First U.S. Covid deaths came earlier than previously thought
mercurynews.com
mercurynews.com
My 1 year old daughter came down with a bizarre rash on New Years Eve in 2019. We took her to a pediatric urgent care where they diagnosed her with a viral rash (not uncommon, anyone with kids is probably familiar). Some Tylenol did the trick and she was fine.
Two days later we followed up with her doctor, who did a full exam and did not identify anything in particular. The next day, she was acting lethargic and had a slight fever. Nothing we hadn't dealt with before. That night though, things took a turn for the worst. She began vomiting heavily and had a febrile seizure which prompted us to call 911 and they transported her to the ER.
There, her temperature was 103 and they immediately administered medication. A chest x-ray showed she had developed pneumonia in one of her lungs.
The next day when we were finally discharged from the hospital, I realized I too had developed a terrible fever which soon turned into a cough. My daughter had rapidly improved after treatment for the pneumonia, while I was suffering from a terrible cough. Laying in bed, I became delusional with a high fever, sweating through everything I wore, and went to the ER twice over the span of 4 days with shortness of breath. My sense of smell and taste was gone. I had a residual cough for about 2 weeks after.
You're probably thinking, wow, you and your daughter had COVID-19 in January of 2020. And you'd most likely be wrong. We both had RSV, confirmed through rapid testing. I was tested later in 2020 for the COVID-19 antibodies, and nothing popped up.
Take that into account when people say they had COVID in early 2020.
People don't really understand exponential growth or probabilities. If you were sick with a respiratory virus in Jan 2020, it was almost certainly cold, flu, or RSV. If you were sick with a respiratory virus in Jan 2021, it was almost certainly either a cold or COVID. COVID was doubling roughly every 5 days from a zoonosis in late October 2019, so by Jan 2020 we'd expect about 2^12 = 4096 cases worldwide = 1 in a million odds. But it spreads more readily than flu and RSV, so the countermeasures we put in place to stop COVID basically completed halted flu/RSV transmission over 2020.
Streptococcus pneumoniae is actually the #1 cause of pneumonia. Streptococcus agalactiae also commonly causes pneumonia in infants.
Can you provide any citation or reference on this claim? 5 days sounds about right to me, but I'm not yet aware of any literature supporting that number so I would be grateful to learn more.
I agree with your general point regarding the statistical improbability.
However it's important to be aware that multiple recent studies have documented serological evidence suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in the United States earlier than previously recognized - as early as 13–16 December 2019 [1][2]. For reference that is over a month before the first officially confirmed case in Washington state (15-19 January 2020) [3]. Furthermore, reports have identified a hospitalized patient with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan with symptom onset as early as 1 December 2019 [1].
So when people say they had COVID in early 2020, consider that it may not be as unlikely as we originally thought. Hindsight and future research may reveal a need to further adjust the timeline.
> These findings indicate that SARS-CoV-2–reactive antibodies were detected in 106 specimens, a small percentage of blood donations from California, Oregon, and Washington, as early as 13–16 December 2019. The presence of these serum antibodies indicate that isolated SARS-CoV-2 infections may have occurred in the western portion of the United States earlier than previously recognized [1]
[1] Serologic Testing of US Blood Donations to Identify Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–Reactive Antibodies: December 2019–January 2020 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1004/6012472
[2] Identification of the first COVID-19 infections in the US using a retrospective analysis https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-707353/v1/baa84b8...
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0121-novel-coronavi...
Lots of tourists from all over the world go there for shopping and the universities and tourism. Big crowds.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...
Colds and Flu season in London in late 2019 was quite nasty. I had multiple heavy colds. I went to a doctor, who said basically "yes, there's a lot of it about".
it wasn't COVID.
It was just a above average Colds and Flu season.
That's also the last time that I had a cold.
Anecdotes aside,I think it is fairly unambiguous that it was going around by then.
Somehow people also seem to like to forget that non-covid SARS leaked out of the beijing bio-lab at least twice resulting in deaths: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/
Which they attempted to cover up as well.
In short, its not racist to say covid19 originated in China or think a lab leak is a likely possibility that needs a much better investigation or even to think that the Chinese government might be covering it up. It is racist to call it the "China virus" or "Kung Flu" and treat people who had absolutely nothing to do with its origins wrongly.
