4 ms·
That is assuming that the information in this article is incorrect. Could have been identified earlier and the information censored. The implication is that th
by muyuu 7y ago
That is assuming that the information in this article is incorrect. Could have been identified earlier and the information censored.
The implication is that there was enough time for this to be the case. There are 1.5 months between the time estimations for patient zero and the publishing to WHO.
Their attitude afterwards is consistent with an intent to control the narrative and opacity, beyond public health interest. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51364382 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51364382
- billfruit 7y agoWillful or malicious suppression is only a theory as of now, with hardly any indication to back it up. This kind of insinuations stemming from a vacuous sense of moral superiority isn't helping us tide over this crisis. That one perceives something to be apparently consistent with any particular world view does not make that worldview the correct one. I doubt anyone can talk with moral certitude in such matter, when the discussion has devolved into unreasonable degree of polarization and hostility. All I can say is that, this isn't the time for another cold war.
- muyuu 7y agoIt's a theory both ways. You are choosing to believe they are wrong in that assumption.