Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1017 [SLACK_001231] · slack_pm:msg:10617

Date: 2021-10-09 02:53
Type: chat message · slack
mentioned: Robert F. Garry
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes
speaker: Andrew Rambaut
Topics: FOIA, records and transparency

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

The emails from Jeremy Farrar - for @Robert Garry's benefit: they are suggesting releasing some of the emails that are out in heavily redacted form about the conference call on the basis that they contain nothing incriminating and the redactions are being used toinsinuate they do.I really feel sorry for Jeremy (and Tony and Patrick) here because they are being accused of being ringleaders in acover-up where the emails clearly show they were just trying to facilitate open-minded examination of the matter. Butmy University has taken the same position as Eddie's and is saying all emails are off limits because even their existence is being used to incite abuse and harm. This argument will be considered by the Information Commissioner soon we guess and selective release would undermine this position.My main concern is that the requests are extremely broad (i.e., all emails between any of us in the last 2 years, all emails in the days 1st-3rd Feb 2020, any email with a Chinese institution) that loosing the broad (and in my view,valid) protection of the harm defence will mean we just open up more and more avenues of attack and FOI requests. However, given these emails about the Feb call have already been released by NIH and UK Gov in highly redacted form, I don't know if it would be possible for them to coordinate releasing more details from those emails unilaterally.Or just the interactions with Kristian (who is not FOIable)?

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
However, given these emails about the Feb call have already been released by NIH and UK Gov in highly redacted form, I don't know if it would be possible for them to coordinate releasing more details from those emails unilaterally.Or just the interactions with Kristian (who is not FOIable)?	quoted / not their view	hypothetical conditional framing	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

However, given these emails about the Feb call have already been released by NIH and UK Gov in highly redacted form, I don't know if it would be possible for them to coordinate releasing more details from those emails unilaterally.Or just the interactions with Kristian (who is not FOIable)?

quoted / not their view

hypothetical conditional framing

asserts

In context

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

2021-10-09 02:53 Andrew Rambaut

The emails from Jeremy Farrar - for @Robert Garry's benefit: they are suggesting releasing some of the emails that are out in heavily redacted form about the conference call on the basis that they contain nothing incriminating and the redactions are being used toinsinuate they do.I really feel sorry for Jeremy (and Tony and Patrick) here because they are being accused of being ringleaders in acover-up where the emails clearly show they were just trying to facilitate open-minded examination of the matter. Butmy University has taken the same position as Eddie's and is saying all emails are off limits because even their existence is being used to incite abuse and harm. This argument will be considered by the Information Commissioner soon we guess and selective release would undermine this position.My main concern is that the requests are extremely broad (i.e., all emails between any of us in the last 2 years, all emails in the days 1st-3rd Feb 2020, any email with a Chinese institution) that loosing the broad (and in my view,valid) protection of the harm defence will mean we just open up more and more avenues of attack and FOI requests. However, given these emails about the Feb call have already been released by NIH and UK Gov in highly redacted form, I don't know if it would be possible for them to coordinate releasing more details from those emails unilaterally.Or just the interactions with Kristian (who is not FOIable)?

Full conversation →