[dabigv13]

It wasnt in our community spreading before Feb or Jan. Our ICUs would have been full and people would be dying a lot earlier if this were the case. Nobody is vested in this, that's just what the science tells us.

[dabigv13]

It wasnt in our community spreading before Feb or Jan. Our ICUs would have been full and people would be dying a lot earlier if this were the case. Nobody is vested in this, that's just what the science tells us.

[Genuine Realist]

This is the dumbest thing I've seen today.

Given what is happening now, how does the fact Chinese scientists studied the bat virus two years ago matter even a little bit? Likely millions of bats carry SARS-CoV-2. If the virus lab were next to the Russian border, how would that have prevented one of these millions of bats from infecting something that made it to the Wuhan wet market and launched the pandemic?

The Washington Post is suppose to be better than this.

Because it doesn't fit with your narrative, that the Chinese government has been fantastic in fighting this disease, it becomes the dumbest thing you've seen today and Washington Post should be better? 

Perhaps it matters so it never happens again. Perhaps it didn't come from a wet market, after all.

Scientists have been predicting the transmission of a zoonotic virus to humans that would cause a global pandemic, for over a decade. It's why Bush and Obama were so keen on being prepared for it. 

Some more facts. Degradation of environments that put humans closer to animals that carry novel viruses, is only going to happen more, not less frequently. So again, even if the virus accidentally escaped a lab, what difference does it exactly make? I don't believe humans have any Devine Right to populate the Earth any more than any other species. Life is a competition. Humans now face the need to adapt in ways we haven't needed to in a generation, or maybe even longer. Let's see if we can. Casting blame for how it got started does us absolutely zero good right now, and in fact, makes things far worse.

---

This is the dumbest thing I've seen today.

Given what is happening now, how does the fact Chinese scientists studied the bat virus two years ago matter even a little bit? Likely millions of bats carry SARS-CoV-2. If the virus lab were next to the Russian border, how would that have prevented one of these millions of bats from infecting something that made it to the Wuhan wet market and launched the pandemic?

The Washington Post is suppose to be better than this.

I have a more fundamental question that pertains to this and other topics:  why are some people so vested in the belief that (a) the virus did not reach the US until late January/February versus earlier, and/or (b) the virus must have started in late 2019?  Who cares at this point?

Is it because if it's been around longer than originally thought, then the spread modeling being used now is inaccurate?  I guess I "get' that, but again, as a layman my big concern is ability of hospitals to be able to treat those that need it.  Can't you just say "we are at capacity, thus we shouldn't pull back on restrictions," or "we have excess beds and equipment and can handle more cases," which militates in favor of loosening to some extent?

Anyway, I find it interesting that people tweet their absolute certainty that this didn't arrive in US till February; or alternatively, those insisting that the virus was here earlier than initially believed.  I don't "get" why it is such a big deal either way.

It's a big deal because knowing when it is introduced helps track spread.  I posted this earlier, but I'll do it again, since it directly answers the question:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1249414291297464321[/tweet]

I didn't write the first post because I believe the virus escaped from the Chinese lab. It may have, but the evidence is entirely conjectural - always will be.

I wrote it because the warning was actually about inadequate safeguards, training, etc. The implication I got was that we are dealing with a Chinese Chernobyl in prospect, anyway. Chernobyl is the paradigm example of what can go wrong when a sophisticated and very dangerous technology is placed in the hands of a Third World culture, which is what the Soviet Union had become in effect by 1983.

I suppose the Post ran the story because - faced with these cables - Trump should have done . . . should have done . . . . what, exactly? My mind was made up about Trump back in 2016, with disgraceful tweets about a second generation Hispanic judge, former prosecutor, and staunch conservative - undiluted nativism with a soupcon of racism. Since then, however, I have seen the Democratic Party devolve into an incoherent, frothing, hysterical mass of an anti-personality cult. Trump didn't win the 2016 election because of Russian collusion, or a sudden resurgence of White nationalism (in decline for 60 years now, and STILL declining, as it did during the Obama years. There are in fact not enough White Nationalists in the whole country to elect anyone to the school board in a medium size city.) It lost because its obsession with identity politics, coupled with a candidate almost as unattractive as Trump, destroyed the Big Tent of FDR. It's a shame that Biden didn't run in 2016. He'd be President now.

