archive.ph
In fact, the Worobey et. al. presumption of the highest density coinciding with the origin is only valid if the spread is isotropic and radial—that is, if there is no transportation network at all in the site of spread. Even roads will disrupt the
In fact, the Worobey et. al. presumption of the highest density coinciding with the origin is only valid if the spread is isotropic and radial—that is, if there is no transportation network at all in the site of spread. Even roads will disrupt the
coincidence. A public transportation network such as the metro system in Wuhan where >75% of the population uses as the main method of daily commutation will push the site of highest density to the largest transportation hub immediately accessible by public transport from the
Site of origin—which will be the Hankou railway station for all sites of origin on Metro line 2 or Metro line 8. Nomatter where the site of origin and initial introduction to line 2/8 is, the site of highest density (most likely superspreading event) will always be the Hankou
Railway station. A place where ~1M people from all across Wuhan (Metro, Bus, Train) visits every day simply from how the public transportation network in Wuhan was constructed.
aqfx.wordpress.com
Speaking of Tianhe..... The WIV and the PLA have a lot of activity there too. Especially in September-November 2019. The WIV have many personnel that needs to travel out of Wuhan for a variety of purposes, including meetings (international), sampling
Speaking of Tianhe..... The WIV and the PLA have a lot of activity there too. Especially in September-November 2019. The WIV have many personnel that needs to travel out of Wuhan for a variety of purposes, including meetings (international), sampling
(Domestic and international) and exchange of international personnel.
researchgate.net
According to paper access, there were some kind of international conference going on in the WIV in 2019 that concluded some time between Nov-Dec 2019. When foreigners leave Wuhan they would have to take line 2 and exit via the Tianhe international airport.
According to paper access, there were some kind of international conference going on in the WIV in 2019 that concluded some time between Nov-Dec 2019. When foreigners leave Wuhan they would have to take line 2 and exit via the Tianhe international airport.
Line 2 probably already fully infected in mid-late Nov 2019 (WIV to Tianhe international airport). It waited in the line, and because the Hankou railway station was the single most busy location (~1M visits/day) in the entirety of line 2 and of Wuhan, it had optimal condition
To superspread and mutate until by chance the B lineage emerged from the location (highest rate of infection=highest rate of mutation), entered a local market, and tripped the EID alarm there. Lineage v escaped in November 2019 and because it was so mild and didn’t get to the
Market, it never tripped the alarm even as it infected most of Wuchang where it was originated from, leaving the highest IgG prevalence (% of previously infected individuals) there.
Want to know what was the travel plan (domestic, international) of WIV personnel and associated individuals in Nov-Dec 2019.
Also, the cases that were leaked with onset before 01 December 2019, was located not near the Huanan market—but close to the WIV (湖北省荣军医院) and line 2 (汉阳医院), indicating the earliest outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, incl. Connor reed, are associated with Wuchang and metro lines
Leading out of the WIV. (Line 2 and line 8).
