Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.831 [SLACK_001045] · slack_pm:msg:08650

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

@Eddie Holmes Perhaps telling that I got it too, but simply failed to bother to click on it.

In context

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

2021-05-18 05:59 Robert F. Garry

@Eddie Holmes Perhaps telling that I got it too, but simply failed to bother to click on it.
2021-05-18 06:06 Robert F. Garry open

Just an FYI - I did go ahead and submit the virological post as a tech comment to Science. As you know, Science requires that you send it to the authors for comment, so I sent to the Bloom and Relman. JB sent this: Hi Bob, Thanks for reaching out, and hope all is well. I look forward to reading your thoughts about this. We will look over your comment and get back to you as soon as possible. Apologies if it ends up taking a day or two: because have a substantial number of co-authors on the letter, we need to make sure we adequately check with others before sending anything that could be construed as a group response. --Jesse---- Jesse Bloom Associate Professor, Fred Hutch Cancer Research CenterAffiliate Associate Professor, Genome Sciences & Microbiology, University of Washington Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
2021-05-18 06:17 Robert F. Garry open

Also - Vince R asked me to do a TWiV on origins (he did mention hearing the Bob's Bullocks podcast) - I'm assuming he may have reached out to @Kristian Andersen. Even though he gets a lot wrong, I might do it...
2021-05-18 06:47 Andrew Rambaut open

Ask him whether he thinks there is ZERO chance that B.1.1.7 is more transmissible.
2021-05-18 06:49 Kristian G. Andersen open

@Eddie Holmes Me too.... Not responding to it.