Coronavirus may have spread in Wuhan in August, Harvard research shows, but China dismissive

[Kinnock]

2 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

There are (or were) 5 direct flights a day from Wuhan to Thailand......if this were true then Thailand would have a major, major problem with coronavirus as about 6 million Chinese tourists would have traipsed through the country. To me sounds like the US trying to get everyone against China again.

So that may support the view that Thailand reached herd immunity levels last year, which is why it's not such a big issue now, and why most cases are returnees from overseas.

 

The fatality rate in a country is linked to the standard of healthcare and the proportion of the population who are chronically sick, elderly, obese or heavy smokers, and the case numbers are linked to testing levels.

 

So the high case fatality rates in China, Italy, US, UK is an inherent factor of their demographics and population health, so Thailand could have had an undetected epidemic last year, and all the current controls except those on overseas visitor arrivals may be unnecessary.

 

[mommysboy]

18 hours ago, ukrules said:

Whenever it started to spread in Wuhan, it would have been in Bangkok within weeks.

There have been quite a few reports on TV of people suffering something quite atypical late last year in Bangkok.  I myself had a brutal cough that frightened the life out of me (and I'm no stranger to colds/flu). Since this was in October and thus out of the covid19 timeframe I dismissed it as just a nasty bug and me getting old, but I can't help wondering......

[samran]

3 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

There are (or were) 5 direct flights a day from Wuhan to Thailand......if this were true then Thailand would have a major, major problem with coronavirus as about 6 million Chinese tourists would have traipsed through the country. To me sounds like the US trying to get everyone against China again.

China is doing a fine job of that all by itself. 

[Sheryl]

4 hours ago, stephenterry said:

While I respect Harvard's medical school's opinion, I agree it does sound like their motivation for publishing this study is in response to a political intervention request from above. 

 

What could be factual is that the Corona virus in its early transmission to humans was weak and easily treatable, until it had enough victims to morph into a more deadly strain that is the current Covid 19.

It does not morph into a more deadly strain.  The overwhelming majority of people have either no or mild symptoms and respiratory infections are common everywhere all the time. It is not until there are a really, really  large number of cases that it becomes apparent that something has gone on.

 

In the US too it has been shown that COVID was present months before the first cases were identified.

 

 

[candide]

29 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Good thinking, batman. It is obviously ridiculous to suggest that Bill Gates would invest in seven vaccine factories be and urging mandatory covid shots for the entire planet for other than purely philanthropic reasons.

 

You have also convinced me that human brains are getting smaller. Some of them, anyway.

Exactly Robin. It's obviously ridiculous that people are not even able to make a distinction between a donation by a foundation, and an investment by a company. ????

[Elkski]

I had a 5 day  bout of respiratory issues,fever jan2-7 5 days after transiting through Shanghai.   I reported on it on TV.  

I thought  diarrhea was a symptom only in 1% of covid  cases.  

[Traubert]

2 hours ago, Kinnock said:

So that may support the view that Thailand reached herd immunity levels last year, which is why it's not such a big issue now, and why most cases are returnees from overseas.

 

The fatality rate in a country is linked to the standard of healthcare and the proportion of the population who are chronically sick, elderly, obese or heavy smokers, and the case numbers are linked to testing levels.

 

So the high case fatality rates in China, Italy, US, UK is an inherent factor of their demographics and population health, so Thailand could have had an undetected epidemic last year, and all the current controls except those on overseas visitor arrivals may be unnecessary.

 

China lost 4600 dead even after adjusting their numbers in February. There were more than 84,000 infections. Not a high case fatality rate.

 

However: http://english.sina.com/world/am/2020-06-10/detail-iirczymk6176849.shtml

[newnative]

5 hours ago, peleid said:

There was some strange virus going around the city I live in Thailand late last year/new year, my foreign friends had it (including myself) hung around for a longtime (which included breathing difficulty)

     I had this, too.  It lasted most of December.  Usually if I am sick I will just wait it out and use over-the counter-medicine but with this I had to go to the doctor 3 different times, trying to find something to treat it.  Very bad cough and difficulty breathing, both worse than a normal cold.  Finally started getting better the beginning of January, after wondering if it was ever going to go away.  As far as the post goes, the Chinese seem to have ruled out the report but I don't think they have given any reason for the findings of the report.  

