A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Reading that article again pissed me off more than I expected. So I wasted some time. [shared file(s): Clarificationon recent CNET article]
-
Not a waste of time - well done!
-
I mean - the idiot included Eddie being "a Chinese puppet" among many other things. That's a really, really low point for journalism.
-
2021-04-15 12:24
Robert F. Garry
It's a hit piece. Claims to be a science writer - hates people that can actually do science. You did a good job ofpointing out the sophistry, which describes the entire article.
-
Again well done. What a real journalist would do is ask the straightforward questions; "Can you please clarify (a) ifyou are accusing Drs. Holmes and Zhengli of lying," "Just to clarify - are you saying Dr. Rasmussen is lying?" andDo you agree with these statements by "Bostickson...?" No journalist has done the same of Alina, Jamie, Relman etc.
-
@Andrew Rambaut - do you have any insights about vaccine "breakthroughs" from your data? We just picked up four - three B.1.1.7 and one P.1 with one of the B.1.1.7s having Eek (first time we have seen that here). B.1.1.7 ishigh frequency by now, so not all that surprising to see it, although 3/4 and one with Eek is outside of what we might expect. P.1 is also circulating, but likely <5%, so picking that one up in a breakthrough also isn't great.
-
I have heard they are 'enriched' for 484K but not significantly so. I am actually trying to get access to the datastream
-
It's my biggest fear that a few months down the line we're going to see many (many!) of these and I can't convince myself that it's _not_ going to happen. I have an unhealthy habit of refreshing the epi curve from Israel, which has been a huge success for vaccines. I want to keep it that way - but I can't shake this sense of doom (which is just partof being Kristian Andersen, I think...).