Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.517 [SLACK_000731] · slack_pm:msg:05397

Date: 2021-02-16 07:36
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes
speaker: Andrew Rambaut
Topics: Natural origin / zoonotic spillover

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

This could be a hypothesis by hypothesis rebuttal of the lab-origins (i.e., from the strongest, complete engineering, through modification, through passaging and finally down to just culturing and accidental escape). Or it could be adescription of the new genomes and what they mean for natural origins. But at the moment it is not clear to me how the 'results' section actually fits with the 'discussion' section.

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
Or it could be adescription of the new genomes and what they mean for natural origins.	quoted / not their view	hypothetical conditional framing	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

Or it could be adescription of the new genomes and what they mean for natural origins.

quoted / not their view

hypothetical conditional framing

asserts

In context

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

2021-02-16 07:29 Andrew Rambaut open

Sorry about this Bob but I am not too fond of the current structure of the piece - the intro is brief, the results technical and then the lab origins stuff is sprung in the discussion and dominates. The different bits of the discussion areaddressing different points made by lab-origins people without making them explicit - i.e., is mainly done asrebuttals. Is there really anything to say on this other than a very close progenitor virus would need to exist in the lab and there are very good reasons to believe it didn't.
2021-02-16 07:36 Andrew Rambaut

This could be a hypothesis by hypothesis rebuttal of the lab-origins (i.e., from the strongest, complete engineering, through modification, through passaging and finally down to just culturing and accidental escape). Or it could be adescription of the new genomes and what they mean for natural origins. But at the moment it is not clear to me how the 'results' section actually fits with the 'discussion' section.
2021-02-16 07:50 Robert F. Garry open

I see your point! "Description of the new genomes and what they mean for natural origins" is the better course. Fitting the results with discussion definitely can be improved...

Full conversation →