COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.755-756 · slack_pm:msg:07910

Page text: p.755, p.756 · original PDF

Date
2021-05-06 07:02 (hour precision)
Type
chat message · slack
recipient
Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker
Kristian G. Andersen

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

I just finished talking to Katherine / Vanity Fair - exhausting to say the least. It's PROVE A NEGATIVE, PROVE ANEGATIVE, PROVE A NEGATIVE, over and over again. I walker her through how there's such a thing as"likelihood" in science - while two hypotheses may be _possible_ there's a difference in how _likely_ they are. I'm not sure she got it.So I asked her to prove to me that the 2020 election wasn't stolen. :man-shrugging:

In context

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

  1. 2021-05-06 07:02 Robert F. Garry open
    Surely, but I'm not sure what the best wine pairing would be. Maybe a complex wine like a Barolo or a Shiraz or you could opt for a Pinot Noir.
  2. 2021-05-06 07:02 Kristian G. Andersen open
    This is good. https'//twitter.com/HansonM90/status/1389481573167288325?s=20
  3. 2021-05-06 07:02 Edward C. Holmes open
    More from Daszak: "There is hope though - I'm in regular contact with zhengli and they're sequencing genomes from the positives in our samples and working on papers to publish them. She tells me that we can sample in China and Ijust think we have to keep every channel open. I wish more people@would speak out against the lab leak bs here -relman and ebright have no data or analysis to add, but they're talking with press@every day & that story is tooenticing for reporters to resist at the moment"
  4. 2021-05-06 07:02 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Spot on. Sadly.
  5. 2021-05-06 07:02 Kristian G. Andersen
    I just finished talking to Katherine / Vanity Fair - exhausting to say the least. It's PROVE A NEGATIVE, PROVE ANEGATIVE, PROVE A NEGATIVE, over and over again. I walker her through how there's such a thing as"likelihood" in science - while two hypotheses may be _possible_ there's a difference in how _likely_ they are. I'm not sure she got it.So I asked her to prove to me that the 2020 election wasn't stolen. :man-shrugging:

Full conversation →