> wouldn't we wonder how the fuck it got there, what's the vector?
Apparently we wouldn't.
There are two possibilities: either the virus really was circulating in Spain in March 2019, or the result is a false positive. I'm still waiting for either confirmation, or a retraction of the paper. Why the lack of curiosity?
Given that it took a year for the virus to have any effect in Spain, then all of a sudden it was very intense, wouldn't it be more likely that the test was botched?
> wouldn't it be more likely that the test was botched?
That's what I want to find out. From what you just wrote, the probability the test result is correct is at least 96%. But, as the result is so surprising and the tests aren't 100% reliable, it should still be checked.
You shouldn't assume it's a false positive simply because it doesn't fit in with our current understanding. Maybe our current understanding is wrong.
"Then they ran tests on samples taken between January 2018 and December 2019 and found the presence of the virus genome in one of them, collected on March 12, 2019."
If they did 100 samples you would expect between 1 and 4 false positives. (It doesn't go into detail about how many, but it's clearly more than one).
It may well have:
Coronavirus traces found in March 2019 sewage sample, Spanish study shows: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-...
Sentinel surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater anticipates the occurrence of COVID-19 cases: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.13.20129627v...
(SARS-CoV-2 was also detected in blood samples taken in Italy in September 2019: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03008916209747... )
> wouldn't we wonder how the fuck it got there, what's the vector?
Apparently we wouldn't.
There are two possibilities: either the virus really was circulating in Spain in March 2019, or the result is a false positive. I'm still waiting for either confirmation, or a retraction of the paper. Why the lack of curiosity?