On the Origin of the Covid Pandemic


This is too long for a meaningful excerpt. The origin of the report, and its motivation, are political, but it’s pretty detailed.

Have at it.

109 thoughts on “On the Origin of the Covid Pandemic

  1. dazz: According to this the have been an estimated 120 million infections in the US between Feb 2020 and May 2021, or a 36% of the population. Is this the data you are referring to? Sounds like a lot.

    I don’t buy that 120 million number – no-one has seen 36% seroprevalence, and surveys of seroprevalence are a better source than backing out from estimates of the diagnosis rate. OTOH, if that many juveniles got infected that early, then seroprevalence surveys might be an undercount…

    Going by your response, I’m guessing this will be incorrect, but I’ll try anyway.
    How about this formula to factor in natural immunity?

    Re = R0 ( 1 – ( Vac * Ve ( 1- Ni ) + Ni )

    Nope, that looks exactly right. In particular, you are right to subtract out the overlap “recovered and vaccinated”. Of course, vaccination and prior infection are not necessarily independent, but that’s the least of our worries with this math. 😮

  2. DNA_Jock,

    Thanks again!
    There was a seroprevalence study here in Spain, in its fourth round it was at about a 10%, but that was back in November 2020, while in June 2020 it was at a 5%, so I’m guessing now it could be at about 15% to 20%, maybe?

    That seems in line with similar studies in the US where the seroprevalence was roughly a 19%


    EDIT: Oh, but that was in January 2021…

  3. BTW, is it possible to tell in those seroprevalence trials who is immune because they recovered from an infection and who were vaccinated? Now this is a stupid question, since I’m guessing it would be as simple as asking each participant if they’re vaccinated and when.

  4. dazz,

    It is at least in theory possible to try to distinguish between immune response to one of the vaccines and immune response to an infection: someone whose only exposure is to a vaccine will likely have a strong response to the antigens in the vaccine, and no response to SARS-CoV-2 antigens not in the vaccine, although any one individual’s infection history could really mess with the analysis.
    But AFAIK the large surveys do not attempt such detailed testing.
    Also, the large surveys are conducted blind, for ethical reasons, so there’s no way to ask the patients if they’ve been vaccinated.
    So it isn’t a stupid question. At all.

  5. DNA_Jock,

    Oh, going by the survey results, it looks like they must be able to tell apart natural immunity from vaccine immunity. I mean, otherwise we would expect to see a much higher seroprevalence now that more than half the US population is fully vaccinated. Right? Or am I missing something obvious?

    Maybe there’s something here in the study methodology description:

  6. dazz: Or am I missing something obvious?

    For that original six-site study, the samples were collected between March 23 and May 3 of last year. Vaccination not a factor.
    The interactive dashboard, however, does offer estimates that are as recent as July of this year. And it does distinguish between looking for reactivity to the spike protein (all of the vaccines target the spike) and the nucleocapsid (not a vaccine constituent). Which assay is done depends on the jurisdiction and time period.
    This leads to an unfortunate apples-to-oranges situation, insofar as Puerto Rico is still reporting anti-Spike (squares) — they get up to 74.8% reactive, which includes vaccinations. For the past six months or so, the 50 states have been reporting nucleocapsid (circles), so they do NOT count the vaccinated: IL and OH manage to get into the upper 30’s, but most of the country is in that 10 – 20% range.

  7. DNA_Jock: For that original six-site study, the samples were collected between March 23 and May 3 of last year. Vaccination not a factor.

    Ouch! It’s right there in friggin title.

    Thanks once again, Jock.

  8. The animal market origin is looking even more likely, given that the previously identified “first case” accountant (who had no connection to the market) was actually infected later, after the market seafood vendor came down with CoVID.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.