[ChouDoufu]

2 hours ago, newnative said:

     I had this, too.  It lasted most of December.  Usually if I am sick I will just wait it out and use over-the counter-medicine but with this I had to go to the doctor 3 different times, trying to find something to treat it.  Very bad cough and difficulty breathing, both worse than a normal cold.  Finally started getting better the beginning of January, after wondering if it was ever going to go away.  As far as the post goes, the Chinese seem to have ruled out the report but I don't think they have given any reason for the findings of the report.  

 

no, the chinese did not "rule out the report."

 

some unnamed reporter who had read something about this non peer-reviewed study asked a chinese foreign ministry spokesperson about it at a regular press briefing.  she responded, "I think it is ridiculous, incredibly ridiculous, to come up with this conclusion based on superficial observations such as traffic volume."  she's not wrong.  this isn't science.  it's high school level c-grade book report quality.

[mommysboy]

9 hours ago, Logosone said:

The extent of Thailand's Covid 19 cases and deaths is not known. By anyone.

 

Because Thailand has not tested in significant numbers its current figures are simply wrong. Both for cases and deaths.

True, but a key indicator of widespread infection are hospital admissions, which are often described as reminiscent of a war zone.

[Kinnock]

5 hours ago, Traubert said:

China lost 4600 dead even after adjusting their numbers in February. There were more than 84,000 infections. Not a high case fatality rate.

 

However: http://english.sina.com/world/am/2020-06-10/detail-iirczymk6176849.shtml

Isn't that more than a 5% case fatality rate?  But there's likely to be many more unreported cases with mild symptoms.

 

Latest estimates put the average CFR at below 1%, but demographics and healthcare standards can give a wide range.

[tribalfusion001]

Covid-19 is sooo last month zzz

[Sheryl]

5 hours ago, newnative said:

     I had this, too.  It lasted most of December.  Usually if I am sick I will just wait it out and use over-the counter-medicine but with this I had to go to the doctor 3 different times, trying to find something to treat it.  Very bad cough and difficulty breathing, both worse than a normal cold.  Finally started getting better the beginning of January, after wondering if it was ever going to go away. 

 

Same with me but in January and in Phnom Penh.

 

However just checked COVID antibodies and negative (though test only 85% sensitive i.e. 15% chance it is a false negative)

 

Another possibility is that whatever went around December/January in mainland SEA provides some cross-immunity. Would explain why so few cases, or at least so few severe cases, in these countries despite heavy travel from China.

 

Cross immunity to COVID definitely does exist; a study in California found about 50% of non-COVID exposed people's T cells recognized and attacked the virus. This could go a long way towards explaining the otherwise often inexplicable differences by location; not all populations are equally susceptible and this may come down to simply what other respiratory viruses have gone around recently.

 

If so these differences could change as antibody levles to prior bug go down with time.

[gearbox]

2 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

no, the chinese did not "rule out the report."

 

some unnamed reporter who had read something about this non peer-reviewed study asked a chinese foreign ministry spokesperson about it at a regular press briefing.  she responded, "I think it is ridiculous, incredibly ridiculous, to come up with this conclusion based on superficial observations such as traffic volume."  she's not wrong.  this isn't science.  it's high school level c-grade book report quality.

Scientific report..more like pure fiction and propaganda. From August until late January when Wuhan was locked down are around 5 months. From the beginning of February until now are more than 4 months, and no country was able to prevent the outbreak without heavy lockdown. So for 5 months all travel allowed, no lockdowns, and nobody notices anything? Yeah...

[newnative]

29 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

Same with me but in January and in Phnom Penh.

 

However just checked COVID antibodies and negative (though test only 85% sensitive i.e. 15% chance it is a false negative)

 

Another possibility is that whatever went around December/January in mainland SEA provides some cross-immunity. Would explain why so few cases, or at least so few severe cases, in these countries despite heavy travel from China.

 

Cross immunity to COVID definitely does exist; a study in California found about 50% of non-COVID exposed people's T cells recognized and attacked the virus. This could go a long way towards explaining the otherwise often inexplicable differences by location; not all populations are equally susceptible and this may come down to simply what other respiratory viruses have gone around recently.

 

If so these differences could change as antibody levles to prior bug go down with time.

Interesting!  Thanks.

[Stargeezr]

With the Asian way of saving face, even if it means lying your mouth off, I believe that

China had this virus longer than they are willing to admit. Of course they are 

trying to say that they are transparent and honest, but then Trump would like

every one to say that about him as well.  I just hope there is a vaccine soon

to combat this virus. Good luck all.

