A curious thing about this finding is that it disagrees with epidemiological data about the virus. The authors don’t cite reports of a spike in the number of respiratory disease cases in the local population following the date of the sampling.
And this is a fancy way of saying "we don't like this result so we're not counting it". Any number of hypotheticals could account for this, including the possibility that COV2 was much less virulent and much less contagious at that point, AKA it didn't cause much disease (basically like a cold) and didn't spread. This would be in agreement with the epidemiologic data, and it is how pandemic viruses develop (they don't materialize out of thin air)
They've tested it multiple times, so it is probably not a false reading. Even if it was hypothetically false it still doesn't really matter, as there are numerous reports of simultaneous respiratory outbreaks in Nov 2019 and prior in the US and other countries.
tbh the timeline doesn't make any sense, it doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. By all accounts, if there was covid floating around Italy as early as March 2019,the outbreak should've happened way sooner. No way it would've been confused with the flu, a bad flu outbreak doesn't collapse your hospital system to the ground
I remember liking that finding because it was great news for the iceberg theory thing, that there were exponentially more asymptomatics than symptomatics, but that shit's been disproven to the ground.
If you want to spin this in China favor though, it's easy, it's evidence that China warned everyone exactly in the nick of time.
By all accounts, if there was covid floating around Italy as early as March 2019,the outbreak should’ve happened way sooner.
why?
COVID19 didn't materialize out of thin air. It came from something, the same way that we came from proto-chimps, and that something was once less contagious, less fatal, and generally unremarkable, until it eventually wasn't. It's kind of like saying that because chimps existed 6 million years ago, that humans should have developed way earlier than 300kya
The idea of an outbreak in March2019, limited to be extremely local due to lack of contagion, and barely noticeable due to lack of virulence, isn't scifi and is perfectly possible. That doesn't even mean that it originated in Spain, just that it passed through at some point
I have no desire to spin anything "in favor of China". I'm just interested in reality, and it just so happens that reality is always more pro-China because the entire internet is astroturfed by a mixture of nationalists, white racists, and corporate interests that push an anti-China spin on everything.
I get what you're saying but like that implies a direct less virulent ancestor that traveled all way to a wet market in Wuhan and then somehow it did not evolve independently within Italy into a more virulent strain until it was reintroduced back into Italy after the Wuhan outbreak.
I mean, not an expert here, but there could've been a less virulent version of the stuff floating around in Italy for all I know, so what you say makes sense to me, it just doesn't strike me as the simplest time frame? I don't want to argue a lot more , I'm no expert and carry no authority whatsoever so it's kinda useless anyway. Let's say your theory is plausible and not sci-fi stuff.
but like that implies a direct less virulent ancestor that traveled all way to a wet market in Wuhan and then somehow it did not evolve independently within Italy into a more virulent strain until it was reintroduced back into Italy after the Wuhan outbreak.
Could just be the lower population density.
Also the "Italian" strain (March2020) was found first in China too. It was just a tiny proportion of all cases, probably because it wasn't able to penetrate further into the Chinese population, and instead spread to the west.
It was probably quickly limited in China due to a mix of prior immunity, mask wearing, and actual lockdowns (all of which were lacking in the west)
The problem is that that false positives from that method will be replicable within the same sample source. If there is a stretch of DNA sequence that matches closely (~90%) to the primer sequence used to bind the dna for amplification and detection (these are generally 15-40 base pairs), then it’s possible to get a signal from something not related to covid. This could be another closely related coronavirus, or really anything - it could even be a mutation in some persons genome that gives the primers something close enough to bind to.
The covid primer pair is good, but it’s not perfect. That’s why caution should be used when testing like this.
no.
And this is a fancy way of saying "we don't like this result so we're not counting it". Any number of hypotheticals could account for this, including the possibility that COV2 was much less virulent and much less contagious at that point, AKA it didn't cause much disease (basically like a cold) and didn't spread. This would be in agreement with the epidemiologic data, and it is how pandemic viruses develop (they don't materialize out of thin air)
They've tested it multiple times, so it is probably not a false reading. Even if it was hypothetically false it still doesn't really matter, as there are numerous reports of simultaneous respiratory outbreaks in Nov 2019 and prior in the US and other countries.
tbh the timeline doesn't make any sense, it doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. By all accounts, if there was covid floating around Italy as early as March 2019,the outbreak should've happened way sooner. No way it would've been confused with the flu, a bad flu outbreak doesn't collapse your hospital system to the ground
I remember liking that finding because it was great news for the iceberg theory thing, that there were exponentially more asymptomatics than symptomatics, but that shit's been disproven to the ground.
If you want to spin this in China favor though, it's easy, it's evidence that China warned everyone exactly in the nick of time.
why?
COVID19 didn't materialize out of thin air. It came from something, the same way that we came from proto-chimps, and that something was once less contagious, less fatal, and generally unremarkable, until it eventually wasn't. It's kind of like saying that because chimps existed 6 million years ago, that humans should have developed way earlier than 300kya
The idea of an outbreak in March2019, limited to be extremely local due to lack of contagion, and barely noticeable due to lack of virulence, isn't scifi and is perfectly possible. That doesn't even mean that it originated in Spain, just that it passed through at some point
I have no desire to spin anything "in favor of China". I'm just interested in reality, and it just so happens that reality is always more pro-China because the entire internet is astroturfed by a mixture of nationalists, white racists, and corporate interests that push an anti-China spin on everything.
I get what you're saying but like that implies a direct less virulent ancestor that traveled all way to a wet market in Wuhan and then somehow it did not evolve independently within Italy into a more virulent strain until it was reintroduced back into Italy after the Wuhan outbreak.
I mean, not an expert here, but there could've been a less virulent version of the stuff floating around in Italy for all I know, so what you say makes sense to me, it just doesn't strike me as the simplest time frame? I don't want to argue a lot more , I'm no expert and carry no authority whatsoever so it's kinda useless anyway. Let's say your theory is plausible and not sci-fi stuff.
Could just be the lower population density.
Also the "Italian" strain (March2020) was found first in China too. It was just a tiny proportion of all cases, probably because it wasn't able to penetrate further into the Chinese population, and instead spread to the west.
It was probably quickly limited in China due to a mix of prior immunity, mask wearing, and actual lockdowns (all of which were lacking in the west)
You're just using a bunch of inconclusive data to bolster your post hoc conclusions. Embarrassing display of scientific illiteracy.
ok
My assumption is they’re testing by PCR?
The problem is that that false positives from that method will be replicable within the same sample source. If there is a stretch of DNA sequence that matches closely (~90%) to the primer sequence used to bind the dna for amplification and detection (these are generally 15-40 base pairs), then it’s possible to get a signal from something not related to covid. This could be another closely related coronavirus, or really anything - it could even be a mutation in some persons genome that gives the primers something close enough to bind to.
The covid primer pair is good, but it’s not perfect. That’s why caution should be used when testing like this.