IMO year based names (like the 1918 pandemic) are better still since even if they emerged sooner the undeniable historical impact is likely within a year or so of its recognition.
We'll probably never know.
https://www.history.com/news/china-epicenter-of-1918-flu-pan...
I think the question of naming is less of origin, and more of cultures and what offends someone. Back when and where I was a kid growing up, people were mature enough to realize that terms like "Spanish flu" or "Chinese coronavirus" weren't condemnations of Spain or China, and we somehow never saw violence or offense over these sorts of things.
They were neutral, factual descriptions. And yes, factually, the Spanish flu was first widely reported in Spanish newspapers.
In the US in 2021, it seems like racial tensions run high, and these sorts of thing DO lead to offense and violence.
It's an odd shift, but not an unreasonable one. A big part of this has to do with intention. With COVID19, the racial terms were intended to be offensive by many who used them. Whether someone is trying to insult you goes a long ways to whether you might reasonably feel insulted.
Have you heard of anyone being insulted by "Spanish flu" prior to the e.g. 1980?
As a footnote, a more subtle way to play this is to code switch language based on where you are. In China, I don't get offended by people calling me fat, whereas in the US, I do.
And "Spanish flu" is called that because the Spanish discovered it, not because it was based in Spain. But most people didn't realize that then or now.
I wonder why this study has not been repeated for blood samples collected before December 2019?
FWIW here is another reference with similar findings [2], and also a paper (cited in the OP) suggesting infections were massively under-reported early in the pandemic [3].
> By mid-July of 2020, 16.8 million people had an undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, almost five times the rate of diagnosed infections. [2]
> I wonder why this study has not been repeated for blood samples collected before December 2019?
Speculating but it's probably because such research is expensive and knowing the exact date of the first infection may not be particularly useful.
[1] Serologic Testing of US Blood Donations to Identify Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–Reactive Antibodies: December 2019–January 2020 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1004/6012472
[2] Identification of the first COVID-19 infections in the US using a retrospective analysis https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-707353/v1/baa84b8...
[3] Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/13/601/eabh3826
You say "sound evidence" and then name some circumstantial evidence. This is similar types of evidence used for the "Fort Detrick origin" story. It was shut down in August 2019 for safety violations, and the Wuhan military games "could be" how it spread to China.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
The line between "conspiracy theory" and "a theoretically possible hypothesis that can neither be proven nor ruled out" is kind of murky for me, but if you are claiming "there are sound evidence that COVID comes from a lab leak", then you cannot support your argument by only citing "space for reasonable doubts" (which is what your article said).
Why do you say the WHO are bought and paid for? Do you have any real evidence of that?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/trumps-fa...
>That same day, the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control said it sent an email to the WHO regarding rumors of at least “seven cases of atypical pneumonia,” which it said is code in China for “a disease transmitted between humans caused by coronavirus.”
Taiwan is not a member of the WHO, and the WHO says the email never mentioned human-to-human transmission. “Public health professionals could discern from this wording that there was a real possibility of human-to-human transmission of the disease,” the Taiwan CDC argues. “However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission.”
Apparently, Taiwanese officials had been alerted to Dec. 30 posts in a chat room by a doctor, Li Wenliang, in which he said that seven cases he had been treating resembled severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, a deadly form of coronavirus. Li was reprimanded by the Chinese government for illegally spreading rumors. He later died of covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
> The WHO is heavily reliant on information provided by countries and cannot fine countries that fail to provide accurate information.
> However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission
> Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses with some causing less-severe disease, such as the common cold, and others more severe disease such as MERS and SARS. Some transmit easily from person to person, while others do not. According to Chinese authorities, the virus in question can cause severe illness in some patients and does not transmit readily between people.
> Based on the preliminary information from the Chinese investigation team, no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission and no health care worker infections have been reported
> Based on experience with SARS and MERS ... protect health workers recommending droplet and contact precautions when caring for patients, and airborne precautions
> At this stage, there is no infection among healthcare workers, and no clear evidence of human to human transmission.
> The way these patients became infected is not yet known.