The leak the Post cites doesn't actually touch Trump all that much, particularly since the newspaper seems to have forgotten the claims of xenophobia made in reaction to what Trump did do, both from its own editors and Democratic personages, who now wish they'd shut up. Just what was supposed to happen two years ago is somewhat mystifying. 

But it says a great deal about the risks foreign nations run in doing business with China - or, to be accurate, the CCP. Not only do you have the inadequate training, but no assurance the that the nations of the world are going to get any sort of reasonable cooperation when - not if - Hell breaks loose again.  (BTW, I am using China as shorthand for CCP, not individual Chinese or the Chinese culture. As I wrote before, I know half a dozen or so Chinese nationals. To a man and woman, they loathe the government. We should join them.)

[Genuine Realist]

This is the dumbest thing I've seen today.

Given what is happening now, how does the fact Chinese scientists studied the bat virus two years ago matter even a little bit? Likely millions of bats carry SARS-CoV-2. If the virus lab were next to the Russian border, how would that have prevented one of these millions of bats from infecting something that made it to the Wuhan wet market and launched the pandemic?

The Washington Post is suppose to be better than this.

Because it doesn't fit with your narrative, that the Chinese government has been fantastic in fighting this disease, it becomes the dumbest thing you've seen today and Washington Post should be better? 

Perhaps it matters so it never happens again. Perhaps it didn't come from a wet market, after all.

Scientists have been predicting the transmission of a zoonotic virus to humans that would cause a global pandemic, for over a decade. It's why Bush and Obama were so keen on being prepared for it. 

Some more facts. Degradation of environments that put humans closer to animals that carry novel viruses, is only going to happen more, not less frequently. So again, even if the virus accidentally escaped a lab, what difference does it exactly make? I don't believe humans have any Devine Right to populate the Earth any more than any other species. Life is a competition. Humans now face the need to adapt in ways we haven't needed to in a generation, or maybe even longer. Let's see if we can. Casting blame for how it got started does us absolutely zero good right now, and in fact, makes things far worse.

---

This is the dumbest thing I've seen today.

Given what is happening now, how does the fact Chinese scientists studied the bat virus two years ago matter even a little bit? Likely millions of bats carry SARS-CoV-2. If the virus lab were next to the Russian border, how would that have prevented one of these millions of bats from infecting something that made it to the Wuhan wet market and launched the pandemic?

The Washington Post is suppose to be better than this.

I have a more fundamental question that pertains to this and other topics:  why are some people so vested in the belief that (a) the virus did not reach the US until late January/February versus earlier, and/or (b) the virus must have started in late 2019?  Who cares at this point?

Is it because if it's been around longer than originally thought, then the spread modeling being used now is inaccurate?  I guess I "get' that, but again, as a layman my big concern is ability of hospitals to be able to treat those that need it.  Can't you just say "we are at capacity, thus we shouldn't pull back on restrictions," or "we have excess beds and equipment and can handle more cases," which militates in favor of loosening to some extent?

Anyway, I find it interesting that people tweet their absolute certainty that this didn't arrive in US till February; or alternatively, those insisting that the virus was here earlier than initially believed.  I don't "get" why it is such a big deal either way.

It's a big deal because knowing when it is introduced helps track spread.  I posted this earlier, but I'll do it again, since it directly answers the question:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1249414291297464321[/tweet]

I didn't write the first post because I believe the virus escaped from the Chinese lab. It may have, but the evidence is entirely conjectural - always will be.

I wrote it because the warning was actually about inadequate safeguards, training, etc. The implication I got was that we are dealing with a Chinese Chernobyl in prospect, anyway. Chernobyl is the paradigm example of what can go wrong when a sophisticated and very dangerous technology is placed in the hands of a Third World culture, which is what the Soviet Union had become in effect by 1983.

I suppose the Post ran the story because - faced with these cables - Trump should have done . . . should have done . . . . what, exactly? My mind was made up about Trump back in 2016, with disgraceful tweets about a second generation Hispanic judge, former prosecutor, and staunch conservative - undiluted nativism with a soupcon of racism. Since then, however, I have seen the Democratic Party devolve into an incoherent, frothing, hysterical mass of an anti-personality cult. Trump didn't win the 2016 election because of Russian collusion, or a sudden resurgence of White nationalism (in decline for 60 years now, and STILL declining, as it did during the Obama years. There are in fact not enough White Nationalists in the whole country to elect anyone to the school board in a medium size city.) It lost because its obsession with identity politics, coupled with a candidate almost as unattractive as Trump, destroyed the Big Tent of FDR. It's a shame that Biden didn't run in 2016. He'd be President now.

