如果不是那个海鲜市场是毒源，是外面传过来的，我很难想象一个单独的人能把一个海鲜市场传得病毒到处都是，传到路边阴沟，垃圾箱，市场随便哪一块都有病毒。如果那样的话，一个飞到北美的携带病毒的个体，岂不是也能毒倒一大片？这不make sense 海鲜市场的病毒浓度那么高，不太像是其他地方传到海鲜市场的。否则其他地方的病毒浓度岂不是更高而我们到现在还没发现？
my 2 cents: we can't say that the origin of the virus isn't from seafood market because patient 0 didn't have physical contact with the market as the onsite symptoms can vary, but the data definitely shows that the evidence of virus passing through human contact is established clearly in the early stage!
my 2 cents: we can't say that the origin of the virus isn't from seafood market because patient 0 didn't have physical contact with the market as the onsite symptoms can vary, but the data definitely shows that the evidence of virus passing through human contact is established clearly in the early stage! maplepine 发表于 1/27/2020 2:48:07 PM
my 2 cents: we can't say that the origin of the virus isn't from seafood market because patient 0 didn't have physical contact with the market as the onsite symptoms can vary, but the data definitely shows that the evidence of virus passing through human contact is established clearly in the early stage! maplepine 发表于 1/27/2020 2:48:07 PM
It could be established when looking at the timeline now. But my question is when did they consolidate all these cases and find out the pattern and connection? Wouldn't it depends on the timing of discovering the (non-)connection to the market?
It could be established when looking at the timeline now. But my question is when did they consolidate all these cases and find out the pattern and connection? Wouldn't it depends on the timing of discovering the (non-)connection to the market?
huarenmochi 发表于 1/27/2020 2:59:39 PM
I would think so. As soon as there was the infected case without direct contact history to the seafood market, it could be inferred that passing through human is valid, in my thinking (could be wrong). However I am not sure when patient 0 got confirmed with the infection.
I would think so. As soon as there was the infected case without direct contact history to the seafood market, it could be inferred that passing through human is valid, in my thinking (could be wrong). However I am not sure when patient 0 got confirmed with the infection.
maplepine 发表于 1/27/2020 3:05:52 PM
Actually I mean when did they first target at the market.
这个泰国学生没去过海鲜市场。同时感染的还有一个缅甸的学生，这个没透露过是否去过海鲜市场。
point是零号病人并没有接触过海鲜市场。。
前面讨论过，每人潜伏期不一样。未发病有传染性，但无症状。很可能中间宿主甚至至始至终未发病，也不是没可能。
第一个发病的比第二个早9天呢
柳叶刀
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext
12月1日那个病人什么背景?
文章里没说 不过医院肯定有存档 那么多摄像头 真要搞清楚来龙去脉肯定不是难事
零号病人只是最先发病，介于潜伏期2到14天，或许真正第一个感染的人后面才发病，这也是可能的。
其实说明科学研究这个层面已经很透明了。中国政府真是烂透了，枉费了科学家和医生们的努力。
也可能病了几天没机会检测就死了
Agreed.
会不会在里面养了一段时间才爆
It could be established when looking at the timeline now. But my question is when did they consolidate all these cases and find out the pattern and connection? Wouldn't it depends on the timing of discovering the (non-)connection to the market?
I would think so. As soon as there was the infected case without direct contact history to the seafood market, it could be inferred that passing through human is valid, in my thinking (could be wrong). However I am not sure when patient 0 got confirmed with the infection.
Actually I mean when did they first target at the market.
现在往回看当然可以以“是否接触过市场”为“是否人传人”的一个参照。但在当下，检验结果需要时间，跨医院对比案例也需要的时间，可是应该是12月下旬才有可能提炼出“海鲜市场”这个共同参数，进而判断是直接还是间接感染？我记得比较容易判断“人传人”是在传给医护人员之后。
SCMP先说的，然后有记者给通讯作者写邮件，回答是说他们也不确定。
http://www.caixin.com/2020-01-27/101508845.html
看ls
这个也是有可能的
in any way it shouldn't be as late as when the news announced the confirmation of human transfer...