|
|
|
|
|
|
by dba7dba
2241 days ago
|
|
|
Have you watched the 3 interviews? I'm not picking a fight nor judging. Just curious. I called them interviews but really they are like lectures in my opinion. The doctors speak most of the time. I'm not a doctor but I figure doctors are too busy collecting/digesting data to publish quality papers? Especially when new data is being generated at a fast rate? There is an issue of many research papers covering Covid-19 not getting enough peer review before being made available to public and covered by news media. Prof Kim's called this a "Thesis Pandemic", a flood of Covid-19 related research papers being put out by researchers that get covered by new media before they are peer reviewed. And apparently many of the papers are made public by the researchers without enough data to really back up their thesis. Because the virus is so new, there is really not enough data. And the researchers are doing their best to help with finding treatment, but apparently many of the papers are not peer reviewed enough before being picked out by news media to be covered. I did google and found a few reading material below but not sure if it's what you are looking for. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0251_article |
|
|
Everything you say is true, except that mostly doctors are not busy collecting data, but rather treating patients.
You may have intended to link a different paper; the one you linked is about Gansu in China, not Korea, and does not mention rt-PCR, false positives, viral RNA, or reinfection or recurrence. It does mention "secondary infection" and "secondary cases", but, as it explains, that means people who were infected within the study region by other people ("indigenous"), rather than coming into the region from outside ("imported").