COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.547 [SLACK_000761] · slack_pm:msg:05707

Page text: p.547 · original PDF

Date
2021-02-24 13:00
Type
chat message · slack
recipient
Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker
Kristian G. Andersen
Topics
FOIA, records and transparency

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

One question to the FOIA though - I _do_ think we need to make the reviews public as the emails make the Nature connection clear. The original version of the paper is still what's on Virological, correct?

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.

StatementGradeAttributionStance
One question to the FOIA though - I _do_ think we need to make the reviews public as the emails make the Nature connection clear. own voice, substantive speaker_own instructs

In context

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

  1. 2021-02-24 12:24 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Looking through the FOIA material - sad to see all the juicy stuff isn't there. We can assign roles to each character based on this - Bob's clearly "The Nerd", I'm clearly "The Schemer", Butt Lesion "Who?", so we only need Eddie and Andrew...
  2. 2021-02-24 12:36 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Eddie - "Supreme Commander", Andrew "Part Nerd, Part Schemer".
  3. 2021-02-24 12:44 Edward C. Holmes open
    I think I'm more "The Fiddler" than the "Supreme Commander". I don't do leadership well.
  4. 2021-02-24 12:51 Kristian G. Andersen open
    "The Fiddler" - I like that... I don't know though - I think you do the "Commander" part pretty well. Whether supremeor not, is up for debate....
  5. 2021-02-24 13:00 Kristian G. Andersen
    One question to the FOIA though - I _do_ think we need to make the reviews public as the emails make the Nature connection clear. The original version of the paper is still what's on Virological, correct?
  6. 2021-02-24 13:09 Edward C. Holmes open
    I'm not sure we're allowed to do that because (i) they explicitly said that correspondence with the journal was excluded and (ii) we'll need get approval from Nature. But, that does raise an issue of what Nature will think. So,perhaps I should run all these emails by Nature now anyway?
  7. 2021-02-24 13:39 Robert F. Garry open
    Just off the phone with Betsy McKay - actually pretty good - they are going to do a series on origins, but just starting. YEs - not a bad idea to run emails by Nature - nothing there that's really a problem - I'm OK with "The Nerd" - I'mowning it!
  8. 2021-02-24 13:42 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Yeah, might be worth popping this by Nature - questions will for sure be asked ("did they get rejected because their natural hypothesis wasn't supported well enough"? Quite the opposite.... Still pissed about it).
  9. 2021-02-24 13:43 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Agree, Betsy is pretty good, but I'm unclear about her motives on origins - I guess we'll see...

Full conversation →