Chat message

In context

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

1. 2020-07-27 16:28 Andrew Rambaut open
   Jeremy's email - ```Kristen, Andrew, Bob, Eddie have reworked the summary and it is attached here. We are pushing to get the sequence data from the reports on the pangolins, but do not have currently, clearly that isvery important to incorporate. Interested in your viewsIs this reasonably balanced given the data?Is there anything anyone disagrees with?Is there anything more in relation to what would seem to be the two possibilities Nature, Intermediate host, evolution and passage Future data you may have Advice on whether KA, AR, RG and EH should publish this. These and other thoughts welcome in confidence.```
2. 2020-07-27 16:36 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Very good - and I remember the followup to that where I'm actually saying that we need to get more conclusive data before we can say one thing or the other. I think our paper trail is good
3. 2020-07-27 16:37 Kristian G. Andersen open
   One thing though - and @Eddie Holmes this is important - we _*need*_ to talk to Jeremy or Tony first before saying _*anything*_ about a meeting. If we confirm that the meeting did happen, then we automatically confirm that Tony and Jeremy were present - we can't do that, without getting their consent. I'll reach out to Tony (and Francis) to seeif I can get a moment with them - Eddie, will you please do the same with Jeremy? Or should we do all three at the same time?
4. 2020-07-27 17:29 Edward C. Holmes open
   Agreed. I've now emailed Jeremy.
5. 2020-07-27 18:12 Edward C. Holmes
   On the plus side, this may be the Altmetric boost we need...
6. 2020-07-27 18:12 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Exactly!
7. 2020-07-27 19:02 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Obviously the person writing the email... [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2020-07-27 at 7.02.03 PM.png]
8. 2020-07-27 19:50 Edward C. Holmes open
   I'm not sure what I would conclude except that it is completely inappropriate to discuss the thoughts of the editors atNature. In addition, they completely fail to note that it was Clare that suggested Nature Medicine!! Clare seems tohave rejected the paper largely on the grounds that she thought it would go out of date quickly.
9. 2020-07-27 19:55 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Yeah, but only a reviewer would be privy to this information - nobody on the call (unless they reviewed the paper) would know this.

Full conversation →