The leak the Post cites doesn't actually touch Trump all that much, particularly since the newspaper seems to have forgotten the claims of xenophobia made in reaction to what Trump did do, both from its own editors and Democratic personages, who now wish they'd shut up. Just what was supposed to happen two years ago is somewhat mystifying. 

But it says a great deal about the risks foreign nations run in doing business with China - or, to be accurate, the CCP. Not only do you have the inadequate training, but no assurance the that the nations of the world are going to get any sort of reasonable cooperation when - not if - Hell breaks loose again.  (BTW, I am using China as shorthand for CCP, not individual Chinese or the Chinese culture. As I wrote before, I know half a dozen or so Chinese nationals. To a man and woman, they loathe the government. We should join them.)

[BostonCard]

I have a more fundamental question that pertains to this and other topics:  why are some people so vested in the belief that (a) the virus did not reach the US until late January/February versus earlier, and/or (b) the virus must have started in late 2019?  Who cares at this point?


Is it because if it's been around longer than originally thought, then the spread modeling being used now is inaccurate?  I guess I "get' that, but again, as a layman my big concern is ability of hospitals to be able to treat those that need it.  Can't you just say "we are at capacity, thus we shouldn't pull back on restrictions," or "we have excess beds and equipment and can handle more cases," which militates in favor of loosening to some extent?



Anyway, I find it interesting that people tweet their absolute certainty that this didn't arrive in US till February; or alternatively, those insisting that the virus was here earlier than initially believed.  I don't "get" why it is such a big deal either way.

The challenge we have in fighting this virus is that any measure you take is about one to two weeks behind the virus.  So, if you wait until hospitals are nearing capacity to intervene, then by the time your intervention starts having an effect, hospitals will be overwhelmed.  The opposite is also true; if you wait for infections to reach a certain level before loosening restrictions, you will probably have waited a bit too long and unnecessarily taken an economic hit (this is partly why I'm interested in the data from Spain, who loosened restrictions a couple days ago, despite still being pretty hard hitth).  So this is why the epidemiological models are really useful.  But the models are only as good as the data that goes into them.

The bottom line is that it makes a very big difference if the proportion of Californians exposed to COVID-19 is .06% based on confirmed diagnoses, 0.2% (based on the number of deaths and an assumed CFR of 1%), 2% based on generous assumptions about untested asymptomatic and lightly symptomatic patients, or 10% (if you assume the virus has been around a while).  The likelihood of a spike is very much dependent on the proportion of unexposed individuals; the higher that number, the lower the likelihood of a second wave.

BC

[BostonCard]

I have a more fundamental question that pertains to this and other topics:  why are some people so vested in the belief that (a) the virus did not reach the US until late January/February versus earlier, and/or (b) the virus must have started in late 2019?  Who cares at this point?


Is it because if it's been around longer than originally thought, then the spread modeling being used now is inaccurate?  I guess I "get' that, but again, as a layman my big concern is ability of hospitals to be able to treat those that need it.  Can't you just say "we are at capacity, thus we shouldn't pull back on restrictions," or "we have excess beds and equipment and can handle more cases," which militates in favor of loosening to some extent?



Anyway, I find it interesting that people tweet their absolute certainty that this didn't arrive in US till February; or alternatively, those insisting that the virus was here earlier than initially believed.  I don't "get" why it is such a big deal either way.

The challenge we have in fighting this virus is that any measure you take is about one to two weeks behind the virus.  So, if you wait until hospitals are nearing capacity to intervene, then by the time your intervention starts having an effect, hospitals will be overwhelmed.  The opposite is also true; if you wait for infections to reach a certain level before loosening restrictions, you will probably have waited a bit too long and unnecessarily taken an economic hit (this is partly why I'm interested in the data from Spain, who loosened restrictions a couple days ago, despite still being pretty hard hitth).  So this is why the epidemiological models are really useful.  But the models are only as good as the data that goes into them.

The bottom line is that it makes a very big difference if the proportion of Californians exposed to COVID-19 is .06% based on confirmed diagnoses, 0.2% (based on the number of deaths and an assumed CFR of 1%), 2% based on generous assumptions about untested asymptomatic and lightly symptomatic patients, or 10% (if you assume the virus has been around a while).  The likelihood of a spike is very much dependent on the proportion of unexposed individuals; the higher that number, the lower the likelihood of a second wave.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Chernobyl is a good metaphor if not perfect analogy.

