Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1052 [SLACK_001266] · slack_pm:msg:10997

Date: 2022-01-13 05:19
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes
speaker: Andrew Rambaut

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

I just say this because the complete edit history is in these docs. That may help show that there was not interferencebut need to check how these might be interpreted.

In context

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

2022-01-13 05:11 Andrew Rambaut open

Been looking through the old emails - I want to check they are transcribed properly and haven't been tweaked. This one is interesting (given it has Patrick Vallance talking about it looking balanced). [shared file(s): image.png]
2022-01-13 05:14 Andrew Rambaut open

This one is also good - shows we were discussing all of the possibilities: [shared file(s): image.png]
2022-01-13 05:18 Andrew Rambaut open

Also - there are links to google docs (only in emails between us). So if FOIs were granted would mean these go public. ``` Trying to create a summary of the most important takeaways from the discussions today. Please feel free to edit/slash/comment. Hoping that we could maybe share this with Jeremy and Tony tomorrow (if y'all think it makes sense).https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HOVHVaahY2wMwAij_Mb-rLTV3QomBai-DwRDcn506OE/edit?usp=sharing```
2022-01-13 05:19 Andrew Rambaut

I just say this because the complete edit history is in these docs. That may help show that there was not interferencebut need to check how these might be interpreted.
2022-01-13 05:21 Andrew Rambaut open

The very start of this document is actually really good description of our position (i.e., notes from the conference call): [shared file(s): image.png]
2022-01-13 05:23 Robert F. Garry open

Yes - important to remember that the scenarios in PO1 were synthesized from whole cloth. That's why PO1 had such an impact and ppl like Alina hate it. It's because it so clearly and cleanly laid out the possibilities.
2022-01-13 05:25 Andrew Rambaut open

It is also important to remember it started as a report to the group that requested our investigation.
2022-01-13 05:30 Andrew Rambaut open

Further - the stuff (from Ron, as it happens, not Tony or Jeremy) that it might harm Chinese science in the snippetbelow - it is the 'accusations' - if not supported by strong data - that he is talking about. [shared file(s): image.png]

Full conversation →