> based on the available information there is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission
> Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission
> It is still early days, we don’t have a clear clinical picture
> There is the possibility that transmission can be amplified. Most notably in health-care facilities
> some limited human-to-human transmission occurring between close contacts
> It is now very clear from the latest information that there is at least some human-to-human transmission of #nCoV2019. Infections among health care workers strengthen the evidence for this
So it looks to me like the WHO is in the position of relaying the data they get from China. They said this. They also relayed other very relevant info about the behaviour or other coronaviruses, saying that human-to-human transmission could go either way. Furthermore they relayed new information as it became available.
I don't see any of this as an indication that they were bought and paid for. Do you assume that the WHO could force their way into places the Chinese government wouldn't allow them? That's not how international organizations work.
It would make more sense if you suspected that the Chinese were witholding data. But you haven't provided any evidence that WHO did.
That's not something that the WHO decided to do. The WHO is an international organization setup by participating countries to operate under rules they, as a group, specify and sign onto. The U.S. was involved in this. The WHO can't do whatever they want.
So I would agree with you that it appears that the WHO may not have relayed the Dec 31 email from Taiwan, as per the Washington Post article you linked to. It's probably safer to blame this more on bureaucratic stupidy than malice. But they did have a release 6 days later on Jan 6, with many more releases over the month relaying the information they received, including warnings about and suspicion of human transmission several days later, then on Jan 14, confirmation of human to human transmission.
You earlier claimed that delayed reporting from the WHO "stopped the US from doing any sort of checks of any sort and life went on...all the while the virus was spreading all over the country."
So when did the U.S. first take action? February? March? Are you saying that the delay between the Dec 31 email from Taiwan and the WHO release on Jan 6 made a difference? If so, then why did the U.S. wait so long to react after the reports of human to human transmission?
Do you understand why I don't follow your logic? You seem to be insisting on a conspiracy where I'm not seeing the link between cause and affect that you are. Perhaps you are looking too hard for a scapegoat?
Rubbish. Since when does the US listen to overseas authorities - only when you can use them as an excuse.
Taiwan instigated their procedures to start lockdown on people from China on December 31st, 2019.
The US has their own sources of information, and chose to ignore them, and the US has been burdened by the consequences of the poor decision making of your authorities.
Disclaimer: I am from New Zealand, that has so far done pretty well, which isn’t simply because we are a pacific island.
Yesterday during a normal call with a friend, he mentioned that one acquaintance of his got leukaemia, four weeks after vaccine injection. That leukaemia is real, the relation with the vaccine doubtful.
This whole sars-cov-2 infestation came during a loud noise of other adverse events, many unrelated... The normal loud noise of adverse events.
One may suspect, but cannot point to virus or vaccine for anything that happens.
I just need to note that these kind of dismissive positions - "all is well, nothing to see here, go back to your business, everything is simple" - are exactly one of the suspicion raising attitudes, causing hesitance and, in the patterns of some mindsets, «kill[ing] people».
In the context of information sharing and discussion (here) dealing with complexity is part of the game, but the real issue is in the "public" context of government and journalism: I am frequently reading, even minutes ago, mutilations of complexity and bad arguments (e.g., the strawman: group A is insane so group B is wrong) - all of this stiffens the hesitant position.
If the information in this article is true, then it shows an extremely geographically dispersed and low level of infection across the US in December of 2019. This is notably different from the pandemic pattern in China where illness was extremely concentrated in Hubei province with limited and mostly contact traceable chains of infection leading back to Hubei in other provinces.
My completely unscientific WAG is that the zoonotic origin of the virus could have happened anywhere in the world and the virus was circulating worldwide at low levels, undetected for months before Dec 2019. Some mutation of the virus happened in Wuhan in Dec 2019 that caused it to explode across Hubei. Another mutation happened in Europe to cause the D614G strain that spread across the world and then another mutation in India caused the Delta variant that we have today.
We've seen that each successive mutation effectively wipes the previous one off the map over the course of about 2 months. This coupled with early testing in other countries being restricted only to those with travel history to China means we lost key parts of the evidence. This would explain why animal testing in China failed to find the origin of the virus and how we have so many puzzling (frustratingly ambiguous) reports of early COVID (in France, Italy, Brazil, the US) that complicate the timeline.
The media has been shockingly complicit in not airing the totality of the early covid evidence. eg: 3 deer were recently found with COVID antibodies across different states in the US in Jan 2020 but this news barely made a ripple: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/wild-us-d...
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/dispute-over-italian-co...