Slack / Private Message Drop — page 491

But that is not the hypothesis they are proposing. [2021-02-06 08:42:51] [Andrew Rambaut] But in the end you are never actually trying to convince these people, just make their arguments seem daft. [2021-02-06 08:42:56] [Kristian Andersen] Do they have an actual hypothesis? [2021-02-06 08:43:08] [Kristian Andersen] "just make their arguments seem daft" Excatly [2021-02-06 08:43:34] [Kristian Andersen] And when you break it down - all they have is the fact that this was detected in Wuhan. That's literally it. [2021-02-06 08:44:05] [Andrew Rambaut] Yes. [2021-02-06 08:44:51] [Andrew Rambaut] And that is why they are so anti any idea of a previous history of circulation or cases in Europe in November etc. [2021-02-06 09:31:21] [Robert Garry] Alina is still in love with her notion that the virus was "already well adapted to humans" when the first cases were detected based on dN/dS. Yet, we know the virus infects minks, ferrets, dogs, cats, lions, gorillas, rodents as well as it infects humans. Doug and the VoC that have followed show that SC2 and its RBD and FCS are still adapting to us. [2021-02-06 09:34:35] [Kristian Andersen] I think they forget that SC1 != SC2. They're literally basing that entire argument on n=1. I told her this many many months ago (gave her an example from Ebola - which looks like SC2.... mysterious!), but I guess it doesn't fit the narrative very well. [2021-02-06 09:53:18] [Robert Garry] Do you remember the big deal that was made about how Shi did not mention the FCS in her first SC2 paper? Did I miss it? Where in the Chan-Ridley paper is the mention of the FCS that definitely proves SC2 is man-made? [2021-02-06 09:53:48] [Robert Garry] Guess they forgot FCS too. [2021-02-06 09:54:43] [Kristian Andersen] Moving the goal post. Constantly. [2021-02-06 10:45:04] [Robert Garry] Speaking of FCS https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873506120304165 YP_009072440.1 [2021-02-06 10:46:14]