zlacker

> Early on there was not a spike in cases, so that would not have sparked an interest.

My understanding on this was that doctors local to Wuhan noticed a surprising and sudden uptick in pneumonia that did not respond to antibiotics. The Chinese government managed this badly[1]. Your timeline doesn't reflect how things happened at the time - there was a "slowly" (over two months?) growing problem in Wuhan that locals noticed and authorities suppressed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang#Role_in_2019%E2%80...

>>aeturn+(OP)
Pneumonia is both bacterial and viral. It wouldn't be surprising if it didn't respond to antibiotics. It was the CT scans of the lungs that showed glassy nodules that was the new symptoms.

>>ping_p+a5
Majority of pneumonia cases are caused by bacteria though (see https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/differentiating-viral-from-bac... )

>>aeturn+(OP)
Not in November when the Chinese first discovered the virus.

>>wuwuno+yv
You’re repeating this claim as if it’s well established - do you have a citation?

There are some indications that it might have been spreading possibly as early as September but the coverage I’ve seen was preliminary and researchers were cautious about concluding anything without more comprehensive tests to rule out things like cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses. The generally accepted patient 0 for the outbreak must have been infected in November to be symptomatic in early December but I haven’t seen any credible claims that anyone in China had identified this as a new disease until late December.

>>bgandr+4k
Your statement is completely orthogonal to the point. Doctors know that pneumonia is both bacterial and viral. If it didn't respond to antibiotics, it wouldn't be surprising at all and wouldn't indicate that a new disease was causing it.