@PingThread Unroll
archive.ph
Also remember that the only place in Wuhan where an outbreak of a disease would be suspected to be of EID in origin is the Huanan seafood market. outbreaks before it, including the clear raise of respiratory symoptoms documented by Chinese doctors and
Also remember that the only place in Wuhan where an outbreak of a disease would be suspected to be of EID in origin is the Huanan seafood market. outbreaks before it, including the clear raise of respiratory symoptoms documented by Chinese doctors and
the presence of cases in November 2019 that were leaked from the Chinese government for at least two occassions, archive.ph
nzherald.co.nz
theguardian.com
as well as documented global transmission from retrospective testing
archive.ph
nzherald.co.nz
theguardian.com
as well as documented global transmission from retrospective testing
archive.ph
in Italy and Brazil with highly specific and dispositive detection of virus (positive qRT-PCR result of wastewater samples using the officially anointed qRT-PCR primers) from samples as early as the end of November 2019, as well as positive in-situ RNA hybrid result and N protein
Immunohistochemistry with concurrent positive serum IgG antibody test, from samples taken as early as 10 November 2019, and evidence of IgG seroconversion series in France that places the date of it's index case between 02-04 December 2019; even excess deaths far exceeding the
official counts "outside" what the CDC and health committee specified to look into, in Jan 2020, would have not been recognized as an EID before the outbreak reached the first market during it's spread--the EID system in China is tuned to search only on medrxiv.org
and near wet markets and farms due to their presumption that any EID can only be resulted from a zoonotic transmission from a non-human host. Even in the presence of a recognized EID outbreak, disease cases and even deaths with similar symptoms were often still signed off as "not
EID" simply from the lack of a credible epidemiological link to the site of the EID's first discovery by the surveillance officials--it is convention in China to downplay the severity of an negative event as the livelihood and power of many officials within this system depends on
a continued lack of reported severe events within their area-of-rule--until concrete evidence of human-to-human transmission begun to show and could no longer be covered up. even then they would only begin recognizing newer cases after evidence of human-to-human transmission
have showed up, as again it is more desirable for the officials within this system to claim that the EID pathogen have only recently developed the ability of spreading between humans at the time when the first human-to-human transmission evidence became known, which is bad but
not incriminating, over the other response (retrospective testing of cases to look for evidence of earlier transmission) which would imply that they either failed to recognize or intentionally covered up human-to-human transmission from the beginning, a much more precarious
situation for them both from the official end and from the social end. As many infectious diseases spreads in clusters of superspreading events, even with a competent EID surveillance system, the site of first recognized cluster of the outbreak will often not be the location of
origin for the pathogen itself--an outbreak of similar magnitude may simply fade into noise (although the Wuchang IgG is an example that some times long-lasting evidence would still point toward a more severe outbreak than first recognized, even if the outbreak itself remain
unrecognized due to it happening before the first recognized outbreak in a location that was not being watched by surveillance, assuming competent investigators willing to do long-sensitivity-period or retrospective testing......unlikely given the extent of cover-up in China,
especially the retrospective kind) if it happened in a place that wasn't being closely watched (for example, in a place not inside or near a wild animal market or farm). An known example of this before SARS-CoV-2 is nejm.org the 2011 german E.coli O104 outbreak,
where the first superspreading event in a vegetable market in Germany, and swiftly blamed on organic farmers of tomatoes in Northern Germany, was eventually traced to sporadic cases (prospective and retrospective) in France, then an Italian seed deeler, and finally to seeds
shipped from an Egyptian farm—because E.coli O104 was not being actively watched in Egypt, all these earlier cases were simply not recognized as an outbreak of such a pathogen because they happened in a place where the surveillance apparatus was not running. Now this is in Europe
where retrospective case tracing is fully active and the authorities were willing to perform such tracing. (which is also why Europe and Brazil were able to trace out early global spread of SARS-CoV-2 before the Huanan cluster, as they are willing to conduct thorough tests)
In china...... not only authorities are more than eager to cover up earlier cases than first recognition in order to downplay the extent of the negative event, but retrospective tracing, which is extremely likely to prove their initial conclusions wrong, is a surefire way to let
you lose the honor of being both the first to discover an outbreak and the one to solve it's origin--an honor that is increasingly desirable to the Wuhan and Hubei CDC which was the source of the 173 cases in the WHO dataset was given to the WHO team--without either details or
the case-by-case description of which criterion(s) of their claimed methodology was used for the tracing discovery of each individual case. All the WHO got was a summary and 3 inconsistent maps reuters.com
nytimes.com
that doesn't even have the same number
nytimes.com
that doesn't even have the same number
of dots on each map.
Even without accounting for the possibility that the CDC's lab would be implicated in the origin if they decided to disclose earlier cases than the Huanan market, even losing the honor
img-prod.tgcom24.mediaset.it
Even without accounting for the possibility that the CDC's lab would be implicated in the origin if they decided to disclose earlier cases than the Huanan market, even losing the honor
img-prod.tgcom24.mediaset.it
of having both discovered the outbreak and solved it's origin in the first try (an honor that had both direct monetary reward and reward in the form of increased funding by the Chinese government) would constitute a COI for the Wuhan CDC to not pursue retrospective testing.
