COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.585 [SLACK_000799] · slack_pm:msg:06117

Page text: p.585 · original PDF

Date
2021-03-10 15:09
Type
chat message · slack
recipient
Kristian G. Andersen, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker
Robert F. Garry

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

I remember a tale of "rightfully" wrong back in the Ebola days https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6300/658.1.full https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27516593/ Rambaut et al show that the erratum to our report on Ebola virus Makona evolution not only corrected sample dates modified byothers in GenBank but also corrected an additional transcriptional error in our original analysis. We agree with their observation that both factors contributed to our revised evolutionary rate estimate but continue to stand by our revised estimate and conclusions.

Links shared

In context

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

  1. 2021-03-10 14:42 Andrew Rambaut open
    Once again Bette got the right answer but is using flawed methods. Her 3-sequence recombination method can't distinguish recombination from convergence.
  2. 2021-03-10 14:43 Andrew Rambaut open
    But recombination is no surprise to any one.
  3. 2021-03-10 14:56 Kristian G. Andersen open
    That's what I thought - and yeah, recombination is absolutely no surprise to anybody who's been following this virus.I can assure you Bette will make full use of being wrongly right, though....
  4. 2021-03-10 15:04 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Eddie - you're killing me... [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-03-10 at 14.36.44.png]
  5. 2021-03-10 15:09 Robert F. Garry
    I remember a tale of "rightfully" wrong back in the Ebola days https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6300/658.1.full https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27516593/ Rambaut et al show that the erratum to our report on Ebola virus Makona evolution not only corrected sample dates modified byothers in GenBank but also corrected an additional transcriptional error in our original analysis. We agree with their observation that both factors contributed to our revised evolutionary rate estimate but continue to stand by our revised estimate and conclusions.
  6. 2021-03-10 15:12 Edward C. Holmes open
    Oh, I remember that one well!
  7. 2021-03-10 15:48 Robert F. Garry open
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000325
  8. 2021-03-10 15:50 Robert F. Garry open
    taking Segreto and Deigin to task.
  9. 2021-03-10 15:55 Edward C. Holmes open
    Thank you Russia!

Full conversation →