Flavinkins (@Flavinkins)

“1\ Perfectly explained by a bias towards cases near HSM Cases are allowed frm further away if they have a link, explaining why linked cases are further away. How does one explain this without a ascertainment bias? 1st gen unlinked cases would have to be infected by linked cases 2\ Those districts comprise pretty much all the dense area of Wuhan, no? 3\ The authors elsewhere confounded diagnostic critera with suspicion criteria for the huang lancet papet. There is simply no reporting of the criteria for suspicion in the paper, but it presumably follows what was documented by the WHO report, which includes market proximity” https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109228312723838390 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108726114014659302 @EmaNymton90 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108724146438967181 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825678909519515 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108742419028347251 It should also be noticed that the JinYinTan hospital that was in the Lancet report did not admit the cases themselves—in stead suspected cases were first searched out from the “various healthcare institutions in Wuhan”(e.g. the Inpatient records of healthcare institutions), first for cases linked to the Huanan market city-wide beginning in 30/12/2019, then for cases that lived in the neighborhood of the Huanan market or have been admitted to a hospital near the Huanan market beginning in 31/12/2019. Suspected cases were first transferred to the JinYinTan hospital, before they were “diagnosed” according to the Lancet report criterion and then end up in the Lancet report. These 59 “transferred” (59 diagnosed/41 confirmed) cases are the 59/41 cases that were in the WMHC early reports. The rest of the cases would be from the backfilling period (e.g. hospitalized “hospital admission” at of after 03/01/2020, corresponding to the cases in the 174 cases dataset with a date of onset at or after 24/12/2019) of the standards between 03/01/2020 and 18/01/2020 and were ascertained almost exclusively by a direct or indirect connection to the Huanan market, according to the “试行诊疗方案” and “入排标准”. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825678909519515 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108724146438967181 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108742419028347251 As for any cases outside that initial market-centered 174, they just refuses to include them into the WHO report and cover them up in stead, even if they were eventually found after 15/02/2020. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108876830805701129 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109058474962594334 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108826503882566575 Hint: 59-27=? Also, they did not perform any backfilling efforts after that. They even rolled back their own backfilling efforts in prior publications when arriving at the “174 cases”. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109296343974418128