Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.993 · slack_pm:msg:10357

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

Not sure. Because Jeremy was involved we did it through email. It didn't take us long.

In context

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

2021-08-24 01:31 Andrew Rambaut open

I am not sure they should have left any quoted email from a third party (i.e., Jon) unredacted? SLACK_001207
2021-08-24 01:31 Edward C. Holmes open

Should be redacted as should all of my reply. Had nothing to do with Fauci.
2021-08-24 01:31 Edward C. Holmes open

As I don't think Fauci will be able to release party emails we'll probably get another FOIA request now. They'll probably be distracted for a bit now because the WHO thing is out in Nature tomorrow. What will drive them nuts.
2021-08-24 01:31 Andrew Rambaut open

Other than sending this to Jeremy and Tony, did we email around each other? I think we were all on Slack by then?
2021-08-24 01:31 Edward C. Holmes

Not sure. Because Jeremy was involved we did it through email. It didn't take us long.
2021-08-24 01:31 Andrew Rambaut open

But none of the banter, speculation about who it might be, I think? Will check but I am pretty sure it is all on this channel. Update: not much in email but there is this..
2021-08-24 01:31 Andrew Rambaut open

shared file(s): image.png
2021-08-24 01:31 Andrew Rambaut open

As you say, the 'Here are the facts:' reply is good should it ever get out
2021-08-24 01:31 Andrew Rambaut open

And there is a thread with Jeremy and a WT person (presumably WT not covered by FOI so it would just be an FOI to us and currently we are not releasing).