Hacker News Reader

Comment by CapriciousCptl | Hacker News Reader

I wouldn’t put much weight on this. They looked at about 15 stored samples (actually 80 depending how you count) and got one positive. As far as I can tell that forms the entire factual evidence. Contamination/false positive works out to be a large concern. Clearly they wanted the result as well.

View on HN

The patient presented with the exact symptoms of the virus, tested negative for other diseases that cause similar symptoms, and had two separate labs report the sample as positive for Covid. I'd say it's far more likely than not that this patient actually did have the virus. December 27th is not even a farfetched date to get the virus given that it was reportedly spreading in China in late November.

> Clearly they wanted the result as well.

Based on what? If anything, I'd say it's clear you don't want the result.

No, that’s not the only evidence. The patient also presented with the relevant set of symptoms:

“ He presented to the emergency ward on December 27 2019 with hemoptysis, cough, headache and fever, evolving for 4 days. Initial examination was unremarkable and the performed CT scan revealed bilateral ground glass opacity in inferior lobes”

The CT scans could be checked with today’s knowledge. I presume they still have the images, right?

They're in the paper.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S09248579203016...

The symptoms of covid-19 are famously vague, and pneumonia isn't a unique condition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com