Most human-error caused disasters are the product of not measuring correctly. The current slo motion disaster we are going through is yet another one caused by incorrect measurement.

[OutsiderFan]

Chernobyl is a good metaphor if not perfect analogy.

Most human-error caused disasters are the product of not measuring correctly. The current slo motion disaster we are going through is yet another one caused by incorrect measurement.

[cardcrimson]

I didn't write the first post because I believe the virus escaped from the Chinese lab. It may have, but the evidence is entirely conjectural - always will be.

I wrote it because the warning was actually about inadequate safeguards, training, etc. The implication I got was that we are dealing with a Chinese Chernobyl in prospect, anyway. Chernobyl is the paradigm example of what can go wrong when a sophisticated and very dangerous technology is placed in the hands of a Third World culture, which is what the Soviet Union had become in effect by 1983.

I suppose the Post ran the story because - faced with these cables - Trump should have done . . . should have done . . . . what, exactly? My mind was made up about Trump back in 2016, with disgraceful tweets about a second generation Hispanic judge, former prosecutor, and staunch conservative - undiluted nativism with a soupcon of racism. Since then, however, I have seen the Democratic Party devolve into an incoherent, frothing, hysterical mass of an anti-personality cult. Trump didn't win the 2016 election because of Russian collusion, or a sudden resurgence of White nationalism (in decline for 60 years now, and STILL declining, as it did during the Obama years. There are in fact not enough White Nationalists in the whole country to elect anyone to the school board in a medium size city.) It lost because its obsession with identity politics, coupled with a candidate almost as unattractive as Trump, destroyed the Big Tent of FDR. It's a shame that Biden didn't run in 2016. He'd be President now.

The leak the Post cites doesn't actually touch Trump all that much, particularly since the newspaper seems to have forgotten the claims of xenophobia made in reaction to what Trump did do, both from its own editors and Democratic personages, who now wish they'd shut up. Just what was supposed to happen two years ago is somewhat mystifying. 

But it says a great deal about the risks foreign nations run in doing business with China - or, to be accurate, the CCP. Not only do you have the inadequate training, but no assurance the that the nations of the world are going to get any sort of reasonable cooperation when - not if - Hell breaks loose again.  (BTW, I am using China as shorthand for CCP, not individual Chinese or the Chinese culture. As I wrote before, I know half a dozen or so Chinese nationals. To a man and woman, they loathe the government. We should join them.)

Agree on so many fronts. Even I would have voted for Biden over Trump. That said, Biden wouldn't be President at this point. Sadly, his VP would be. Biden is a shell of what he was even four years ago. . . .

[cardcrimson]

I didn't write the first post because I believe the virus escaped from the Chinese lab. It may have, but the evidence is entirely conjectural - always will be.

I wrote it because the warning was actually about inadequate safeguards, training, etc. The implication I got was that we are dealing with a Chinese Chernobyl in prospect, anyway. Chernobyl is the paradigm example of what can go wrong when a sophisticated and very dangerous technology is placed in the hands of a Third World culture, which is what the Soviet Union had become in effect by 1983.

I suppose the Post ran the story because - faced with these cables - Trump should have done . . . should have done . . . . what, exactly? My mind was made up about Trump back in 2016, with disgraceful tweets about a second generation Hispanic judge, former prosecutor, and staunch conservative - undiluted nativism with a soupcon of racism. Since then, however, I have seen the Democratic Party devolve into an incoherent, frothing, hysterical mass of an anti-personality cult. Trump didn't win the 2016 election because of Russian collusion, or a sudden resurgence of White nationalism (in decline for 60 years now, and STILL declining, as it did during the Obama years. There are in fact not enough White Nationalists in the whole country to elect anyone to the school board in a medium size city.) It lost because its obsession with identity politics, coupled with a candidate almost as unattractive as Trump, destroyed the Big Tent of FDR. It's a shame that Biden didn't run in 2016. He'd be President now.

The leak the Post cites doesn't actually touch Trump all that much, particularly since the newspaper seems to have forgotten the claims of xenophobia made in reaction to what Trump did do, both from its own editors and Democratic personages, who now wish they'd shut up. Just what was supposed to happen two years ago is somewhat mystifying. 