Geezer

[jimmybcool]

13 hours ago, stephenterry said:

While I respect Harvard's medical school's opinion, I agree it does sound like their motivation for publishing this study is in response to a political intervention request from above. 

 

 

Problem with that theory is politics.  I assume you mean political intervention request from the Trump administration.  if so - do you really see Harvard cooperating with him in this?  Harvard is very left and they hate Trump.  

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

However just checked COVID antibodies and negative (though test only 85% sensitive i.e. 15% chance it is a false negative)

Where can one get the Covid antibodies test done in Thailand?

[Krataiboy]

9 hours ago, candide said:

Exactly Robin. It's obviously ridiculous that people are not even able to make a distinction between a donation by a foundation, and an investment by a company. ????

Both are investments. One is merely more obvious than the other. Bill Gates doesn't invest a penny in the BBC, but his foundation does. Of course, it's sheer coincidence that Aunty Beeb gives him lots of coverage - all positive.

[candide]

57 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Both are investments. One is merely more obvious than the other. Bill Gates doesn't invest a penny in the BBC, but his foundation does. Of course, it's sheer coincidence that Aunty Beeb gives him lots of coverage - all positive.

I guess you mean funding this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/

Is it bad to fund it?

[metisdead]

Some conspiracy posts and replies have been removed including a post with a link to a conspiracy- pseudoscience site. 

[stephenterry]

16 hours ago, Sheryl said:

It does not morph into a more deadly strain.  The overwhelming majority of people have either no or mild symptoms and respiratory infections are common everywhere all the time. It is not until there are a really, really  large number of cases that it becomes apparent that something has gone on.

 

In the US too it has been shown that COVID was present months before the first cases were identified.

 

 

Sheryl, I disagree, and you should know better than to post such incorrect information without having researched it.

 

Viruses are capable of mutating into stronger strains. I suggest you first read Michael Greger's excellent new book , How to survive a pandemic,  in which he goes into great detail how viruses are transmitted from animals to humans, and how they continually progress. It is a continuing time bomb that could wipe humans from the planet. Read up on H1N5 flu virus -if it mutates into a stronger strain in human victims, the death rate could reach 40% .

 

The reason people have either no or mild symptoms initially is that the virus has not mutated into stronger strains until enough people are infected. These viruses 'learn' that the strongest survive. BUT, there has been scientific research in that this Covid 19 could either burn itself out, and a second wave become less toxic as more humans become immune to it - but don't hold your breath.

 

HIV is a prime example, and why there is still no vaccine that can eliminate it, because it keeps mutating. It's regarded as a 'lazy' virus by the medical scientists as it doesn't replicate perfectly. Treatment today is a cocktail of drugs where infected people can live an otherwise healthy life. I don't know if the French managed 'hospital lab' is still functioning in Chiang Mai, but it's worth a visit to update yourself on how the HIV reacts.

 

 

  

[Krataiboy]

9 hours ago, candide said:

I guess you mean funding this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/

Is it bad to fund it?

There's no such thing as a free lunch. 

[JCauto]

11 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Problem with that theory is politics.  I assume you mean political intervention request from the Trump administration.  if so - do you really see Harvard cooperating with him in this?  Harvard is very left and they hate Trump.  

The problem with BOTH theories is politics.

Is it that difficult to see that someone in higher levels of academia would say "this provides an interesting opportunity for us to test potential warning systems that use corollary data as a basis for identifying potential outbreaks". That would be a piece of cake for a grad student and an immediate Green Light for funding applications.

 

Is the research something inherently biased? Quite the contrary. 

 

Is Harvard a monolithic left-wing institution - considering that so many of the leading lights of the Right graduated from there, if they are, they're doing a hell of a bad job in educating their students! Check out Republican congresspeople who graduated from Harvard - Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Dan Sullivan (Ak.) and Rep.-elect Elise Stefanik, Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.), Pat Toomey (Penn.), David Vitter (La.) and Mike Crapo (Wyo.). You're confusing "elitist" with "leftist".

The issue is a simple one - they did a poor job of designing the study, chose the wrong technology then released it too early before outsiders could quickly see how half-baked it actually was. Thinking about the reasons why brings up an obvious motive - what could be "hotter" than a paper on the origin of the COVID-19 possibly starting in August in China? This was for academic self-promotion, plain and simple. And they should be punished academically for that.

[jimmybcool]

20 minutes ago, JCauto said:

The problem with BOTH theories is politics.

