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.
Fact check them with rando comment in a comment section though? The comment refers to a second report - I can’t find no second report so the comment is like any other other facebook comment where I come from.
Like this esteemed Dr and US/UK covid commentator from UK was reporting it as fact 5 Jun 2021 (its a yootoobz but same has been posted on UP before)
80% of population or 80% of 12+?18+?
Why indeed.
Are you just trolling now? You posted this:
and you are saying that you can’t find the report that is literally linked in the comment that you took a screenshot of?
2 Likes
He’s always trolling.
The later linked report doesn’t study the earlier frozen sewerage samples? Just the unfrozen samples which start to be collected upon the outbreak?
Do not be alarmed if Delta variant not applicable to your region
Why do you think that is?
A. Some powerful entity mandated the coverup of the actual origin of the SARS-CoV-2 epicenter: Barcelona, March 2019.
B. The scientists themselves decided not to reveal the actual origin of the SARS-CoV-2 epicenter: Barcelona, March 2019.
C. Their earlier result was garbage, and it doesn’t show that there was SARS-CoV-2 in Barcelona in March of 2019.
1 Like
You are supposed to PROVE which of A, B, or C is correct.
Thanks, this simple statement means a lot to me.
2 Likes
A. Nope. But just how many countries have frozen sewerage samples from 2019 hanging around. Gimme a shout when your state even starts sewerage sampling for covid.
B. I believe ‘trace detected in sewerage’ may be different from full blown top of curve pandemic here. Barcelona is fairly central to the world like. Trading port and all.
C. Whatever. Sure both statements from Univ of Barcelona and Medixx would be removed if superseeded
No, it wouldn’t.
The point is that those same authors actually published a paper on detecting COVID in Barcelona wastewater. And, curiously, that published paper makes absolutely no reference to the ostensibly blockbuster finding (by the same authors, using the same Barcelona wastewater analysis) that COVID was present several months before anyone else has claimed. So there’s good reason to believe even the authors are no longer making that claim (or that the journal’s reviewers refused to allow that claim in the published paper).
Look at Wookie’s post again where he posted this table from your original linked report:
Looking at this table, you could draw 1 of 2 conclusions:
- COVID was present in March 2019 in Barcelona, but inexplicably not in September, October, November, or December. And it was only present to the extent that it was detectable in two of the five assays.
or
- There is some combination of false positive/erroneous procedures/contamination that yields a seemingly significant result that would almost certainly be invalidated by an appropriate Bonferroni-type adjustment for multiple hypotheses.
There’s a reason that the initial report and its blockbuster March 2019 result doesn’t seem to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal anywhere despite the paper having been “sent to a high impact journal” roughly a year ago. You are posting garbage, you are ignoring good faith efforts of people pointing out why it’s garbage, and your “I can’t find a second report” responses are utterly ridiculous.
5 Likes
12+
1 Like
This research sounds like shit.
2 Likes