The last few posts about Spanish shit have summarized the last few weeks itt nicely.
3 Likes
Or at least it would have passed peer review by now instead of languishing on medRxiv. But it obviously shouldn’t pass peer review, because the plain conclusion from the data is obvious: that there wasn’t SARS-CoV-2 in Barcelona’s waste water in March 2019.
2 Likes
I mean common fucking sense and everything else we know about Covid shoudl also tell us that it didnt circulate in a city like barcelona for a full fucking year, to the extent it was detectable in sewage samples, and nobody noticed and said “Hey, i wonder why everyone is getting fucking pneumonia and dying?”
1 Like
SPANISH FLU 2: ELECTRIC SUPERFLU that killed 1% of the population of Barcelona but thankfully no one ever visits or leaves Barcelona so no one noticed and it didn’t spread anywhere.
6 Likes
This is really bad misinformation to have hanging out there. The “debate” over the origins of Covid is going to be misrepresented and weaponized by fascists so passing around discredited conclusions plays right into hands.
1 Like
Can you find the report the comment refers to? Easy to leave a comment.
Please prove this is misinformation rather than relying on a comment left on the interwebs
Vermont passed 80% with at least one dose today.
5 Likes
Fuck off. I’m not going to personally fact check every link you post with no context.
1 Like
So your theory is that Covid was prevalent enough in Barcelona to show up in sewage samples in March 2019, but then thankfully, through absolutely no mitigation measures whatsoever because, of course, nobody knew it existed, Barcelona flattened the curve and wiped it out by September of 2019? Cool theory.
Why in god’s name are journal preprints put on the web?
I think some authors do this so the public can read their research without being paywalled.
There has to be a system that works better than this. Right now there’s a shitload of unvetted articles that might seem indistinguishable from legit reviewed papers to the layman.
This is like early on when there was that preprint claiming they found proof COVID had been engineered and all the actual virologists tore it to shreds but it still went all over the internet.
This is nonsense.
Which in turn feeds conspiracy trolls. Yeah, it’s not a great system.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding how “pre-print” is used in other disciplines. The way I understand it is that it is the last draft before publication. So it has been peer reviewed and accepted, but the author changes a few words or a sentence so they can put it on their personal site as a “draft” that’s open access.
This is completely ridiculous. The report that the comment refers to IS LITERALLY LINKED IN THAT COMMENT. At this point, it’s hard to distinguish your posts from willful misinformation.
1 Like
Why would anybody spend their time searching a database of year-old preprints of Covid research and then posting the conclusions on an internet forum?
Eta: In my academic career, the term preprints was used for non-peer reviewed papers that had been submitted for publication.
Maybe I’m using the wrong term, but whatever it is where pre-reviewed material makes its way onto the internet and signal-boosted everywhere is a very bad system.