Slack / Private Message Drop — page 951

[Robert Garry] [thread - ID: 2021-06-19 21:12:25] @Kristian Andersen Hail DRASTIC! [2021-06-20 00:53:51] [Robert Garry] [thread - ID: 2021-06-19 20:29:16] @Kristian Andersen Yes - perfect time for me - totally agree with comments since I went to sleep [2021-06-20 02:30:31] [Andrew Rambaut] [thread - ID: 2021-06-19 20:29:16] @Kristian Andersen I can make that. [2021-06-20 10:03:04] [Robert Garry] "fear of the CCP and them making it very clear they control everything - yes, not ideal, but welcome to the real world." THat certaiunly could be it, but It actually does not even need to be fear of the CCP - Take a look at the Wang2020 paper - it's very good - it not a paper abput the early case they just used the samples to validate their nanopore sequencing. Furthermore, they have most of the sequence data in there that JB says they are *hiding* in the form of a Table. Same numbering of samples same data in Table 1 of Wang 2020 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/smll.202002169 as in the Bloom preprint Table 1. What are more likely explanations is that they 1. pulled this data from NCBI so they could post it here National Genomics Data Center (NGDC) https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/ [2021-06-20 10:07:17] [Kristian Andersen] Yup, agreed - I came to a similar conclusion over night too. In any case - while we can't rule out the reason for pulling the data that JB describes as by far the most likely, in my eyes, while possible, it's highly unlikely. JB is coming from the angle of all Chinese scientists acting in bad faith, hence he can only see that reason - it's disappointing, frankly. And yes, they provide a table. And yes, by reading their description of the mutations, it's clear they didn't even think of this as important data for understanding the origin - they were focused on a diagnostics. Plus, what do we _really_ learn about the origin now we _do_ have the data? Nothing - other than A and B lineages were circulating, which we already knew. [2021-06-20 10:07:52] [Kristian Andersen] It's racism. Full stop. [2021-06-20 10:11:16] [Andrew Rambaut] Is the exact same data deleted from NCBI on NGDC? [2021-06-20 10:15:29] [Robert Garry] I made stab at finding it - PRJNA612766 doesn't pull anything up on NGDC. But, they could have renamed it or just didn't bother yet. [2021-06-20 10:16:09] [Kristian Andersen] I'm digging too... Irrespective of this, all the relevant SNPs are in Table 1 - not trying to "hide" anything [2021-06-20 10:16:20] [Kristian Andersen]