Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.152 [SLACK_000366] · slack_pm:msg:01560

Date: 2020-09-01 14:44
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes

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

There are two different things: (i) does the paper show reinfection; (ii) does it give a reliable frequency of reinfection because of sampling biases.

In context

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

2020-09-01 14:40 Edward C. Holmes open

Perhaps, but the official numbers from China are clearly large underestimates.
2020-09-01 14:41 Andrew Rambaut open

I agree but even so. One of the 6 is 2 years old.
2020-09-01 14:42 Andrew Rambaut open

(but I don't know how I know that because I haven't seen the paper)
2020-09-01 14:42 Edward C. Holmes open

Excellent educated guess.
2020-09-01 14:44 Edward C. Holmes

There are two different things: (i) does the paper show reinfection; (ii) does it give a reliable frequency of reinfection because of sampling biases.
2020-09-01 14:49 Kristian G. Andersen open

Trying to get clarity on some of these questions - because both are important. I requested the raw data, so going totake a look at that first in case something got mixed up.If these six are actual my high risk (e.g. frontline workers assuming they're immune) than I can believe it. But ifthey're a random sampling, then it looks really unlikely - and yes, there's a baby in there too....
2020-09-01 14:50 Kristian G. Andersen open

Or toddler - whatever - little human (I don't know kids...)

Full conversation →