Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.91 [SLACK_000305] · slack_pm:msg:00932

Date: 2020-07-01 14:18
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

The only good thing is that they're not pushing the "it's transmitting better" narrative. I'm not saying that couldn't betrue, all I'm saying is that the data and analyses do not allow for that conclusion. I think Marc might be commentingon the paper for NYT... That could be fun.. :wink:

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2020-07-01 14:01 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yes. Solid stuff.
2020-07-01 14:12 Edward C. Holmes open

I said the whole analysis was crap and needed to be redone. I never saw any response to this.
2020-07-01 14:17 Edward C. Holmes open

I submitted my review on June 12th (I only reviewed the revision). Given the speed of all this - and they wanted totake a look in 48 hours - it was clear that Cell were going to take it whatever I said. I've not looked at the paper - Ican't stand to - but I assume they've not made any of the revisions I suggested.
2020-07-01 14:17 Kristian G. Andersen open

Okay, finally managed to read the full (updated) paper. The analyses are fucking crap and the statistics a completejoke. I'm really surprised this is going through - no way it passed the Eddie smell test
2020-07-01 14:18 Kristian G. Andersen

The only good thing is that they're not pushing the "it's transmitting better" narrative. I'm not saying that couldn't betrue, all I'm saying is that the data and analyses do not allow for that conclusion. I think Marc might be commentingon the paper for NYT... That could be fun.. :wink:
2020-07-01 14:24 Edward C. Holmes open

If the Editor is completely on the side of the authors what can you do? Their's peer reviewer and then ignoring peer review. Clearly Cell wanted it accepted ASAP because they were worried about being scooped and wanted thecitations. Here's the 1st major comment from my review "The statistical analysis of the D614G variant is flawed. I'm not saying that the conclusion is wrong, but the analysis is."
2020-07-01 14:30 Edward C. Holmes open

I'll use those grader quotes in my next review.
2020-07-01 15:00 Andrew Rambaut open

Our analysis of the UK data seems to suggest a higher rate of G growth but it is really hard. We consistently get ahigher rate but the significance depends on the details of the analyses. The effect size is small but not insignificant(if true). On the other hand there is not much you can do with the knowledge.
2020-07-01 15:02 Kristian G. Andersen open

Do you have a visual of any of this? I'm kinda struggling with how a difference like this might even look like. The previous R0 estimates I saw for the two clades from Trevor's group essentially looked identical

Full conversation →