4 ms·

How do you correct misinformation when the guys at the top are wrong and social media's intent on shuting down information that disagrees with the guys at the t

How do you correct misinformation when the guys at the top are wrong and social media's intent on shuting down information that disagrees with the guys at the top? The amount of misinformation coming out of the WHO has been staggering and hard to account for, but I will stop short of suggesting any conspiracy. * They held that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission for far too long in the face of evidence out of China. * They claimed for far to long that if you weren't showing symptoms you weren't contagious. This advice has been very widely used to not quarantine people who were exposed to a person who got sick shortly after interactions... to devastating effect around the world. * They claimed it does not spread through atomized particles, only droplets. This has been demonstrated to be false by experiment. * They said masks are not effective. * They said you didn't need to cover your eyes. Medical staff now wear full face shields. * They said travel bans don't work. This defies basic logic. * They delayed declaraing the pandemic to be a pandemic. * They've been completely silent about ACE inhibitors and ARBs upregulating the expression of ACE2 receptors, and that available evidence strongly suggests that people on these medicines have much more severe reactions to the disease. WARNING: I cannot say whether these drugs are the cause -- it may well not be the case -- but shoudn't this have been seriously investigated by now?

cs02rm0 7y ago
The UK deputy chief medical officer was questioned on the UK deviating from WHO advice at a press conference. She pointed out the W was for World and suggested they have a different focus. I thought it was a brilliant swerve. Accurate, but I suspect not the whole picture.
- rumanator 7y ago
  To be fair, the UK started off with a long string of facepalm official policies towards the covid19 epidemic. I mean, they were famous for jumping enthusiastically into the "let everyone catch it in one go and get it over with" bandwagon.
cameldrv 7y ago
At some point you have to put it down to enemy action, even if they don’t realize they’re acting on behalf of the enemy.
EdwardDiego 7y ago
> They claimed it does not spread through atomized particles, only droplets. This has been demonstrated to be false by experiment. Do you have a link on this for further reading?
- mikedilger 7y ago
  Unfortunately I never saw the papers on this and I'm looking for them now, so take this bullet with a grain of salt. Two lines of research were relayed to me verbally. 1. In one experiment in a hospital room detected virus on surfaces but not in the air, but it did so many (I vaguely recall it was 4) hours after the patient was in the room. I think I heard this in answer to a press question during a New Zealand official 1pm broadcast on COVID-19. They didn't categorically claim it can't be atomized, but suggested strongly that this wasn't expected to be a significant vector for transmission. 2. The other source was a paper someone linked to on Twitter. And I neglected to download it. But someone physically atomized material with the virus and then after some time period was able to detect the virus still atomized in the air. This proved it was possible to remain atomized, but not that sick people actually atomize the virus well. Again, perhaps not a significant mode of transmission. I'll keep looking. I'll temporarily retract that bullet point.
  - rriepe 7y ago
    I believe the incident you're referring to was actually an apartment building outbreak, not a study. As an event it seemed to confirm the airborne/atomized/fecal-oral spread early on. Somebody got someone in another part of their building sick.
  - EdwardDiego 7y ago
    Cheers, yeah my reading on it tended to the conclusion that it could aerosolise, but that was a limited vector compared to droplets (but limited doesn't mean none).
- adventured 7y ago
  It was only mid March when the WHO finally admitted that SARS-CoV-2 could potentially remain airborne for an extended period of time. They still go out of their way to deny that it's common for it to spread in the air, they're clearly skeptics (when it's the only great explanation for how it spreads so rapidly and effectively among large crowds of people). The WHO has been an epic disaster this entire time, wrong several critical times and behind on everything. They should not be regarded as to have much credibility after their failures on this pandemic. This tweet by the WHO on Jan 14 will go down in history for the 21st century as one of the dumbest things said by anyone prominent in the medical sphere (it's astounding they left it up): https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
msamwald 7y ago
