Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.663 [SLACK_000877] · slack_pm:msg:06948

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

Yes, better. I wonder whether the WHO think the effort was worth it? I'm not sure much more of this I can take. It's not about science any more.

In context

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

2021-03-30 16:20 Edward C. Holmes

Yes, better. I wonder whether the WHO think the effort was worth it? I'm not sure much more of this I can take. It's not about science any more.
2021-03-30 16:31 Robert F. Garry open

Eddie you did great with the Amy M - Nature report. If this was the only article re the release of the report, I'd [nearly]declare victory. My guess is that Tedros - who can be all over the place - walks back his implicit criticism of the investigation. Truth will be told. Lab leak krewe including Lipstich and Bloom (sounds like a boutique) esp the latter need to actually take a look at the science.
2021-03-30 16:43 Kristian G. Andersen open

The triangulation nails it for me - deaths and cases being two independent data points. While it doesn't _prove_ anything, it shows that the market (or something around there) was the nucleation point of the pandemic. Sure, itcould have gotten from the lab to the market, buuuuuut.....
2021-03-30 16:49 Edward C. Holmes open

Yes, that's very instructive. Great work. I'm too tired to think about it right now.
2021-03-30 16:57 Edward C. Holmes open

Jesse obviously did not read Annex D