Chat message

In context

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

1. 2020-12-02 05:24 Robert F. Garry open
   Yes - Trevor gets the critique right - it's cross-reactivity. The CDC authors get an solid F for this conclusion: "These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States prior to January 19, 2020."Frankly, they should withdraw this paper because it is so misleading. Yes - not clear how this escaped per review atCID. It's VERY important to sort out the cross-reactivity between SARSr-CoV and other CoVs, including MERS BTW. This was an opportunity for CDC to take their data in that direction and they blew it - big time. There is no Zikaantibody ELISA that is 100% (or even 95%) specific due to cross-rxty to other flaviviuses. That's OK. All assays, including PCR assays, are susceptible to false positives/negative. I'm pretty sure the CDC authors know better but are saying and doing stupid things to get a bit of attention. Reminds me of @Covidfaker who sought out and got 4days of "teevee glory" as a fake COVID poster child.
2. 2020-12-02 05:26 Robert F. Garry open
   If they don't withdraw, then the editors should retract.
3. 2020-12-02 05:39 Robert F. Garry open
   Maybe by some stretch of the imagination (calling all trolls) this is partly our "fault." In PO1 we told people to doretrospective serology studies along with some PCR. We just didn't tell them to thread carefully...
4. 2020-12-02 05:57 Andrew Rambaut
   Does no one have blood samples from previous winters?

Full conversation →