> They said travel bans don't work. This defies basic logic. > They delayed declaraing the pandemic to be a pandemic. I have come to think that a major problem with the WHO might be that it is not independent enough from the political interests of major countries. Banning non-essential travel from/to highly affected countries early would probably have helped to slow down global spread, but political opposition made that impossible.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > I have come to think that a major problem with the WHO might be that it is not independent enough from the political interests of major countries. Yeah unfortunately the WHO showed it lacked any credibility and is sounding like a major tool.
  - lb0 7y ago
    https://twitter.com/nathanlawkc/status/1243889673207832577?s=20 https://twitter.com/nathanlawkc/status/1243889673207832577?s...
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  I think they were trying to keep china on their side by not offending them. Politics intrudes into medicine. Perhaps they were even right to do so, they appeared to uncritically accept and repeat China's blatantly lying figures (though behind the scenes I think they knew exactly they were being lied to) and perhaps that was necessary - I'm not a politician so I can't say - but I don't like it at all. But I am not in a position to judge as I don;t have all the facts. > Banning non-essential travel from/to highly affected countries early would probably have helped to slow down global spread I think the point was that people tend to get round those travel bans - people instead of going from A to B (now banned) go A to C to B. But again, I don't know and would like to understand why they though that way.
throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
> but I will stop short of suggesting any conspiracy But that's what you're doing. > They held that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission for far too long in the face of evidence out of China Possibly true. Any pointers to that? > They claimed for far to long that if you weren't showing symptoms you weren't contagious If you make these claims, provide refrences please. This is new to me. > They've been completely silent about ACE inhibitors and ARBs upregulating the expression of ACE2 receptors, and that available evidence strongly suggests that people on these medicines have much more severe reactions to the disease Provide a link. If you're going to post stuff that sounds relevant and important, post references to it.
- mikedilger 7y ago
  > But that's what you're doing. I don't think the WHO is trying to get people sick, or that China is doing this to the USA, or anything like that. I do think that something doesn't smell right, but I'm unwilling to make any kind of conclusion on what it might be. As for the person-to-person thing, I lived through the storm of data and information and distinctly remember them claiming there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission after I had seen multiple bits of evidence out of China. To prove that, I'd have to do a lot of wayback machine work. People have been contagious before symptoms and also without showing any symptoms. I thought this knowledge was widespread at this point. The 3rd case and 5th case in NZ were a couple where the 5th case (wife) travelled to Iran. The man got sick after she returned. She was not sick. They tested her and she was positive and became the 5th case. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12313960 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object... https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12314739 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object... Probably sexual transmission, so not too suprising. But there are many other reports which the CDC acknowledges on this page: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si... The question on ACE/ACE2 has references itself: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30116-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...
  - 7y ago
rriepe 7y ago
After this huge list and today's farce of pretending to drop a call to avoid talking about China, I think we can safely ignore the WHO from here on out. They're either in China's pocket or don't know their head from a hole in the ground.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > today's farce of pretending to drop a call to avoid talking about China Source?
  - MikeAmelung 7y ago
    https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3906512 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3906512 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-official-appears-to-dodge-reporters-questions-about-taiwan-in-viral-video https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-official-appears...
    - rumanator 7y ago
      Wow. Thanks for sharing. That puts the whole "China is doing brilliantly" WHO comedy show into perspective.
    - mikedilger 7y ago
      Médecins Avec Frontières ?

