3 ms·

And what is the obvious interpretation? Mine is ‘it is preliminary, so results can still change’ and ‘found no clear evidence does not mean evidence will not be

And what is the obvious interpretation? Mine is ‘it is preliminary, so results can still change’ and ‘found no clear evidence does not mean evidence will not be found later’. Or maybe we can agree that there is no such thing as obvious, and different people will necessarily have different interpretations, for better or worse.

Nasrudith 7y ago
I see it as yours but recognize it as probably being read like the parents as not only is the default behavior for absense of evidence to treat it as evidence of absense or subtly of magnitude the fine distinction is lost on most. It is anti-communication in context as cunningly putting effort into /not/ being clear. If they truly weren't sure a more honest form would be "We have neither confirmed nor denied the possibility of human to human transmission." (Putting aside any biological questions like are there even any crossspecies transmissions which cause propagative symptoms like coughing or sneezing but do not transmit through it.)
- chrischen 7y ago
  Well then it's a good thing that we aren't governed by people who just spend 5 seconds misinterpreting tweets.
- FooBarWidget 7y ago
  Actually they, did say that they could neither confirm nor deny: https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/15/china-says-it-s-possible-new-virus-could-spread-between-n1116066 https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/15/china-says-it-s-possible...
abdulmuhaimin 7y ago
but the only reason this statement would come out is to refute any rumors that its spread person-by-person. So its implied. They cant confirm anything but they need to refute that its spread through humans
keiferski 7y ago
By even posting this tweet, it is implied that there is no human-to-human transmission. They could have easily said, "So far, preliminary tests have found no evidence of human-to-human transmission, however we have only just begun research into the matter and thus still recommend social distancing." Why didn't they say this? Because China seems to have pressured the WHO the entire time, including saying that the borders shouldn't be closed. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02/china-coronavirus-who-health-soft-power/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02/china-coronavirus-who-h... >And what is the obvious interpretation? Mine is ‘it is preliminary, so results can still change’ and ‘found no clear evidence does not mean evidence will not be found later’. If that's what they meant, then they should have said so. They didn't. As I said before, this is a major health organization that needs to be clear in its communication, not speak in riddles.
- FooBarWidget 7y ago
  They did say, within 24h of that tweet, that they have not ruled out human to human transmission: https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/15/china-says-it-s-possible-new-virus-could-spread-between-n1116066 https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/15/china-says-it-s-possible...

Nasrudith 7y ago

I see it as yours but recognize it as probably being read like the parents as not only is the default behavior for absense of evidence to treat it as evidence of absense or subtly of magnitude the fine distinction is lost on most. It is anti-communication in context as cunningly putting effort into /not/ being clear. If they truly weren't sure a more honest form would be "We have neither confirmed nor denied the possibility of human to human transmission." (Putting aside any biological questions like are there even any crossspecies transmissions which cause propagative symptoms like coughing or sneezing but do not transmit through it.)

chrischen 7y ago
Well then it's a good thing that we aren't governed by people who just spend 5 seconds misinterpreting tweets.
FooBarWidget 7y ago
Actually they, did say that they could neither confirm nor deny: https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/15/china-says-it-s-possible-new-virus-could-spread-between-n1116066 https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/15/china-says-it-s-possible...

abdulmuhaimin 7y ago

but the only reason this statement would come out is to refute any rumors that its spread person-by-person. So its implied. They cant confirm anything but they need to refute that its spread through humans

keiferski 7y ago

By even posting this tweet, it is implied that there is no human-to-human transmission. They could have easily said, "So far, preliminary tests have found no evidence of human-to-human transmission, however we have only just begun research into the matter and thus still recommend social distancing." Why didn't they say this? Because China seems to have pressured the WHO the entire time, including saying that the borders shouldn't be closed. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02/china-coronavirus-who-health-soft-power/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02/china-coronavirus-who-h... >And what is the obvious interpretation? Mine is ‘it is preliminary, so results can still change’ and ‘found no clear evidence does not mean evidence will not be found later’. If that's what they meant, then they should have said so. They didn't. As I said before, this is a major health organization that needs to be clear in its communication, not speak in riddles.

FooBarWidget 7y ago
They did say, within 24h of that tweet, that they have not ruled out human to human transmission: https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/15/china-says-it-s-possible-new-virus-could-spread-between-n1116066 https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/15/china-says-it-s-possible...