According to the China-WHO joint study: "Compared with the entire population in Wuhan by age and gender (Fig. 6), the “40-”, “50-” and “60-” age groups accounted for a higher proportion among the 174 [earliest Dec 2019] cases (70.7% vs 42.3%)." who.int/publications/i…
Please note that the criteria for identifying early Covid-19 cases in Wuhan required a patient to have 2-3 clinical manifestations (fever/respiratory symptoms, pulmonary lesions/ground-glass opacity, WBC/lymphocyte count affected) - meaning a bias for relatively severe cases.
At the time, a cluster of cases had been identified at the Huanan Seafood Market, so having visited the market counted as one of the criteria for identifying a sick person as a suspected case. Unfortunately, this could have led to ascertainment bias. who.int/publications/i…
My question is, to what extent did the geographic distribution of elderly people within Wuhan influence the spread of detected (relatively severe) early Covid-19 cases?
Is it a coincidence that Wuhan early case home addresses are concentrated where there are more elderly?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For the people who have been following the search for the #OriginsOfCovid the House Science Committee hearing is now discussing questions on the matter (opening remarks by each expert just concluded).
Live video available here!
1st question is about setting ground rules or treaties for the country of origin/first detection to share data in the event of outbreaks.
There are currently only ad hoc international collaborations. One of the best is @ProMED_mail that notifies global members of outbreaks.
@ProMED_mail 2nd question is about @TheLancet@NatureMedicine letters dismissing lab origin hypotheses as conspiracy theories or saying no lab-based scenario is plausible. Were these statements of scientific fact, consensus, or opinion?
Having difficulty following this timeline:
December 30, 2019.
Shi is called by WIV director to investigate novel SARSrCoV causing atypical pneumonia in Wuhan.
Hops on train back to Wuhan.
Goes through her lab’s records. “I had not slept a wink for days.” scientificamerican.com/article/how-ch…
Within first days of Jan 2020, the WIV had obtained the full genome of SARS2. They were investigating the ICU cases, worried about SARS2 evolving to become more transmissible among humans. They knew little about the virus, source or specific treatment. biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
Some scientists are worried that the lab leak hypothesis, even if unproven, could lead to new regulation of research (& research orgs).
I heard that there is a petition letter being circulated asking scientists to add their names to reject these possible new changes in advance.
Needless to say, I think this is a terrible mistake and a trap that scientists are setting for themselves again.
It implies that the signatories are not taking lab origins seriously and their names will be on the line if and when a lab leak causes a future outbreak.
Why not write a letter calling for a public forum where both scientist & non-scientist stakeholders can reason with each other in a transparent way about what needs to be done to make research safer.
This cannot be an issue that is decided by just scientists in relevant fields.
This is happening next Wednesday: @DavidRelman will be speaking to the Investigations and Oversight subcommittee of the House Science Committee on "Principles for Outbreak Investigation: COVID-19 and Future Infectious Diseases". science.house.gov/hearings/princ…
I wish more experts were invited to give a balanced and clear-minded assessment of the existing evidence surrounding the #OriginsOfCovid
I think @DavidRelman is one of the best scientists to speak on this topic - finding the source of a pandemic that could’ve arisen naturally or involved research activity. pnas.org/content/117/47…
The danger in insisting on the 'natural spillover' idea with no solid evidence is that it could lead to initiatives that limit our capacity to make dangerous virus research safer and get ahead of lab escapes. The amount of risky pathogen research is rapidly expanding globally.
I understand that a lot of scientists have an unshakeable faith in the leak-proofiness of BSL4s (still not accident-proof; SARS1 escaped once from a BSL4 lab in 2003).
But the live virus SARSrCoV work at WIV was performed at BSL2!
There are cell culture hoods and good ventilation in BSL2 TC rooms. But just ask any scientist who works at BSL2 how frequently they hear about someone else touching door handles with their gloves on or cleaning up spills in the centrifuges. Or how often they get contamination.
I'm getting requests for comment on the new preprint review on #OriginsOfCovid
This new review is slightly better than the Proximal Origin correspondence (and has a more impressive authorship list) but sticks to the same key points as Proximal Origin.
The first author did not disclose his 2014-present Guest Professor position in the Chinese CDC. This was also not disclosed in Proximal Origin. So my understanding is that this appointment was and still is not considered a competing interest. api.profiles.sydney.edu.au/AcademicProfil…
The preprint ultimately urges a comprehensive investigation of the zoonotic origin of the virus, ideally through collaborative studies. 💯agreed.
But I disagree that "there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2."