This is very interesting but the date significantly precedes my (layman's!) understanding of TMRCA estimations of mid November (earliest cases examining the existing genetic evidence and extrapolating backwards through genetic drift calculations).
How do the scientists here account for the disagreement - beyond the fact they are using completely different methods?
Alternatively, I'd be interested in somebody explaining why my understanding of the TMRCA is incorrect - like I said, its not my field.
Can you provide some evidence to back up your claim here?
The TMRCA calculations would have ample information to provide a statistically accurate date without a single Chinese genome at this point. Those early Chinese genomes merely act as a validation that the genetic clock is "ticking" how the model(s) estimates that it did.
Just rampant misinformation in this thread - a mid-November start date is still by far the most probably and you are pretty much guaranteed to have had some other disease than SARS-Cov-2 in October 2019.
The TMRCA calculations need to know approximately how many people were infected to calculate the time.
Mutation rate is essentially based on how many people the virus passes between not really time.
So if China is lying about the number of infections early on (or even simply doesn't know the true number) then the calculated time of first infection would be off.
How do the scientists here account for the disagreement - beyond the fact they are using completely different methods?
Alternatively, I'd be interested in somebody explaining why my understanding of the TMRCA is incorrect - like I said, its not my field.