New information or clarifications relevant to the #OriginsOfCovid continue to come to light on a regular basis.
In the short time between when I spoke with @NPR @FoodieScience and today, @washingtonpost published their discovery that China @who report suffered editing errors…
In the short time between when I spoke with @NPR @FoodieScience and today, @washingtonpost published their discovery that China @who report suffered editing errors…
https://twitter.com/gbrumfiel/status/1417229707792326657
Unfortunately one of the known errors impacts the map of early covid cases in Dec 2019- this data is inconsistent with what was reported in Wuhan and yet underlies the first figure of the critical review by Holmes et al.
https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1415685750373289996
This is very problematic because a map with errors is influencing the judgment of scientists who have no access to primary data.
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1415693555419385861
So @FoodieScience is absolutely right on this point: “all the data presented to support Worobey's hypothesis comes with caveats — big caveats.”
And Mike Worobey is also on point:
“But if new data comes to light tomorrow, his thinking may shift again, Worobey says. That, in many ways, is the way science works.”
npr.org/sections/goats…
“But if new data comes to light tomorrow, his thinking may shift again, Worobey says. That, in many ways, is the way science works.”
npr.org/sections/goats…
We will need to wait and see how @WHO respond to @washingtonpost @evadou @emilyrauhala on why the first reported covid case was mapped on the wrong side of the river when it was actually in the district where WIV is located…
washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pac…
washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pac…
Spokesperson @who didn’t seem to think this error was consequential:
“WHO spokesman, said.. the question of where the first-known patient lived relative to the river was not relevant to competing hypotheses about the origin of the virus. The issue is not important, he wrote…
“WHO spokesman, said.. the question of where the first-known patient lived relative to the river was not relevant to competing hypotheses about the origin of the virus. The issue is not important, he wrote…
… because “the current first known patient is most probably not the first case.””
@who this doesn’t absolve your joint report with China of having to present accurate data and information.
@who this doesn’t absolve your joint report with China of having to present accurate data and information.
The maps in the report annex are not only super low resolution but now also appear to have major error in how the data was plotted.
https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1415695987608223745
More on the point made by WHO that the earliest cases (Dec 2019) in their map are probably not the first cases- the data their team had seen could possible indicate covid cases as far back as September 2019.
https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1362740997936005123
Instead of relying on a low resolution map that we know is inconsistent with early case reports, we really need to be asking for more data or at the very least interviewing people outside of China with privileged information from late 2019, early 2020.
We know that the way early covid cases were identified suffered from ascertainment bias. At the time, authorities thought the market was the source of the virus so they targeted people who visited the market and kept finding more market-linked cases instead of looking elsewhere…
The China-WHO team reported the case criteria in their annex, which underlies the map of early cases in their report that underlies the figure in Holmes et al.
Exposure to the market was a key factor in determining whether a patient was a suspected case.
ayjchan.medium.com/a-response-to-…
Exposure to the market was a key factor in determining whether a patient was a suspected case.
ayjchan.medium.com/a-response-to-…
In summary,
1. We do not have access to the primary data
2. We know early cases were identified in a biased way
3. These were mapped inconsistently with reported case info
4. Earliest case should have been on side of river where WIV is located instead of where market is located.
1. We do not have access to the primary data
2. We know early cases were identified in a biased way
3. These were mapped inconsistently with reported case info
4. Earliest case should have been on side of river where WIV is located instead of where market is located.
5. There were likely covid cases as early as September 2019 that we don’t have information about.
6. Previous examples of natural spillover and lab escapes tell us that home address is not a particularly useful metric for tracking origin of an outbreak.
ayjchan.medium.com/a-response-to-…
6. Previous examples of natural spillover and lab escapes tell us that home address is not a particularly useful metric for tracking origin of an outbreak.
ayjchan.medium.com/a-response-to-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
