Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.559 [SLACK_000773] · slack_pm:msg:05827

Date: 2021-03-01 14:50
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.

Just so my emails make sense, the text that I am commenting on stated that UK govt policy was based on Emma's tweet. At the very least the corresponding authors need to be told this is insulting.

In context

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

2021-03-01 14:39 Edward C. Holmes open

The whole thing is complete and embarrassing shit.
2021-03-01 14:39 Kristian G. Andersen open

"We will *for sure* address this". Sure. Great emails Eddie - this is embarrassing beyond belief - in Nature, no less.
2021-03-01 14:41 Edward C. Holmes open

They were so transfixed on getting it into Nature that they didn't see what they were doing.
2021-03-01 14:41 Kristian G. Andersen open

And good choice taking yourself off the paper - I did the same on Charles' paper too because he wouldn't listen tosense either. Some scientists are so full of themselves by now - but this has to be the worst example I have seen.
2021-03-01 14:50 Edward C. Holmes

Just so my emails make sense, the text that I am commenting on stated that UK govt policy was based on Emma's tweet. At the very least the corresponding authors need to be told this is insulting.
2021-03-01 14:52 Andrew Rambaut open

Yeah - we wrote a report which went in to the SoS
2021-03-01 14:55 Andrew Rambaut open

Then technical notes went to WHO and other governments.
2021-03-01 14:57 Edward C. Holmes open

This should be pointed out. I'm very disappointed with Nick Goldman as he tried to defend all this. I got my name removed from the Email chains.
2021-03-01 14:58 Kristian G. Andersen open

Too harsh? [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-03-01 at 14.58.38.png]

Full conversation →