so... I just looked at the listing of the 3 other links you dropped. The "Hill" is typically slanted heavily right-wing... notwithstanding the article is an OPINION piece. I read the first few paragraphs of the NYT article and quit after it brought forward the same nonsense I've just covered previously (vis-a-vis the January 14th tweet) - somehow these favoured journalists of yours "aren't aware" of the official WHO COVID-19 timeline that I compared that tweet to... again, the tweet that includes those damning words "Preliminary investigations"!
Ya the NYT and CNN are Trump-loving right-wing orgs that will parrot his BS with pleasure.
Omg an opinion piece! Waldo's posts are all opinion pieces so I guess we should ignore those too. I know I do!
again, in the face of you simply dropping go-fetch links... 4 of them no less, you should anticipate others will use some preliminary criteria as to whether or not to read them. I appreciate you believe your time is more valuable than anyone else's! I didn't read your linked CNN article. I read the Atlantic one fully and provided you a retort, in kind. As I said, I read the first few paragraphs of the NYT article and bailed on it after reading the same emphasis the Atlantic article presented - as in bullshyte! And as I said, I don't typically read the Hill given its usual overt right-wing slant - notwithstanding I bailed on the article because it was nothing more than an opinion piece... as much as you wanted to emphasize you put forward JOURNALISTS... the 2 authors of that Hill article are anything but journalists, you blathering Covidiot!
now, let the waldo show you how its done... show you how to do research, bring it forward to the board and present it in a meaningful, contextually relevant manner. It does take a tad more effort than your (offered without personal comment) lazyazz pasting of go-fetch links. Here,
in regards human-to-human transmission and
evidence therein, chew on this paper reference
as originally published January 29 (in the New England Journal of Medicine) - as I'm aware, the first substantive, comprehensive study analyzing the first 425 laboratory confirmed cases of persons (from Wuhan) known to have contracted COVID-19:
like I said, I bring receipts. So... this formal published study (
Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia), appears on
January 29 - confirmation of, with evidence, human-to-human transmission. Again, as I've posted previously, 2 dates from the official WHO COVID-19 timeline:
...
the mid-January notifications from the WHO... that I'm aware of:
14 January 2020 --- WHO's technical lead for the response noted in a press briefing there may have been limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus (in the 41 confirmed cases), mainly through family members, and that there was a risk of a possible wider outbreak. The lead also said that human-to-human transmission would not be surprising given our experience with SARS, MERS and other respiratory pathogens.
22 January 2020 --- WHO mission to China issued a statement saying that there was evidence of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan but more investigation was needed to understand the full extent of transmission.
SelfIso, you're welcome...
on edit: added link to study - published paper Li Q, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001316