But it says a great deal about the risks foreign nations run in doing business with China - or, to be accurate, the CCP. Not only do you have the inadequate training, but no assurance the that the nations of the world are going to get any sort of reasonable cooperation when - not if - Hell breaks loose again.  (BTW, I am using China as shorthand for CCP, not individual Chinese or the Chinese culture. As I wrote before, I know half a dozen or so Chinese nationals. To a man and woman, they loathe the government. We should join them.)

Agree on so many fronts. Even I would have voted for Biden over Trump. That said, Biden wouldn't be President at this point. Sadly, his VP would be. Biden is a shell of what he was even four years ago. . . .

[teejers1]

I didn't write the first post because I believe the virus escaped from the Chinese lab. It may have, but the evidence is entirely conjectural - always will be.

I wrote it because the warning was actually about inadequate safeguards, training, etc. The implication I got was that we are dealing with a Chinese Chernobyl in prospect, anyway. Chernobyl is the paradigm example of what can go wrong when a sophisticated and very dangerous technology is placed in the hands of a Third World culture, which is what the Soviet Union had become in effect by 1983.

I suppose the Post ran the story because - faced with these cables - Trump should have done . . . should have done . . . . what, exactly? My mind was made up about Trump back in 2016, with disgraceful tweets about a second generation Hispanic judge, former prosecutor, and staunch conservative - undiluted nativism with a soupcon of racism. Since then, however, I have seen the Democratic Party devolve into an incoherent, frothing, hysterical mass of an anti-personality cult. Trump didn't win the 2016 election because of Russian collusion, or a sudden resurgence of White nationalism (in decline for 60 years now, and STILL declining, as it did during the Obama years. There are in fact not enough White Nationalists in the whole country to elect anyone to the school board in a medium size city.) It lost because its obsession with identity politics, coupled with a candidate almost as unattractive as Trump, destroyed the Big Tent of FDR. It's a shame that Biden didn't run in 2016. He'd be President now.

The leak the Post cites doesn't actually touch Trump all that much, particularly since the newspaper seems to have forgotten the claims of xenophobia made in reaction to what Trump did do, both from its own editors and Democratic personages, who now wish they'd shut up. Just what was supposed to happen two years ago is somewhat mystifying. 

But it says a great deal about the risks foreign nations run in doing business with China - or, to be accurate, the CCP. Not only do you have the inadequate training, but no assurance the that the nations of the world are going to get any sort of reasonable cooperation when - not if - Hell breaks loose again.  (BTW, I am using China as shorthand for CCP, not individual Chinese or the Chinese culture. As I wrote before, I know half a dozen or so Chinese nationals. To a man and woman, they loathe the government. We should join them.)

Agree on so many fronts. Even I would have voted for Biden over Trump. That said, Biden wouldn't be President at this point. Sadly, his VP would be. Biden is a shell of what he was even four years ago. . . .

I think the Dems should find somebody else.  Seriously.  Anyone who projects as competent and measured and serious will win going away.  With Joe Biden, I'm concerned there will be a "competency/dementia" concern with Joe Voter.

Almost any of the folks who bailed could win (not yet sure about Bernie, but this time would be his best bet).  Just my gut take.

[teejers1]

I didn't write the first post because I believe the virus escaped from the Chinese lab. It may have, but the evidence is entirely conjectural - always will be.

I wrote it because the warning was actually about inadequate safeguards, training, etc. The implication I got was that we are dealing with a Chinese Chernobyl in prospect, anyway. Chernobyl is the paradigm example of what can go wrong when a sophisticated and very dangerous technology is placed in the hands of a Third World culture, which is what the Soviet Union had become in effect by 1983.

I suppose the Post ran the story because - faced with these cables - Trump should have done . . . should have done . . . . what, exactly? My mind was made up about Trump back in 2016, with disgraceful tweets about a second generation Hispanic judge, former prosecutor, and staunch conservative - undiluted nativism with a soupcon of racism. Since then, however, I have seen the Democratic Party devolve into an incoherent, frothing, hysterical mass of an anti-personality cult. Trump didn't win the 2016 election because of Russian collusion, or a sudden resurgence of White nationalism (in decline for 60 years now, and STILL declining, as it did during the Obama years. There are in fact not enough White Nationalists in the whole country to elect anyone to the school board in a medium size city.) It lost because its obsession with identity politics, coupled with a candidate almost as unattractive as Trump, destroyed the Big Tent of FDR. It's a shame that Biden didn't run in 2016. He'd be President now.

