Just stating the obvious that THE FIRST CASE WAS NOT IN DECEMBER exposes the mendicant analysis of that recent piece, which feeds of the scraps of data left by China and then props itself up on odd logical shortcuts.
One could hardly think of a more conflicted sentence than this one for instance:
First, if indeed Mr Chen was infected during his hospital trip on the 8th Dec (as he suspect may be the case), then the whole logic implodes. @MichaelWorobey
It would mean that Jinxia, about 28km away from the market, had community transmission in hospital setting by the 8th.
(by the way our DRASTIC map had these documents and the 16th as likely onset date - and we all made it public ages ago) @sciencecohen
Secondly even if the 16th Dec is the correct onset date, there is no link whatsoever between that case and the Huanan market.
If you still believe that the 11th Dec is now the first 'official' case, then for the virus to pop up in Jiangxia you need many more cases in the city.
Which means that, again, the logic implodes on the presence of Nov 19 case (further backed by epidemiological and molecular logic, plus obviously the leaked Nov cases in the SCMP).
Secondly, there is a mistake in the piece:
"He travelled north of Huanan Market shortly before his symptoms began".
Actually he says that he went to a scenic area (Mulan Mountain) 90km north of the city at the end of Nov 2019.
And he is clear that he had zero contact with the market.
He basically suspects either an infection when going to the hospital on the 8th (28km away from the market but a few km from the WIV) or an infection on line #2 of the tube.
Both suppose many more cases, inc. Nov. ones.
And the line #2 connects the two possible ground zeros:
- One centered on 'WIV + Wuhan ABSL-3 + PLA Hospital + Hubei Hospital of Zhang Jixian + Wuchang hotspot' with many hints of early cases, including Nov ones.
- One centered on the CDC lab and Huanan Market, with Dec cases.
By the way Zhang Jixian is a CCP member, and was largely used by the CCP as a way to deflect interest away from Ai Fen.
It would be better to reflect on this @MichaelWorobey before mentioning her (and wondering why the hospital is 'not mentioned by name' in papers).
Instead of rushing to conclusions, please get in touch, share your ideas, discuss them @MichaelWorobey.
I really don't care if you think that a research-related accident is only 20%.
As long that we agree that it is anywhere between 20% and 80% we can all work better together.
Here is a thread that looks at the zoonosis evangelists main argument that:
** since zoonosis happens all the time we should just use that hypothesis as the default one - the burden of proof must be on the research-related side **
First let me state that this argument is a fallacy that makes the most of the fact that people don't intuitively have a good grasp of probabilities.
One can explain this this way: Suppose that there are two lotteries in China: a zoonosis lottery and a research-accident lottery.
Let's say that the zoonosis lottery sells 20 times more tickets over China, and also that each ticket has the same chance of winning a top prize (whatever the lottery).
So on average you get 20 zoonosis top prizes for one accident top prize across China.
This was also the conclusion of a good Feb 20 paper by Chinese scientists + Cambridge educated Corlett.
I have been pointing to that paper many times. This was published within two months of the outbreak becoming public - and yet the conclusions are still valid.
This 'cancelation' of early cases, and epidemiological tea-leaves reading - based on late data with a very likely sampling bias (early cases had to be connected to the market to be retained) and the same signature as a simple population density map - is not science.
This piece is essentially a 'people' article, with a rather defiant 'I've done nothing wrong' message. science.org/content/articl…
As any 'people' piece, it starts with the violins, the story of a 'brave' scientist born out of the post war ashes and northern England post-industrial glum, all pouring out in a falsetto voice.
That should hopefully warm up the readers and predispose them to shed a tear for the description of the martyr of Saint Daszak that soon follows.
So we get the image of the crucifiction thrown in too.
One should add Mark Honigsbaum’s recent article in the Guardian to the list of politically motivated disinformation pieces that abuse the Laos findings:
The opening sets an unfortunate political tone, which is rather trite and totally unnecessary, unless Mark aims to please a political tribe instead of going through a rigorous review:
"Ridley, a Conservative hereditary peer.."
Is Matt now guilty of being born?
Very fancy ideas about hereditary responsibility here for a science writer. The last time this was fashionable it did not work out very well.
Seriously, it's better to abstain from taking cheap political swipes at someone.
There are a lot of fallacies peddled by 'experts' when they tell you that based on an historical argument, the most likely explanation for Covid-19 is a zoonosis and not a research-related accident.
1/ Cargo Cult:
First, it is interesting to note that some of these experts happily follow a kind of cargo cult whereby sampling left and right on an industrial scale and tweaking viruses will get you to eco-health nirvana..
all achieved by bringing science to dark corners of the world, educating local populations, fighting bad local habits and the like. (Wait, did I read that somewhere else?)
And so one can go sample in some caves in these 'wild' places, occasionally with minimal PPEs, and bring..