Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.816 [SLACK_001030] · slack_pm:msg:08513

Date: 2021-05-15 17:15
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes
Topics: Wuhan Institute of Virology collaboration

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

Right. I'll go over the google doc later today. There's no epidemiological link to the WIV (and people have beensearching night and day for > a year). Simple as that. But there is a direct epidemiological link to an animal market in which CoVs have consistently emerged in the past. There is zero evidence that WIV have any virus that's the direct progenitor of SC2.

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
There's no epidemiological link to the WIV (and people have beensearching night and day for > a year).	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
There is zero evidence that WIV have any virus that's the direct progenitor of SC2.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

There's no epidemiological link to the WIV (and people have beensearching night and day for > a year).

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

There is zero evidence that WIV have any virus that's the direct progenitor of SC2.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

In context

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

2021-05-15 16:14 Edward C. Holmes open

I've got to give this named lecture (relatively big locally) in a few weeks. I don't not sure whether I should: (a) ignore lab escape, (b) mention it's deficiencies politely, or (c) say fuck it and rip to shreds. I'm tempted by (c). I've been advised to keep off Twitter because of this pending FOI court case.
2021-05-15 17:06 Kristian G. Andersen open

Definitely (c). Here - start with this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17btNILyJFQccKCg7xAwETRN5LWo9g6A_haWubrywwIU/edit?usp=sharing
2021-05-15 17:07 Kristian G. Andersen open

Still working on this document, but I think we have a logical structure now and most of the evidence put in. Let's turn this into a talk (you), Twitter thread (me), and then a paper.
2021-05-15 17:08 Kristian G. Andersen open

I'll doodle over this this coming week, adding references, more points, etc. - but if we could all add to it, then I thinkwe have a very good start. One thing we need to see if we can more specifically address - Wuhan. People just can't get over the fact it started there and then they don't look at any of the additional evidence.
2021-05-15 17:15 Edward C. Holmes

Right. I'll go over the google doc later today. There's no epidemiological link to the WIV (and people have beensearching night and day for > a year). Simple as that. But there is a direct epidemiological link to an animal market in which CoVs have consistently emerged in the past. There is zero evidence that WIV have any virus that's the direct progenitor of SC2.
2021-05-15 17:18 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yup
2021-05-15 17:25 Edward C. Holmes open

I'll go for a public take down. It will probably go on Youtube so all the parasites will freak out but, frankly, fuck them.
2021-05-15 17:29 Edward C. Holmes open

CoV-HKU1 was first described in Shenzhen.
2021-05-15 17:29 Kristian G. Andersen open

So we really need to answer the question - how unusual is Wuhan for something like this to happen? I don't think very unusual - animal markets, top-10 largest city, largest city in central China, etc.

Full conversation →