Posted on 01/27/2020 3:15:58 PM PST by nuconvert
The paper,(Lancet ) written by a large group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases,” they state. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. “That’s a big number, 13, with no link,” says Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University.
(excerpt)
Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts.
(excerpt)
Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin, says the 1 December timing of the first confirmed case was “an interesting tidbit” in The Lancet paper. “The scenario of somebody being infected outside the market and then later bringing it to the market is one of the three scenarios we have considered that is still consistent with the data,” he says. “It’s entirely plausible given our current data and knowledge.” The other two scenarios are that the origin was a group of infected animals or a single animal that came into that marketplace.
Andersen posted his analysis of 27 available genomes of 2019-nCoV on 25 January on a virology research website. It suggests they had a “most recent common ancestor”—meaning a common source—as early as 1 October 2019.
that is because they are relying on information from China.
Patient 0 had no contact with the market. I believe he really wasn’t patient 0.
Prior Deaths have just been attributed to pneumonia.
Here is the fact that we know for certain. A China Bat/SARS virus was developed in a mouse in 2015 in the United States. The mouse didn’t die as per the article that talks about it.
“An escaped bioweapon would have a higher mortality rate and take less than 2-weeks to kill you.”
Not true.
Do you think they aren’t trying to design a 1 2 punch of flu allowing you to walk around and spread a disease and then something else later kicks in.
Whether or not they have been successful we don’t know.
But you can bet they are trying
I’ve been addressing situations I’ve run into concerning other infectious disease situations like this one.
Those are the things that take place.
SEAFOOD is an incorrect translation. The word is ‘wet’. Wet markets sell all sorts of foods including whole fruit bat soup.
Stop blaming innocent fish!
besides there is more than a good possibility that the virus came from Wusan’s Level 4 (covert bio-weapons) Lab
So are you just posting boilerplate every time you see some article with a hypothesis about anything pertaining to the origin and spread of this disease?
Aww you poor thing.
What do you think they’re doing?
Use your damn head.
So you post boilerplate dismissals of articles you didn’t even read and I’m the one not using my head?
Right.
You simplistic idiot...
These people toss out masterful looking estimates of mortality rates that turn out to be six times what the actual mortality rates turn out to be, and you see no reason for someone to object to that sort of thing.
Well buckle up. I’m going to cause you a lot of heartburn bub.
You’re posting boilerplate reflexively in the comments for articles you didn’t read and I’m the “simplistic idiot”?
Right.
“These people toss out masterful looking estimates of mortality rates that turn out to be six times what the actual mortality rates turn out to be, and you see no reason for someone to object to that sort of thing.”
Proof you didn’t even read the article. This one talks about whether the virus originated, not mortality rates.
But keep on calling me names because you can’t argue the facts. Or go back to DirtyUnderwear since you like their tactics so much.
*whether the virus originated in the seafood market or somewhere else
LOL
You poor thing. This has really upset you. Are you going to be okay?
Would you like us to call someone for you?
I’m worried about you.
We don’t really know what the mortality rate is right now. We’re relying on Chicom data.
An well designed bioweapon would have an EXTREMELY long latency period (like this virus),
be airborne (like this virus),
survive on surfaces for many days (like this virus, up to 5 days)
be shed prior to becoming symptomatic (like this virus),
seem to have a preference for males (like this virus),
and have a certain number of asymptomatic spreaders (like this virus).
A significant percentage of those infected would require extreme medical intervention (like this virus)
that would then crash the health care system of the infected country (like this one...)
You don’t have to kill all the enemy with an ebola like bleeding out horror show 2 days after they’re infected. Just destroy their ‘fighting ability’ (because all the men are in the ICU)
May not means that it may have. You do realize that right?
Probably didn’t is how you address an issue like this.
If these learned folks can’t get up the gumption to support their own findings, why should I?
Why should you?
You’re the one freaking out because you got caught being “lazy”. Get over it. I’ll be fine.
Ah. So the first shot from the bio weapon guys would be designed to stealthy infiltrate defenses and weaken the city gates. Then the kill shots come.
Let me know when I have something to get over.
I’m waiting...
Fyi - Detecting increased military activity in Texas past few days. May be nothing. Lots of ground rattling starting to go on though.
Blah, blah, blah, lazy boy. Got caught, now you’re obfuscating like a Democrat. LOL
I'm doing just fine here. When a title has the word may in it, it's not worth reading. It telegraphs from the get-go that what follows may not be definitive.
As I stated before, if the folks who came up with this can't say something definitively, it's just not worth reading.
I know you wish to avoid that fact. That's okay. Spend you time in the land of make believe if you like.
Ta ta...
BTW: demoncRats love to make believe, project also...
So you finally admit you didn’t read it and just posted your self-gratifying boilerplate condemnation, making believe you actually mattered to the discussion.
What you posted had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the article.
Makes you irrelevant.
Maybe you should just skip over articles you can’t be bothered with rather than clogging up threads with your trash posts. Your unilateral declaration that certain words in an article’s title make that article meaningless and your willingness to immediately use ad hominem attacks on people that disagree with you reeks of narcissism. I tried to gently point out to you that hypotheses in general and this one on particular are properly expressed in words like “may” “could”, etc., but you’re so stuck on your preconceptions that you simply reject other peoples ideas out of hand without even looking at them. Good luck with that for the rest of your life. You would have been one of the guys clamoring for Jesus’ crucifixion. He would have been way too radical for you.
It’s really quite sad.
Good bye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.