Je kan informatie over je locatie aan je Tweets toevoegen, bijvoorbeeld je stad of exacte locatie, via het web en applicaties van derden. Je kan altijd de locatiegeschiedenis van je Tweets verwijderen. Meer informatie
Weakness in the graph is a non-standard x-axis. 9 day gap between index case and case with market contact. If the source was the market I think we would see more cases in that window. More likely imo that a market worker was infected by other means and became a super-spreader
What matters is the fact that it took off at the market. Could there have been some early cases outside? Sure. Could it have be sourced outside? Sure. It’s been spreading human to human since day one, so entirely possible. What’s key - none of this is controversial
![Like I’m On Fire [a-zA-Z]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1377694937/image_normal.jpg)
The idea that a single case that happened to be the first diagnosed (but not necessarily the first) eliminates the other substantial evidence that the epicenter was the market is just not persuasive.
The chart itself is not a chart of all people who were infected, but a n=41 cohort of the many who may have been infected.
When you say “what matters” I suppose you mean right now, in order to deal with the crisis at hand. Because once this is over, I think it’ll be important to determine the exact origin, if at all possible.
Totally in agreement with you that the market was source of explosion of cases. I do think it’s important we move away from the market being the only perceived source of the initial infection as the media has indirectly latched onto Chinese culture as being at fault for nCOV.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.
