Plot twist for the Science article that generated many headlines about the initial known case being connected to the Wuhan market. As author graciously acknowledges here, the internet researchers—so-called sleuths—have shown the claim to be wrong. Will there be new headlines?https://twitter.com/MichaelWorobey/status/1470159029997428736 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @zeynep
Somewhat inaccurate on what happened there.
@MichaelWorobey acknowledged an error in his article but his claim (a tangential point as he says in the thread) about the first known case still stands. The hospital records, a journal article, various contemporaneous reports and …1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
… and the 41M accountant’s own words in an interview still support Worobey’s contention that the onset date of this case to be December 16 rather than December 8. The official change from December 16 to December 8 apparently happened in a later epidemiological review. …
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
… Unlike changes in the other direction in some other cases, this change was not explained in the WHO report. Worobey’s error was that he thought the change was caused by a mistaken reading of a December 9, 2019 medical record describing a fever - Worobey mistakenly thought …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
… the dental procedure attached to the record was the accountant’s, no, it was from the accountant’s kid. But even there there is a big twist! Turns out the fever medical report was likely the kid’s as well. So in the end what we have now is on one hand this new statement …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
… coming from Liang Wannian that the accountant had some non-fever symptoms on December 8 and that they think the symptom had to do with his eventual confirmed Covid, and on the other hand, as described earlier, the various contemporaneous records that the accountant started …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
… having a fever on December 16.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zhihuachen @MichaelWorobey
As I say in the thread, I appreciate the effort of everyone, but I don't think the first revealed-to-us cases can make that much progress *either way* without some new data, given how China has been stonewalling, and how much of a mess even the WHO list has been the whole time.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I mean, the Wuhan CDC is right next to market with an extensive bat?/virus collection effort itself, and there are so many open questions about it. Alternatively, the market could be the source and have cryptic transmission all the way to unconnected sources, before us noticing.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It takes real effort and investigation to tease out such complicated things, and we don't have it. Seems credible that China knows of other, likely earlier cases, and surely, they've done the blood-bank testing etc. I'm not sure how we confidently conclude much, given censorship.
-
-
As the person who pointed out the dental record was a kid, I think
@zhihuachen and@coroldo1 may have a case with the Dec 9 record likewise being a kid based on dosage. Strange coincidence of date and a TCM practitioner should be consulted3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Drinkwater5Reed @zeynep and
However if it's the kid a high fever it wasn't from dental work. Two dentists have told me this. It's very minor procedure. Neither understand choice of antibioticspic.twitter.com/b75TSMSFjp
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.