Kristian G. AndersenGeverifieerd account

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

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.

It’s amusing to me how much people trust data. How old was this first patient that had no connection with the market? How many times was he/she asked? Does he/she have a good memory? What constitutes a connection? Did he/she even understand the question?

I can guarantee if this outbreak wasn’t taking place in China you wouldn’t be asking those questions.

Yes, China bears responsibility for reopening wet markets in densely populated urban areas after SARS. Are there bad Western agribusiness practices? Yes. Irrelevant here. Wet markets are finished in urban China, won’t be outside pressure. Central government will act. Justifiably.

My response is related to his comment that the patient may not have understood their physician. I highly doubt we would so quickly move toward dismissing patient testimonies if this was taking place in an occidental country. There are racial undertones that should not be ignored.