The memes, that is.
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.
Pong
"Xi's Disease"
Michael Yon is a name I haven’t heard in quite a while. Thank you for mentioning him. Going to his Twitter page.....
First the secret Chinese biowarfare lab then the outside world.
Somebody offer a Chinese whistleblower a huge book contract for a tell all.
Searches usually say “China was a signer to the ban on biowarfare weapon development.” Not even identified as humor.
Still a good standup comic line.
Whew!
may not
could be
might be
models project
guestimates are
now they are saying many animals tested positive at that market
unless they are covering it up
Isn’t “Xi” one of those lbgqt pronouns?
Aww Xi whiz...
O'Leary's cow is behind the whole thing.
Don’ t worry about it. The United States will come up with a vaccine for this China will beg for it....and Trump will get more concessions in trade if they want it! Stable Genius!
While it is true that the left abuses scientific inquiry (all forms of inquiry, really) with baseless claims carefully couched in hedge words such as could, might, may, etc., that does not mean that we should reject every hypothesis out of hand even if it is expressed using those same hedge words, as they are the proper framework for stating a hypothesis. Healthy skepticism is fine but flat rejection of ALL hypotheses is a good way to get dunked.
The memes, that is.
LOL!!
While I understand your point, these same agencies are looking for government dollars any way they can get them.
Blowing out projections are a great way to convince the government it better pay up quick, or else.
I’m not saying that they all have evil intentions. It’s just that the projections are frequently wildly off. For that reason the information is worthless, and serves to discredit other reasoned reports.
It’s OK to eat bat soup. Newsmax reported Corona virus may have escaped from a weapons lab. Taiwan estimates 40K infected. So eat up, bat droppings and all. Mmm
An escaped bioweapon would have a higher mortality rate and take less than 2-weeks to kill you.
(Seeing as your post was obvious sarcasm I’m sure you know that)
If there were, as posters here were saying yesterday, 90,000 dead in Wuhan the PRC would not be able to cover that up. There is no place to store that many bodies. I don’t the Germans in WW2 could have cremated that many victims so fast and they had custom built facilities to do so.
what is going on? first it’s bats, then it’s snakes, then it’s snakes that ate bats. It’s from the market, it’s not the market, so how did the 96% bat and whoknowswhat% snake dna get combined? Now look at these two competing stories today:
“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.
(this article)
“Thirty-one of the 33 positive samples were collected from the western zone of the market, where booths of wildlife trading concentrated,” the CDC said, reported state-owned Xinhua news agency.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10833616/killer-coronavirus-outbreak-animal-market-outbreak/
If the first contagions were now believed to be in late Oct/early Nov, the market shut in mid-Dec, then at Jan 27 we’re out of the incubation/contageous period for the original transfers up to mid-Dec. So are we now just cleaning up those that had contact with the originals from mid-Dec to lastof-Jan - yes? no?
and here’s a beam of good news: Tests by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention for a new strain of coronavirus were negative for the patient hospitalized in Colorado
The DailyMail is claiming the opposite. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7935167/Deadly-coronavirus-outbreak-DID-start-animal-market-Wuhan-tests-confirm.html
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.