COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.848-849 [SLACK_001062] · slack_pm:msg:08818

Page text: p.848, p.849 · original PDF

Date
2021-05-20 19:59
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.

Yup.

In context

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

  1. 2021-05-20 18:40 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Yeah, surprising.
  2. 2021-05-20 19:00 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Key observation about the article :wink: [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-20 at 6.59.57 PM.png]
  3. 2021-05-20 19:29 Edward C. Holmes open
    Clueless
  4. 2021-05-20 19:48 Edward C. Holmes open
    What are the odds that all of the viruses in the WIV that they have worked on over the years it's the one that's thereno record of that is subject to a catastrophic lab leak? Improbable that this virus exists on current data x improbablethat any virus leaks out = highly improbable.
  5. 2021-05-20 19:59 Kristian G. Andersen
    Yup.
  6. 2021-05-20 19:59 Kristian G. Andersen open
    There more you think about this particular aspect of it, the less sense it makes.
  7. 2021-05-20 20:11 Edward C. Holmes open
    If they have shoddy lab procedures then surely it's the virus they use most often that has the greatest chance ofleaking out?
  8. 2021-05-20 20:12 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Yes, although there may well be a difference between BSL-3/4 and BSL-2. A novel bat virus would likely be grown inBSL-2, whereas some of the others are likely BSL-3 or even -4
  9. 2021-05-20 20:14 Edward C. Holmes open
    True.

Full conversation →