Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.408-409 [SLACK_000622] · slack_pm:msg:04222

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

@Eddie Holmes I am guessing it was planned to be timed with a press conference at the WHO or something but your virological post forced their hand.

In context

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

2021-01-16 02:21 Andrew Rambaut open

@Eddie Holmes I have emailed Sebastian and Peter to tell them it is incorrect. I will probably get a phone call from Peter as a result.
2021-01-16 02:24 Andrew Rambaut open

@Eddie Holmes My guess is they are using the submission date/time (which is listed as 10th) but the GISAID site didn't go live until the 12th.
2021-01-16 02:26 Andrew Rambaut open

@Eddie Holmes I think they must have been quickly developing the database for a while before then (they would have had to have known what the virus was to create it).
2021-01-16 02:27 Andrew Rambaut

@Eddie Holmes I am guessing it was planned to be timed with a press conference at the WHO or something but your virological post forced their hand.
2021-01-16 02:28 Andrew Rambaut open

@Eddie Holmes Hence the back channel thing I heard from Trevor that the WHO was saying it had been 'leaked'.
2021-01-16 02:40 Edward C. Holmes open

Makes sense and explains why the China CDC got so angry...and still are. But the China CDC should have released the data when they had it. Instead, they put down a gag order and shut people up....including the commercial companies that had sequenced it December. That delay probably allowed the virus to really get going.
2021-01-16 02:44 Edward C. Holmes open

Also does not excuse GISAID trying to rewrite history.