cs02rm0 7y ago

The UK deputy chief medical officer was questioned on the UK deviating from WHO advice at a press conference. She pointed out the W was for World and suggested they have a different focus. I thought it was a brilliant swerve. Accurate, but I suspect not the whole picture.

rumanator 7y ago
To be fair, the UK started off with a long string of facepalm official policies towards the covid19 epidemic. I mean, they were famous for jumping enthusiastically into the "let everyone catch it in one go and get it over with" bandwagon.

cameldrv 7y ago

At some point you have to put it down to enemy action, even if they don’t realize they’re acting on behalf of the enemy.

EdwardDiego 7y ago

> They claimed it does not spread through atomized particles, only droplets. This has been demonstrated to be false by experiment. Do you have a link on this for further reading?

mikedilger 7y ago
Unfortunately I never saw the papers on this and I'm looking for them now, so take this bullet with a grain of salt. Two lines of research were relayed to me verbally. 1. In one experiment in a hospital room detected virus on surfaces but not in the air, but it did so many (I vaguely recall it was 4) hours after the patient was in the room. I think I heard this in answer to a press question during a New Zealand official 1pm broadcast on COVID-19. They didn't categorically claim it can't be atomized, but suggested strongly that this wasn't expected to be a significant vector for transmission. 2. The other source was a paper someone linked to on Twitter. And I neglected to download it. But someone physically atomized material with the virus and then after some time period was able to detect the virus still atomized in the air. This proved it was possible to remain atomized, but not that sick people actually atomize the virus well. Again, perhaps not a significant mode of transmission. I'll keep looking. I'll temporarily retract that bullet point.
- rriepe 7y ago
  I believe the incident you're referring to was actually an apartment building outbreak, not a study. As an event it seemed to confirm the airborne/atomized/fecal-oral spread early on. Somebody got someone in another part of their building sick.
- EdwardDiego 7y ago
  Cheers, yeah my reading on it tended to the conclusion that it could aerosolise, but that was a limited vector compared to droplets (but limited doesn't mean none).
adventured 7y ago
It was only mid March when the WHO finally admitted that SARS-CoV-2 could potentially remain airborne for an extended period of time. They still go out of their way to deny that it's common for it to spread in the air, they're clearly skeptics (when it's the only great explanation for how it spreads so rapidly and effectively among large crowds of people). The WHO has been an epic disaster this entire time, wrong several critical times and behind on everything. They should not be regarded as to have much credibility after their failures on this pandemic. This tweet by the WHO on Jan 14 will go down in history for the 21st century as one of the dumbest things said by anyone prominent in the medical sphere (it's astounding they left it up): https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152

msamwald 7y ago

> They said travel bans don't work. This defies basic logic. > They delayed declaraing the pandemic to be a pandemic. I have come to think that a major problem with the WHO might be that it is not independent enough from the political interests of major countries. Banning non-essential travel from/to highly affected countries early would probably have helped to slow down global spread, but political opposition made that impossible.

rumanator 7y ago
> I have come to think that a major problem with the WHO might be that it is not independent enough from the political interests of major countries. Yeah unfortunately the WHO showed it lacked any credibility and is sounding like a major tool.
- lb0 7y ago
  https://twitter.com/nathanlawkc/status/1243889673207832577?s=20 https://twitter.com/nathanlawkc/status/1243889673207832577?s...
throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
I think they were trying to keep china on their side by not offending them. Politics intrudes into medicine. Perhaps they were even right to do so, they appeared to uncritically accept and repeat China's blatantly lying figures (though behind the scenes I think they knew exactly they were being lied to) and perhaps that was necessary - I'm not a politician so I can't say - but I don't like it at all. But I am not in a position to judge as I don;t have all the facts. > Banning non-essential travel from/to highly affected countries early would probably have helped to slow down global spread I think the point was that people tend to get round those travel bans - people instead of going from A to B (now banned) go A to C to B. But again, I don't know and would like to understand why they though that way.

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago

> but I will stop short of suggesting any conspiracy But that's what you're doing. > They held that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission for far too long in the face of evidence out of China Possibly true. Any pointers to that? > They claimed for far to long that if you weren't showing symptoms you weren't contagious If you make these claims, provide refrences please. This is new to me. > They've been completely silent about ACE inhibitors and ARBs upregulating the expression of ACE2 receptors, and that available evidence strongly suggests that people on these medicines have much more severe reactions to the disease Provide a link. If you're going to post stuff that sounds relevant and important, post references to it.

mikedilger 7y ago
> But that's what you're doing. I don't think the WHO is trying to get people sick, or that China is doing this to the USA, or anything like that. I do think that something doesn't smell right, but I'm unwilling to make any kind of conclusion on what it might be. As for the person-to-person thing, I lived through the storm of data and information and distinctly remember them claiming there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission after I had seen multiple bits of evidence out of China. To prove that, I'd have to do a lot of wayback machine work. People have been contagious before symptoms and also without showing any symptoms. I thought this knowledge was widespread at this point. The 3rd case and 5th case in NZ were a couple where the 5th case (wife) travelled to Iran. The man got sick after she returned. She was not sick. They tested her and she was positive and became the 5th case. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12313960 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object... https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12314739 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object... Probably sexual transmission, so not too suprising. But there are many other reports which the CDC acknowledges on this page: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si... The question on ACE/ACE2 has references itself: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30116-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...
- 7y ago

rriepe 7y ago

After this huge list and today's farce of pretending to drop a call to avoid talking about China, I think we can safely ignore the WHO from here on out. They're either in China's pocket or don't know their head from a hole in the ground.

rumanator 7y ago
> today's farce of pretending to drop a call to avoid talking about China Source?
- MikeAmelung 7y ago
  https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3906512 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3906512 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-official-appears-to-dodge-reporters-questions-about-taiwan-in-viral-video https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-official-appears...
  - rumanator 7y ago
    Wow. Thanks for sharing. That puts the whole "China is doing brilliantly" WHO comedy show into perspective.
  - mikedilger 7y ago
    Médecins Avec Frontières ?