Is it that difficult to see that someone in higher levels of academia would say "this provides an interesting opportunity for us to test potential warning systems that use corollary data as a basis for identifying potential outbreaks". That would be a piece of cake for a grad student and an immediate Green Light for funding applications.

 

Is the research something inherently biased? Quite the contrary. 

 

Is Harvard a monolithic left-wing institution - considering that so many of the leading lights of the Right graduated from there, if they are, they're doing a hell of a bad job in educating their students! Check out Republican congresspeople who graduated from Harvard - Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Dan Sullivan (Ak.) and Rep.-elect Elise Stefanik, Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.), Pat Toomey (Penn.), David Vitter (La.) and Mike Crapo (Wyo.). You're confusing "elitist" with "leftist".

The issue is a simple one - they did a poor job of designing the study, chose the wrong technology then released it too early before outsiders could quickly see how half-baked it actually was. Thinking about the reasons why brings up an obvious motive - what could be "hotter" than a paper on the origin of the COVID-19 possibly starting in August in China? This was for academic self-promotion, plain and simple. And they should be punished academically for that.

I think you missed my point.  Which is simply this - Harvard did not release politically biased information at the behest of the Trump administration.  They bear no love for him.  If they released something they believe it.  I make no comment on the validity of their study as I'm not qualified to judge their work.

 

[Bkk Brian]

There are dozens of studies being published and nearly all of them have not been peer reviewed and come out in pre print yet media picks up on them, often these studies have information rolled back after being reviewed. 

 

Draft Research Raises Murky Questions

An unreviewed early draft of a study—known as a preprint—from Harvard Medical School researchers with data that suggests that the coronavirus may have been spreading in Wuhan, China, as early as August 2019 received widespread media coverage this week. U.S. President Donald Trump and others keen to blame the pandemic on China have seized on the draft paper. But as numerous analysts have pointed out, the preprint has serious problems—including cherry-picking data.

 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/10/trust-early-coronavirus-research-pandemic-wuhan-harvard-study-preprint-trump/

Edited June 11, 2020 by Bkk Brian

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Sheryl, I disagree, and you should know better than to post such incorrect information without having researched it.

 

Viruses are capable of mutating into stronger strains. I suggest you first read Michael Greger's excellent new book , How to survive a pandemic,  in which he goes into great detail how viruses are transmitted from animals to humans, and how they continually progress. It is a continuing time bomb that could wipe humans from the planet. Read up on H1N5 flu virus -if it mutates into a stronger strain in human victims, the death rate could reach 40% .

 

The reason people have either no or mild symptoms initially is that the virus has not mutated into stronger strains until enough people are infected. These viruses 'learn' that the strongest survive. BUT, there has been scientific research in that this Covid 19 could either burn itself out, and a second wave become less toxic as more humans become immune to it - but don't hold your breath.

 

HIV is a prime example, and why there is still no vaccine that can eliminate it, because it keeps mutating. It's regarded as a 'lazy' virus by the medical scientists as it doesn't replicate perfectly. Treatment today is a cocktail of drugs where infected people can live an otherwise healthy life. I don't know if the French managed 'hospital lab' is still functioning in Chiang Mai, but it's worth a visit to update yourself on how the HIV reacts.

 

 

  

I think what is meant is that there is no mutation during the individual illness.

 

Each person is infected with the same strain, but the disease pattern varies so that a small number suffer a severe form of viral pneumonia.

 

Of course a whole strain can mutate over a period of time, which is why we have successive epidemics.

 

With viruses in particular, it is important not to conflate the properties of one virus with another, eg, hiv with a coronavirus.

[Sheryl]

7 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Sheryl, I disagree, and you should know better than to post such incorrect information without having researched it.

 

Viruses are capable of mutating into stronger strains. I suggest you first read Michael Greger's excellent new book , How to survive a pandemic,  in which he goes into great detail how viruses are transmitted from animals to humans, and how they continually progress. It is a continuing time bomb that could wipe humans from the planet. Read up on H1N5 flu virus -if it mutates into a stronger strain in human victims, the death rate could reach 40% .

 

The reason people have either no or mild symptoms initially is that the virus has not mutated into stronger strains until enough people are infected. These viruses 'learn' that the strongest survive. BUT, there has been scientific research in that this Covid 19 could either burn itself out, and a second wave become less toxic as more humans become immune to it - but don't hold your breath.

