COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1057 [SLACK_001271] · slack_pm:msg:11046

Page text: p.1057 · original PDF

Date
2022-01-13 13:47
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.

Which would fit with the internet archive.

In context

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

  1. 2022-01-13 13:46 Edward C. Holmes open
    Will do. I've not even opened the document yet.
  2. 2022-01-13 13:46 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Gus is very interested in understanding the FULL editing history of PO... (and no - I'm not going to answer him...) [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2022-01-13 at 1.45.52 PM.png]
  3. 2022-01-13 13:47 Kristian G. Andersen open
    To say that we submitted PO on Feb. 2 - I mean, come on man... Seriously.
  4. 2022-01-13 13:47 Andrew Rambaut open
    Looking at the edits on virological - I think we may have posted it privately on the 16th, made a few more tweaks and then made it public on the 17th.
  5. 2022-01-13 13:47 Andrew Rambaut
    Which would fit with the internet archive.
  6. 2022-01-13 13:50 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Yeah, I think you might be right that it went online Feb 17 UK time - I can see I started emailing it around at 7am onthe 17th (MY birthday! Coincidence? I think not....!). The first one I emailed it to was.... drum roll...... Marc Lipsitch.
  7. 2022-01-13 13:52 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Which is kinda weird actually... Why the heck would I say it was "highly plausible" on Feb 16, when clearly that wasn't my thinking... Probably because our first version still quite seriously considered lab culture. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2022-01-13 at 1.51.29 PM.png]
  8. 2022-01-13 14:03 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Yup, that's the reason - our first (non-peer reviewed) version is more toned down (it's actually pretty good). It's a little strange we mention this part though:_"In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired the observed RBD mutations site during adaptation to passagein cell culture, as has been observed in studies with SARS-CoV5 as well as MERS-CoV"_We mention the Pangolin CoVs in the paper too, so clearly we must just have failed to connect the two - no, the RBD couldn't have been the result of passage. That realization came with the peer review, so probably the main reason why we made our arguments stronger. Reading through the whole version history of this paper, we really did a good job - it truly is a prime example of how science (should) work. Proud of the Proximal Boyz :wink:
  9. 2022-01-13 14:37 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Reading through our emails on 2/17/2020 is hilarious - so many last-minute things and I think I might just have come back from the desert... Eddie spelled my last name wrong!!

Full conversation →