Chat message

In context

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

1. 2021-02-05 12:44 Edward C. Holmes open
   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.
2. 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]
3. 2021-02-05 12:54 Edward C. Holmes open
   I think he's talking about his own work at the end.
4. 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.
5. 2021-02-05 13:02 Andrew Rambaut
   @Andrew Rambaut i think it was George's paper in that case.
6. 2021-02-05 13:04 Andrew Rambaut open
   @Andrew Rambaut I should email you about this so you can lay it all out for for a future FoI.
7. 2021-02-05 13:05 Andrew Rambaut open
   @Andrew Rambaut "Eddie, can you just remind me what really happened?"
8. 2021-02-05 13:08 Edward C. Holmes open
   @Andrew Rambaut Fortunately Zhang does not like to use email
9. 2021-02-05 13:13 Robert F. Garry open
   @Andrew Rambaut This timeline needs to be public (to the extent that it isn't already). Agree that the No H2H transmission BS cost lives. So did the this is not an airborne virus BS, but that is another story.

Full conversation →