The leak the Post cites doesn't actually touch Trump all that much, particularly since the newspaper seems to have forgotten the claims of xenophobia made in reaction to what Trump did do, both from its own editors and Democratic personages, who now wish they'd shut up. Just what was supposed to happen two years ago is somewhat mystifying. 

But it says a great deal about the risks foreign nations run in doing business with China - or, to be accurate, the CCP. Not only do you have the inadequate training, but no assurance the that the nations of the world are going to get any sort of reasonable cooperation when - not if - Hell breaks loose again.  (BTW, I am using China as shorthand for CCP, not individual Chinese or the Chinese culture. As I wrote before, I know half a dozen or so Chinese nationals. To a man and woman, they loathe the government. We should join them.)

Agree on so many fronts. Even I would have voted for Biden over Trump. That said, Biden wouldn't be President at this point. Sadly, his VP would be. Biden is a shell of what he was even four years ago. . . .

I think the Dems should find somebody else.  Seriously.  Anyone who projects as competent and measured and serious will win going away.  With Joe Biden, I'm concerned there will be a "competency/dementia" concern with Joe Voter.

Almost any of the folks who bailed could win (not yet sure about Bernie, but this time would be his best bet).  Just my gut take.

[2006alum]

Invoking the Terry Rule - COVID-19 seems to be in the rear view mirror on this thread.

[2006alum]

Invoking the Terry Rule - COVID-19 seems to be in the rear view mirror on this thread.

[teejers1]

It's a big deal because knowing when it is introduced helps track spread.  I posted this earlier, but I'll do it again, since it directly answers the question:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1249414291297464321[/tweet]

Yeah, see, I viewed this tweet as an example of someone who seems vested in the late January start date and simply declares it to be so (though I have no doubt author bases it on data).  And I believe that is very, very likely true.  However, I'm just wondering why it is completely beyond the realm of possibility that people had it prior to that, thinking it was 'worst flu ever,' but never went to hospital and recovered.  Is it because there absolutely would had to have been deaths (at abnormal levels), which would have led to earlier discovery?  That makes intuitive sense, certainly. But is it possible that bad cases, even if they go into the hospital, are never properly diagnosed?  Or is that not possible?

[teejers1]

It's a big deal because knowing when it is introduced helps track spread.  I posted this earlier, but I'll do it again, since it directly answers the question:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1249414291297464321[/tweet]

Yeah, see, I viewed this tweet as an example of someone who seems vested in the late January start date and simply declares it to be so (though I have no doubt author bases it on data).  And I believe that is very, very likely true.  However, I'm just wondering why it is completely beyond the realm of possibility that people had it prior to that, thinking it was 'worst flu ever,' but never went to hospital and recovered.  Is it because there absolutely would had to have been deaths (at abnormal levels), which would have led to earlier discovery?  That makes intuitive sense, certainly. But is it possible that bad cases, even if they go into the hospital, are never properly diagnosed?  Or is that not possible?

[magnus]

However, I'm just wondering why it is completely beyond the realm of possibility that people had it prior to that, thinking it was 'worst flu ever,' but never went to hospital and recovered.  Is it because there absolutely would had to have been deaths (at abnormal levels), which would have led to earlier discovery?  That makes intuitive sense, certainly. But is it possible that bad cases, even if they go into the hospital, are never properly diagnosed?  Or is that not possible?

Yes, I believe so.  Not just deaths, but ICU admissions.  Even with a bad flu season, there was no mention of overflowing ICUs.  No overflowing horror stories like we have in NYC, Detroit and we had in Wuhan.  It wasn't until the coronavirus "landed" that we had overwhelmed ICUs within about a month-6 weeks.

[magnus]

However, I'm just wondering why it is completely beyond the realm of possibility that people had it prior to that, thinking it was 'worst flu ever,' but never went to hospital and recovered.  Is it because there absolutely would had to have been deaths (at abnormal levels), which would have led to earlier discovery?  That makes intuitive sense, certainly. But is it possible that bad cases, even if they go into the hospital, are never properly diagnosed?  Or is that not possible?

