Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.484 [SLACK_000698] · slack_pm:msg:05046

Date: 2021-02-05 12:44
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.

Exactly. Virological seemed the best way to get it out and Andrew and I had discussed that option already. The GISAID option never crossed my mind. To me, the key thing is that Zhang told the Ministry of Health exactly what itis was on the 5th, that it was likely a human respiratory pathogen, and that people should take precautions. That was the key info. But 100s of health care workers were infected by the time they finally admitted human-to-human transmission some weeks later. That's the true scandal.

In context

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

2021-02-05 12:30 Edward C. Holmes open

The sequence was submitted to GenBank on the 5th - the day it was sequenced - before the paper was written. The embargo is a standard - hold until publication clause. The data was sent to the Ministry of Health on that day. Zhang also told them that it was a human respiratory pathogen. I wanted to release the sequence on that day as well butwe could not because China had imposed a gag order on the 3rd. We submitted the paper on the 7th. We very quickly heard from a reviewer that they thought it was a good idea to release the sequence as did the editor. I was trying to get Zhang to do it but he was under pressure. After Jeremy's tweet I contacted Jeremy and told him the story, although I think he was really referring to George. He said it had to be released by the Monday. So, I tried again with Zhang and he agreed. The GenBank sequence was released on the 12th. He did put his neck on the line and he did get into serious trouble. Things got so bad that I told him a few times that we should just withdraw the paper just to save him. There's nothing new here and I've explained this - including Jeremy's tweet - to get press many times. If she wants to moan it should be to the China CDC who had the data earlier and did nothing.
2021-02-05 12:33 Robert F. Garry open

Thank Eddie - And, of course, Virological release was earlier than GenBank.
2021-02-05 12:33 Andrew Rambaut open

And Gisaid despite what Bogner claims.
2021-02-05 12:34 Robert F. Garry open

A little while back I think we discussed that Ct values for G614 are lower than for D614. B117 still lower, but does anyone have Ct data for B.1.351 and P.1?
2021-02-05 12:44 Edward C. Holmes

Exactly. Virological seemed the best way to get it out and Andrew and I had discussed that option already. The GISAID option never crossed my mind. To me, the key thing is that Zhang told the Ministry of Health exactly what itis was on the 5th, that it was likely a human respiratory pathogen, and that people should take precautions. That was the key info. But 100s of health care workers were infected by the time they finally admitted human-to-human transmission some weeks later. That's the true scandal.
2021-02-05 12:52 Kristian G. Andersen open

Oh, I missed this beauty from the Science Police. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-02-05 at 12.50.04.png]
2021-02-05 12:54 Edward C. Holmes open

I think he's talking about his own work at the end.
2021-02-05 12:56 Edward C. Holmes open

No, the reviewer did review the paper but also said it was a good idea to release the sequence.
2021-02-05 13:02 Andrew Rambaut open

@Andrew Rambaut i think it was George's paper in that case.

Full conversation →