3 ms·
Oh, I saw your other reply of my previous comment. Well, you're right that physicians directly emailing other physicians is a good source for being cautious ab
by henearkr 7y ago
Oh, I saw your other reply of my previous comment.
Well, you're right that physicians directly emailing other physicians is a good source for being cautious about China declarations, especially under an authoritarian government not allowing other forms of publications.
But still, from the point of view of WHO, it was not clear that there was such a pressure on experts. They only had China's studies in hands.
PS: well, maybe there was something more political going on. You seem well documented and I believe you. But they had to play with China on their side. Changing that means huge reforms, of not only WHO but UN. And reforms, not deletions...
- AlchemistCamp 7y agoThis is a different link and, as it mentions, Taiwan's CDC has email receipts of its communications with the WHO. In an outbreak situation, the correct response is NOT to say, "until you've published a study we'll tell the world there's no evidence of human-to-human transmission". If multiple doctors are getting sick from their patients, there IS evidence of human-to-human transmission. If those doctors are in an authoritarian country that controls the flow of information, but they've emailed their colleagues abroad, that information itself must be shared by any responsible health organization.
- henearkr 7y agoThat makes sense. Did Taiwan try to publish directly? On social media or other.
- AlchemistCamp 7y agoYes. The local CDC is on Twitter and Facebook.