Yes, I believe so.  Not just deaths, but ICU admissions.  Even with a bad flu season, there was no mention of overflowing ICUs.  No overflowing horror stories like we have in NYC, Detroit and we had in Wuhan.  It wasn't until the coronavirus "landed" that we had overwhelmed ICUs within about a month-6 weeks.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, see, I viewed this tweet as an example of someone who seems vested in the late January start date and simply declares it to be so (though I have no doubt author bases it on data).  And I believe that is very, very likely true.  However, I'm just wondering why it is completely beyond the realm of possibility that people had it prior to that, thinking it was 'worst flu ever,' but never went to hospital and recovered.  Is it because there absolutely would had to have been deaths (at abnormal levels), which would have led to earlier discovery?  That makes intuitive sense, certainly. But is it possible that bad cases, even if they go into the hospital, are never properly diagnosed?  Or is that not possible?

It's because the data strongly argues against it.  I have already quote the Stanford study, where they looked at stored respiratory samples collected between Jan 1 and Feb 29, that were collected looking for viruses, but which tested negative for conventional viruses (influenza, RSV, etc.).  They looked at like 2000 samples, and only 2 were positive, both from the second to last week in February.  You'd expect that if the virus was circulating in the Bay Area for longer some of those samples would have been positive.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...ultClick=1

Another study looked at viral samples collected throughout the world to look at genetic variation.  Basically, random mutations serve as a "clock" since the mutation rate is more or less constant, so you can trace the virus back to its entry into humans.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/24/dna-...mutations/

By comparing the two dozen genomes, scientists can address the “when did this start” question. The 24 available samples, including from Thailand and Shenzhen as well as Wuhan, show “very limited genetic variation,” Rambaut concluded on an online discussion forum where virologists have been sharing data and analyses. “This is indicative of a relatively recent common ancestor for all these viruses.”

Given what’s known about the pace at which viral genomes mutate, if nCoV had been circulating in humans since significantly before the first case was reported on Dec. 8, the 24 genomes would differ more. Applying ballpark rates of viral evolution, Rambaut estimates that the Adam (or Eve) virus from which all others are descended first appeared no earlier than Oct. 30, 2019, and no later than Nov. 29.

It doesn't answer the question of how long it has been in the Bay Area, but does answer the question of how long the virus has been in humans, and the thing seems to have made the jump in November. If the virus only made it into humans in November, it is very unlikely to have been circulating in the Bay Area in the fall.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, see, I viewed this tweet as an example of someone who seems vested in the late January start date and simply declares it to be so (though I have no doubt author bases it on data).  And I believe that is very, very likely true.  However, I'm just wondering why it is completely beyond the realm of possibility that people had it prior to that, thinking it was 'worst flu ever,' but never went to hospital and recovered.  Is it because there absolutely would had to have been deaths (at abnormal levels), which would have led to earlier discovery?  That makes intuitive sense, certainly. But is it possible that bad cases, even if they go into the hospital, are never properly diagnosed?  Or is that not possible?

It's because the data strongly argues against it.  I have already quote the Stanford study, where they looked at stored respiratory samples collected between Jan 1 and Feb 29, that were collected looking for viruses, but which tested negative for conventional viruses (influenza, RSV, etc.).  They looked at like 2000 samples, and only 2 were positive, both from the second to last week in February.  You'd expect that if the virus was circulating in the Bay Area for longer some of those samples would have been positive.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...ultClick=1

Another study looked at viral samples collected throughout the world to look at genetic variation.  Basically, random mutations serve as a "clock" since the mutation rate is more or less constant, so you can trace the virus back to its entry into humans.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/24/dna-...mutations/

By comparing the two dozen genomes, scientists can address the “when did this start” question. The 24 available samples, including from Thailand and Shenzhen as well as Wuhan, show “very limited genetic variation,” Rambaut concluded on an online discussion forum where virologists have been sharing data and analyses. “This is indicative of a relatively recent common ancestor for all these viruses.”

Given what’s known about the pace at which viral genomes mutate, if nCoV had been circulating in humans since significantly before the first case was reported on Dec. 8, the 24 genomes would differ more. Applying ballpark rates of viral evolution, Rambaut estimates that the Adam (or Eve) virus from which all others are descended first appeared no earlier than Oct. 30, 2019, and no later than Nov. 29.

It doesn't answer the question of how long it has been in the Bay Area, but does answer the question of how long the virus has been in humans, and the thing seems to have made the jump in November. If the virus only made it into humans in November, it is very unlikely to have been circulating in the Bay Area in the fall.

BC