Preliminary study shows first hamster to human transmission of Covid-19 in HK

[orionx999]

Well, this is interesting. This preliminary study is showing hamsters may have actually transmitted covid to people in HK if this reporting is accurate: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...gtype=homepage

This study will appear in the The Lancet, but it has not been peer reviewed yet. I think I will wait for it to be peer reviewed, especially by other researchers around the world, before I consider that it has real merit.

Originally, I had my doubts that the hamsters in HK transmitted to people because the science out there previous to this study, did not really support that covid can be transmitted from animals to humans (thus, I also originally thought that the hamster cull by the HK government was also overkill, based on the science before this study). I would like to see this study on the hamsters go through more rigorous peer review, but I won't count out that it's impossible anymore.

[rs4]

Well, this is interesting. This preliminary study is showing hamsters may have actually transmitted covid to people in HK if this reporting is accurate: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...gtype=homepage

This study will appear in the The Lancet, but it has not been peer reviewed yet. I think I will wait for it to be peer reviewed, especially by other researchers around the world, before I consider that it has real merit.

Originally, I had my doubts that the hamsters in HK transmitted to people because the science out there previous to this study, did not really support that covid can be transmitted from animals to humans (thus, I also originally thought that the hamster cull by the HK government was also overkill, based on the science before this study). I would like to see this study on the hamsters go through more rigorous peer review, but I won't count out that it's impossible anymore.

Hk govt does what it wants. No need for research and scientific studies.
wake up

[MABinPengChau]

Paper can be downloaded in link below. I read it, only says what HK was already saying- we had no Delta since October and it must have come from the hamsters. I have heard that the virus runs through hamsters pretty quickly so not really sure the hamsters were shedding virus at such high levels so many days after import. Read the paper to see if new evidence but the only evidence is that the sequences are similar- so doesn't really show whether humans infected hamsters or hamsters infected humans.

But, read it for yourself, make your own conclusions:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4017393

[shri]

That is a shit load of names on that paper. Many of them "Govt of Hong Kong' employees. Had no clue that they were under publish or perish pressure.

[orionx999]

That is a shit load of names on that paper. Many of them "Govt of Hong Kong' employees. Had no clue that they were under publish or perish pressure.

Doesn't matter. It will be peer reviewed by other researchers world wide. If it has merit, other researchers world wide wide will come to that conclusion, after reviewing the study.

[shri]

Doesn't matter. It will be peer reviewed by other researchers world wide. If it has merit, other researchers world wide wide will come to that conclusion, after reviewing the study.

Thought you needed access to the raw data and other materials to validate these claims. Or is it a case of "yeah, I read this - looks ok, lets give them some face" type situation?

I am clueless and skeptical about many of these claims if they are just reviewed theoretically.

[hullexile]

Thought you needed access to the raw data and other materials to validate these claims. Or is it a case of "yeah, I read this - looks ok, lets give them some face" type situation?

I am clueless and skeptical about many of these claims if they are just reviewed theoretically.

Between the two is most likely. Doubt they would check the raw data. More looking at methodology and analysis of the data that is presented.

So yes if you fake the data or there are unintentional errors that lead to false data it could pass peer review. However if other researchers start to get different results it would be questioned even after peer review.

[orionx999]

Thought you needed access to the raw data and other materials to validate these claims. Or is it a case of "yeah, I read this - looks ok, lets give them some face" type situation?

I am clueless and skeptical about many of these claims if they are just reviewed theoretically.

Obviously, they should have access to the data to do a proper peer review. Otherwise, what's the point of a peer review?

[orionx999]

However if other researchers start to get different results it would be questioned even after peer review.

This. On a peer review, most likely other researchers will try to duplicate the research.

[Cornmeal]

Hmm...

Declaration of Interests: None of the authors had competing financial or non-financial interests.

Ethical Approval: Animal samples were collected for clinical diagnosis during a public health investigation led by the Hong Kong Government (AFCD). Specimens from humans were collected and tested by RT–qPCR as part of routine clinical care and the viruses genetically sequenced as part of the routine public health response (Institutional Review Board approval UW20-168).