4 ms·

Good summary, thanks! Related to the origin hypotheses, the hypothesis of zoonotic outbreak from a wet market in mid-Dec no longer seems as relevant. It was f

• FabHK 6y ago
  I think the “hypothesis of zoonotic outbreak from a wet market in mid-Dec” is still very relevant, and the few papers claiming to have evidence of SARS-CoV-2 prior to Dec 2019 outside China are still very questionable. It’s not like they tested old samples in a few places and the virus promptly showed up. Rather, lots of old samples were tested all over the place, and the virus almost never showed up, except in a very few instances that night more parsimoniously be explained with false positives.
  • hakfoo 6y ago
    Why not both? There could have been a baseline level of the virus or a close brother of it in circulation early in 2019, but the conditions of the wet market ecosystem in late 2019 let it suddenly spiral out of control, or make a final evolution to its current high-transmissiveness form. Sort of like how we can find, retrospectively, intermittent cases of HIV back to the early part of the 20th century, but it suddenly exploded in the 1980s.
    • dwd 6y ago
      I would consider the final evolutionary jump to not have been at the wet market, but the virology lab where someone who works with the bat virus caught the one in circulation worldwide - this more deadly virus broke out in Wuhan because that was where the last jump occurred. Some viruses lie dormant in our bodies for years, was someone at the lab infected with a bat SARs virus at some point, and all it needed was this other virus to come along for it to share some of its virulence?
    • scoopertrooper 6y ago
      It's actually been hypothesised from the beginning that ancestors of Covid-19 passed back and forth between humans and animals several times before taking its current form. The idea being that an ancestor of the virus was first transferred to humans where it 'learned' how to adapt to the human body before transmitting back to an animal host and mutated to become more deadly to humans and then transferred back to humans. This is partly based on the idea that a successful virus wouldn't adapt to be more lethal to its host and that close cousins of Covid-19 have been found in several species of bats and other animals. This actually makes China a much better candidate than Europe for the place where the most important step in its evolution occurred. China has much more vibrant trade in wild animals for clothing, consumption, and traditional medicine. China also happens to be the place where the first reports of widespread hospitalisations occurred. I don't think it's possible that Covid-19 in its current form could have floated around with its current high level of transmissivity or even the lower level of transmissibility of the Chinese strain without being detected for more than a month. As we've seen from America's second wave (bumpy first wave?) the virus replicates exponentially (even with some social distancing), so tens of thousands of people can be infected within two weeks. So we ought to see pretty strong signal in ICU admissions within about 5 weeks of an outbreak (allowing ramp up time, incubation period, and time for symptoms to progress). We'd also expect to see all-cause mortality rates of people over 65 to increase significantly within about 7 to 8 weeks of the outbreak occurring as the average time to mortality is about 18 days. I fail to see how it'd be possible for the health system of any developed nation to miss all that, but a developing country that has a culture of secrecy and suppressing information from both its own people and central authorities? Yeah I could believe that. > Sort of like how we can find, retrospectively, intermittent cases of HIV back to the early part of the 20th century, but it suddenly exploded in the 1980s. That's in large part because HIV collided with African urbanisation, significant international air travel deflation, an explosion of homosexual activity (unprotected sex), an industrialised blood transfer system, and a drug epidemic with administration using shared syringes. I can't think of a similar set of factors changing in our current society that could have allowed for the explosion of a coronavirus.
• MiroF 6y ago
  > Related to the origin hypotheses, the hypothesis of zoonotic outbreak from a wet market in mid-Dec no longer seems as relevant Perhaps in your mind, but this is not at all a fair representation of the general scientific consensus - most still hold the weight of the evidence leans towards a November '19 origin in Wuhan
  • mikedilger 6y ago
    How did you determine the general scientific consensus?
    • MiroF 6y ago
      Reading peer-reviewed papers & following field leaders on Twitter. I have experience in academia, so it might be easier to parse because of that, but news articles are certainly not sufficient.
  • jkhdigital 6y ago
    He cited papers, you referenced a "general scientific consensus". This is a gun fight, sir, so you'd best put that knife away.
    • dijksterhuis 6y ago
      I see you’ve played knifey spoony before!
    • MiroF 6y ago
      He cited two scientific papers, one which is peer-reviewed and indicates that the virus originated in Wuhan and one which is an un-peer reviewed pre-print on medRxiv, funded by a private company with interest in promoting the efficacy of wastewater monitoring, that Covid was present in wastewater. It's worth looking in to, but hardly discredits the widely-accepted Wuhan origin yet. In your poorly fit analogy, the scientific consensus would be the gun to the single, unreviewed paper's knife.
  • ardit33 6y ago
• hedora 6y ago
  I read the spain paper. They don’t report the false positive rate of the test they used, but if it was one that was commonly available, that paper’s P-value is something like 0.5. They don’t compute a P value. Until the others make it through peer review, I wouldn’t read anything into their results.