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.
So you admit that “...may not...” is the criteria you go by to forum your opinions?
I go by “didn’t”, “could not have”...
You chum feeders need to up your dietary requirements.
Yep, that’s some incredibly scientific evidence there.
As I have been saying, you poor thing.
I’m actually beginning to feel sorry for you.
This is going to ruin your whole day.
My initial post all over again.
- - -
Whew!
may not
could be
might be
models project
guestimates are
- - -
Did I make a critique of the content.
No.
Were you free to read it yourself? Sure.
You’re a bit slow aren’t you.
And you wonder why I kind of laugh at you?
“Did I make a critique of the content.”
No. Because you didn’t read it, but felt you had to comment, anyway.
“Were you free to read it yourself?”
Sure. And, unlike you, I actually did.
“And you wonder why I kind of laugh at you?”
No. It’s because you are the Village Idiot.
Just curious brain trust...
Are you’re saying that my critiquing of those words or phrases violates your first amendment rights, or are you seeking to claim that you have the right to deny mine?
Wasn’t sure exactly what great concluding point you wish to destroy yourself with.
Dang how it must hurt to have just been put in your place by the village idiot.
What does that make you?
Bookmark.
As I told you before, Village Idiot, I started trying to help you as posting boilerplate that doesn’t even apply to the article makes you increasingly irrelevant. Why waste your own and everybody else’s time and FR’s bandwidth? Helping you stay relevant (become relevant, actually) is the opposite of suppressing your First Amendment rights, although I’m sure you will have some trouble grasping that.
If you want to believe you’ve somehow won some great debate to salve your ego, feel free, and I will go back to ignoring you like most everybody else does. You have the right to continue your blithering but no one is required to listen to it, Pontus. So good luck and have a nice irrelevancy.
In other words, you still got nothin.
You read my post and got so butt-hurt over it, you’re still spitting cotton a day later. Ha ha ha ha...
Don Pardo, tell our parting guest what his door prizes are.
Buela, how about a three raspberry salute.
What a dumb ass thing to get upset over.
LOL, Village Idiot.
Coming from you, that’s a compliment.
Thank you.
Any time, Village Idiot.
Preparing to militarize the borders, perhaps.
Is this part of that ignoring me you promised?
Well, I’m sure it seems like ignoring me to you, just like that number six post seemed like something you should get furious over.
You poor thing, still firing on three cylinders out of eight.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3811425/posts?page=6#6
Oh, I was being polite since you keep desperately posting replies directly to me, but as you like Village Idiot. By the way, you do A LOT of projecting. You should try and get some help with that. Buh bye.
I always get a kick out of the “attempted” intellectual argument that I shouldn’t be responding to a desperate poster’s drivel.
You polite?
Read your ‘stuff’.
Here it is folks. This is what sent Mr. Intellectual over the edge.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3811425/posts?page=6#6
Squadron of Helicopters just headed that way. Shoot on sight boys !
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.