[anonobviosly]

That's a quite old (2005) article, dating to the original sars outbreak. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.26.919985v1 is a much more recent one, specific to covid-19.

(Edit typo)

[rolph]

That particular preliminary linked to is too new and requires critical interpretation for a number of issues

[dnautics]

> is too new

it's on bioarxiv, what exactly does 'too new' mean?

[rolph]

a preliminary submission has not passed a peer review with the rigor of scientific defense.

these sorts of things may be passed among researchers for extended periods of time [years] until all the kinks are worked out of the thesis and a working theory with no known exceptions and independently confirmed agreement of results occurs.

jan 26 2020 is the submission date.

[dnautics]

What exactly is the standard of peer review you're expecting? Unless you have reason to think they flat out fabricated the data, the analysis is probably no better or worse than your garden variety nature or science or cell paper.