3 ms·
Yes, there is much more evidence. My medium blog also cites the Chinese CDC in early 2020 and the China-WHO joint report, both of which corroborate the fact tha
by ayjchan 4y ago
Yes, there is much more evidence. My medium blog also cites the Chinese CDC in early 2020 and the China-WHO joint report, both of which corroborate the fact that case definitions used in Dec 2019 to mid-Jan 2020 required a link to the market or at least that the patient had to be admitted to a hospital near the market or live in the neighborhood of the market.
See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8393104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8393104/
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part-annexes.pdf?sfvrsn=3065bcd8_5 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-con... (pages 125 and 161)
- ayjchan 4y agoThis is stated most explicitly in the China-WHO joint report (page 42): https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part-joint-report.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-con... "In the first days of the epidemic in Wuhan, cases were identified on the basis of clinical features, including fever and acute respiratory symptoms, radiology and epidemiological features. An association with the Huanan market was identified among some of the earliest recognized cases and, for a short period until mid-January 2020, exposure to the Huanan market was included in the case definition. It rapidly became clear, however, that there were cases without a link to the Huanan market, and this element of the definition was dropped a few days after being introduced (Annex E3)."