Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.789 [SLACK_001003] · slack_pm:msg:08216

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

Yes, exactly. I can't believe they are so naive to not realise how naive they are being.

In context

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

2021-05-12 17:33 Edward C. Holmes open

They are spectacularly naive.
2021-05-12 17:35 Kristian G. Andersen open

Last minute add to my email - "naive". Good call Mr. Andersen, good call. "Naive" is exactly the criticism they're going to receive from WHO and other folks who actual understand this type ofwork.
2021-05-12 17:36 Kristian G. Andersen open

"And we agree that we should limit conclusions to those on which there are good data for support" - what he's saying- "we don't believe your conclusions in PO1 are supported by data".
2021-05-12 17:37 Edward C. Holmes

Yes, exactly. I can't believe they are so naive to not realise how naive they are being.
2021-05-12 17:39 Kristian G. Andersen open

They can be naive at their own peril. I'm pretty certain this letter is going to look especially dumb about a year from now. The many immunologists on the letter will be "why the fuck did we agree to this?".
2021-05-12 17:40 Edward C. Holmes open

Yup. But it's a bed of their own making.
2021-05-12 17:41 Kristian G. Andersen open

Correct. It'll be interesting to see the press tomorrow - I assume most of it will be favorable to them, but we'll see. There'll beplenty of backlash later on.
2021-05-12 17:46 Edward C. Holmes open

Yes, I agree. The press will love for 48 hours, then we'll see. I do wonder what WHO will do. They are taking a beating at the moment.