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.