… 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. …
-
-
… 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 -
no, the wuhan cdc is not right next to huanan
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
there is a branch office relatively nearby, but the main cdc campus (where research would likely be performed) is kilometers away
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
You sure? It was 武汉市江汉区马场路288号 pretty close to huanan. LL theorists have been too madly in love with WIV though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yeah, also: many focus on BSL-4 risks but that assumes only they do high risk work. On the one hand, yes, sure, but BSL-4 at least has high precautions. But there was a lot of BSL-2 work (that's what people used to do with SARS-y coronaviruses!). See Baric https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/ …pic.twitter.com/tzBWq6iFpQ
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.