Agreed. It’s interesting but who the hell knows how accurate self reporting can ever be.
-
-
Well, especially since it appears all the self-reported symptoms in the other patients occurred after they were told they were exposed.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @rocza @angie_rasmussen i sljedećem broju korisnika:
Oh. Man. Did you see this, Angie? My favorite sentence: "All seven people attended various meetings together in Stockdorf, the company said in a statement Friday." https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-31/coronavirus-spreading-in-munich-shows-difficulty-halting-new-bug …?
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
I am incredibly confused about how these events went down. If they're all having meetings together, did Webasto just refute the NEJM piece? Did the patients incorrectly self-report their meeting schedules too?
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
I mean, it sounds like it.
I suppose the other option is that there were a series of meetings taking place, even if they all weren't in the same room at the same time - but that would STRONGLY suggest fomite transmission to me.0 proslijeđenih tweetova 6 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Also, is the index patient who first noticed her symptoms on the plane to China included in the seven patients here? The 7 are defined as employees of Webasto and doesn't specify where they actually are. If patient 1 is included, doesn't that mean she's in all these meetings too?
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
As far as I know, the Index Patient is included in the 7 patients. There are the five (Index and four others) from the Letter, and 2 more discovered... Thursday? This is why I refuse to use the letter as the basis for anything. CLEARLY it doesn't have all of the information.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Totally. It's pretty bad when a corporate PR office is more clear than a letter to one of the major medical journals of record. A letter is basically no different from a pre-print. I don't think letters go through peer review (or do they)?
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @angie_rasmussen @rocza i sljedećem broju korisnika:
Hmm...you would almost think that these would be the questions that should have been asked or discussed prior to publication and the subsequent melee of media surrounding the results
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @KindrachukJason @rocza i sljedećem broju korisnika:
NEJM: What nCoV2019 hot take should we publish today? *pulls letter from the pile and hits publish* Me (reads): Interesting Me (reads 2X): Ummm hold on Me (reads 3X): *head desk* Tony Fauci: THERE IS NO DOUBT Laurie Garrett: *smiles smugly before self-RTing prophecy of doom*
4 proslijeđena tweeta 14 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
Between this and preprint hell it’s been quite a week
-
-
Odgovor korisnicima @KindrachukJason @rocza i sljedećem broju korisnika:
Yeah. I cannot even with the whole IT'S HIV IT'S HIV IT'S HIV preprint that was immediately and thoroughly refuted with a simple BLAST search.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 9 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @angie_rasmussen @rocza i sljedećem broju korisnika:
Yup. Back to fuelling the engineered virus conspiracy trash pile. At some point I’m fairly certain there will be either a preprint or story trending about the potential role of a bat-snake hybrid
5 replies 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 5 korisnika označava da im se sviđa - Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
&
| He/him