Chat message

In context

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

1. 2021-05-14 06:56 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Evidence document - yup! I was planning on working on it in response to David anyway, so I'll spend some time in asummary we can then build on.
2. 2021-05-14 07:00 Andrew Rambaut
   Do we want to give it to David at this stage?
3. 2021-05-14 07:02 Kristian G. Andersen open
   No I don't think so - but we can pull out a few of the "best hits" and include in the email reply to him.
4. 2021-05-14 07:03 Kristian G. Andersen open
   I was planning on doing a Twitter thread based on it too so we have somewhere to point to - I have found this to beexceptionally useful.
5. 2021-05-14 07:21 Robert F. Garry open
   Just throwing this out: One way to break a summary down is: 1. evidence for natural origin 2. evidence against lab origin or some variation of this.
6. 2021-05-14 07:28 Robert F. Garry open
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/did-the-coronavirus-come-directly-from-animal[...]cientists-join-call-for-answers/ar-BB1gJ2IO?ocid=BingNewsSearch "But Bloom said there is simply not enough evidence yet to draw such aconclusion. He sees three possible origin stories for SARS-CoV-2. First - and here he agrees with Gostin - itoriginated in bats and jumped directly to humans or into another animal and then into humans. Bloom said he can't rule out two other possibilities: that someone in a lab in Wuhan, China, was studying the virus, collected from a bat or another animal, and accidentally released it, infecting people; or that it was an intentionalrelease by a researcher working with the virus."Regardless of which occurred," Bloom said, "it would be really scientifically beneficial, and I think also beneficial for our ability to understand and prevent future pandemics, to really understand the initial events." Really kind oftroubling IMO. Either of Bloom's two possibilities are accusations of cover-up and conspiracy.

Full conversation →