Is HK $40 Million (about CN ￥8 million) for the first to solve the "animal origin of SARS-CoV-2" a significant COI for the Wuhan CDC? (remember that the same award is open to all institutions in China--an estimated CN￥ 1.6 million per year is floating
on the reward pool (before grant awarding to an institution) and whoever produces a desired answer for the CCP gets comparable amount of funding as an award (lowest estimate is 1/100 to 1/10 the total award number), which, CN ￥800 thousand to CN￥80 thousand to a regional CDC
, alongside the honor and bragging rights (magnet for future fundings!) of being both the first to identify the outbreak and the first to solve it's origin, would constitute a significant COI for the wuhan CDC to cement it's preliminary results through a cover-up of evidence
contradictory to this prescribed result. Hence the massive cover-up of earlier cases, the destruction of case samples with potential to prove to the contrary and the reluctance to perform any systematic retrospective testing by Chinese--but especially Wuhan--authorities.
Once you (the hubei and wuhan CDC) begun a cover-up campaign, having it exposed will crash your reputation--once they decided to cement their preliminary result they can't risk any solid evidence leaking out that would contradict this result, for it would not only lead to your
honor and future awards and funding no longer manifest, but also revealed that you have intentionally covered-up evidence to the contrary, (which is why the blood bank testing results were never released--blood serum sample in the Wuhan city with antibodies before Huanan mean
that their prescribed result (that they gambled their reputation on--either successful cover-up campaign and more than octuple the reputation and funding, or cover-up campaign exposed and all reputation and funding is lost) is incorrect, and since it targets supposedly "samples
between september 2019 to november 2019", a positive test result within the Wuhan city would disprove their position of Huanan as origin (wild animal or imported frozen food) (as sep-nov 2019 is before Huanan).) instantly crashing the reputation of the CDC.
for this reason they can't release the blood bank testing results, as risking even a false positive result from blood bank testing will contradict the official position of Huanan as the origin in China—be it "illegal wild animal" or "imported frozen food"—and the wuhan and hubei
CDC will be implicit for their cover-up campaign of early non-market cases. (that their campaign resulted in the cover-up of dispositive (officially laboratory-confirmed by an authority in China) evidence of an origin in China before and therefore not at the Huanan market)
@PingThread compile
@PingThread Unroll
@threadreaderapp Unroll
The main incentive for the covering-up of non-Huanan cases in the retrospective case series and in cases up to 18/01/2020 is to deny (early) human-to-human transmission. To downplay the extent of the epidemic and to make it look like that the Wuhan CDC have discovered and
“Highly effectively traced (and for a while, “controlled”) the epidemic” “at it’s source.” Remember that they also refused to share the first genome because they want to be the first to develop a RT-PCR test—only agreed to release the embargoed NCBI data once the first qRT-PCR
m.jiemian.com
Kit went off the development phase and into the production line (announcement of production complete was released on Chinese media in 08:00 A.M. 13/01/2020 Beijing time. Which is 7:00P.M. 12/01/2020 where the NIH was located.
news.cnstock.com
Kit went off the development phase and into the production line (announcement of production complete was released on Chinese media in 08:00 A.M. 13/01/2020 Beijing time. Which is 7:00P.M. 12/01/2020 where the NIH was located.
news.cnstock.com
Just ~11 hours after MN908947 was first seen on NCBI, approximately the same time it need to package and ship the newly produced kits and write an announcement about it.).
Here was the CDC’s original declaration. A strong, premature declaration that they can’t afford being contracted in any way. Once the cover up campaign starts it can’t just stop without causing serious repercussions to the CDC’s reputation and fame. Especially fame.
@PingThread compile
@rattibha Unroll
Loading suggestions...