 

HIV is a prime example, and why there is still no vaccine that can eliminate it, because it keeps mutating. It's regarded as a 'lazy' virus by the medical scientists as it doesn't replicate perfectly. Treatment today is a cocktail of drugs where infected people can live an otherwise healthy life. I don't know if the French managed 'hospital lab' is still functioning in Chiang Mai, but it's worth a visit to update yourself on how the HIV reacts.

 

 

  

As a public health professional I am thoroughly familiar with the research and keeping up to date on it. (From scientific literature, not YouTube and the like). I also have a pretty good  grasp of basic  virology.

 

Once a virus enters a specific host species the tendency is to become less, not more, lethal to the host. Viruses that do not kill the host are able to replicate far more than those which do.

 

Of course viruses mutate all the time and a number of mutations have been found in COVID which is how they are able to determine how old a strain is, where it came from, and approximately when. To date none of the mutations found affect how lethal the virus is or have any clinical significance. Most viral mutations don't. But they are useful in charting a virus's geneaology.

 

The mutating into a more lethal strain bit is largely the stuff of science fiction. What normally happens is the opposite though it takes some time (as in, generations) to occur.

 

In every single country where the COVID-19 virus has appeared (which at this point is almost all) it has been present for a considerable time before there was any noticeable increase in respiratory illnesses. Additionally, everywhere that studies of COVID specific antibodies has been done, the results have indicated true number of infections to be many, many  fold those identified clinically.

 

Since the clinical manifestations so closely resemble other respiratory viral illnesses and those are normally seen all the time, and most people have only a mild illness or even an ummoticeable one, it takes a huge number of infections to make it clinically  apparent something new  is going on. And since only a small percentage of infections lead to symptoms severe enough to need medical attebtion that means  that the virus has to already be well established and infecting a large number of people before it is noticeable.  Nothing unusual with this, true of any disease that is mild in post people and presents with flu-like  symptoms.

 

If course once it was declared a pandemic and countries atound the world were on alert, some began aggressive testing which identified cases sooner than would have normally been apparent.

 

The difference between symptomatic and asymptomatic cases, and in severity, are not in any way due to viral mutations. The research is quite clear on this. The countries with a lot of  severe cases also have a huge number of mild and asymptomatic cases. Generally they just have more cases in total (thus producing enough severe cases to be noticeable) and a population profile that is higher risk e.g. older etc.

 

It also appears that a key factor in severe COVID disease is an unusual immune response. Huge amount of literature on this and many studies looking at it including trial use of immunosuppressants. 

[JCauto]

2 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

I think you missed my point.  Which is simply this - Harvard did not release politically biased information at the behest of the Trump administration.  They bear no love for him.  If they released something they believe it.  I make no comment on the validity of their study as I'm not qualified to judge their work.

 

No, I'm agreeing with your point, but pointing out that this does in fact indicate some poor academic practice at what is supposedly one of the top five educational institutes in the world. They likely saw the opportunity presented to release it early since only a fool would not see the potential for its rapid and massive amplification. That is not political, in terms of advocating for a specific point of view or outcome that would be pleasing to one side or another, but is political in terms of recognizing that the results would receive a lot of attention because of the subject matter and they knew that. So they were happy enough to harness that political wind by hoisting up a sail to catch it.

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

There are dozens of studies being published and nearly all of them have not been peer reviewed and come out in pre print yet media picks up on them, often these studies have information rolled back after being reviewed. 

 

Draft Research Raises Murky Questions

An unreviewed early draft of a study—known as a preprint—from Harvard Medical School researchers with data that suggests that the coronavirus may have been spreading in Wuhan, China, as early as August 2019 received widespread media coverage this week. U.S. President Donald Trump and others keen to blame the pandemic on China have seized on the draft paper. But as numerous analysts have pointed out, the preprint has serious problems—including cherry-picking data.

 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/10/trust-early-coronavirus-research-pandemic-wuhan-harvard-study-preprint-trump/

Yep. I pointed it out immediately as soon as I read it. And I pointed out that the design itself was fundamentally flawed in that they chose for whatever reason the wrong sensors for the approach. Had they instead selected PlanetScope imagery (from Planet, a company operating hundreds of micro-satellites orbiting in a ring around the earth that takes an image of the earth once per day at 3-4m resolution) they would have been able to view hundreds of more images than they did from 2016 onwards, and get a much more comprehensive understanding of parking lot changes over time, be able to compare them to similar times in different years and do all the other analyses that this study failed to undertake. As someone who does this sort of analysis professionally, I was personally embarrassed for whomever got roped into this and decided they'd catch the wave as it rolled by. Big mistake that they'll have a long time to live down.