38 ms·

Current WHO advice: "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19." [0] Where we live, due to local laws,

Current WHO advice: "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19." [0] Where we live, due to local laws, we are now obliged to wear a mask to go shopping. Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO? I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( We keep trying to encourage our kids to ask good questions, then I see what's happening out there in the world, and I wonder when the grown-ups are going to start asking good questions... [0] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...

hrayr 7y ago
I don't think that's contradicting. Directly contradicting would be "Don't wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19". What you described sounds more like extending the current WHO recommendations.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Only in the same sense that "take vitamin C" is an extension of the WHO recommendations, and Wojcicki explicitly mentioned that as an example of what's banned.
  - jimsmart 7y ago
    My understanding here, from the quote in the article, is that one is ok to say 'Take vitamin C', but it is not ok to say 'Take vitamin C, it will cure you [of x]'.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  I think "You need to wear a mask when you go out of the house" directly contradicts "you only need to wear a mask when taking care of someone with COVID-19"
  - tantalor 7y ago
    The "only" is a typo.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      Nope, check the link.
      - tantalor 7y ago
        No I mean it is a typo on the WHO page, I sent them feedback suggesting this phrasing: "Wear a mask if you are healthy and you are taking care of a person with COVID-19."
        garmaine 7y ago
        It’s a bit presumptuous to assume that the WHO has a typo in a document like this. Besides their messaging has been consistent.
        tantalor 7y ago
        Anyone can make a mistake.
        garmaine 7y ago
        I've worked at large government agencies. These things are reviewed and signed off by dozens of people before posting. Besides, like I said this is not the only place they've said this. They've been consistent in down-playing the importance of masks.
        chrisseaton 7y ago
        How do you know they made a typo, rather than that's what they meant?
        7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway55554 7y ago
  > I don't think that's contradicting. Sure it is. Only means exclusively, one, no more. They're saying, "You exclusively need to wear a mask if you're taking care of a person with C-19". This action, excluding all others.
  - ketzu 7y ago
    "Only" qualifies "need". "you only need to wear a seat belt on public roads" and "you should wear a seat belt on private roads" are not contradictions.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      You're confusing a declarative v. an imperative statement. What you propose is a declarative, and you're correct that it ain't contradictory. The WHO's messaging, however, is imperative¹ (emphasis theirs): "For healthy people wear a mask only if you are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCov infection" This makes it clear that it directly contradicts the more widely-accepted similarly-imperative advice of "wear a mask in public, no matter what". ---- ¹: https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coronavirus/masks/masks-2.png https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coro...
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    In English, "you only need to" is completely different from "you need to only".
scumbert 7y ago
China has it under control. It will not become a pandemic. It doesn't transmit between humans. Who is Taiwan? Wouldn't dare contradict the WHO...
- 9999px 7y ago
  Please don't let the bad-faith "China bad" idiocy leak here from Reddit.
  - flukus 7y ago
    I had the best possible faith in the WHO at the of 2019, they squandered it by playing politics and pandering to China. The CCP though, they deserve every bit of bad faith they get, long before and long after this crises, they've well an truly earned it and only the most naive would give them any respect.
  - camelite 7y ago
    Nevermind the supposed sources, op's sarcastic criticisms of the WHO are all entirely on point.
tjr 7y ago
This is largely my concern here also. The virus in question has only been around, and been studied, (as far as we know) for a few months. Doctors and scientists have been trying for decades to determine what people should eat, and are still not completely in agreement...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
lern_too_spel 7y ago
It also says you should wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing, which contradicts the "only" wording of the previous statement.
- tantalor 7y ago
  coughing or sneezing -> not healthy
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    To add to this: just because you're not coughing or sneezing when you leave the house doesn't mean you'll stay that way throughout your quarantine-breaking excursion among the public. This is especially relevant for seasonal allergy sufferers like myself. Might as well just assume that you'll probably end up needing to cough or sneeze at some point and just wear the mask.
stcredzero 7y ago
I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( The idea is: "We are the decent, good, people who know the truth. Now we control the platforms, so it's only well and good we control the information, and we tell the deplorable others what they can and can't say." Almost everyone in the history books as a horrible oppressor has told themselves that narrative. Many of them were brave, noble, and well meaning, and had an ideology that told them they were in the right. How are the employees of YouTube or any tech company exempt from those forces? What makes them somehow wiser or smarter than everyone else in history?
- mmazing 7y ago
  Let the market sort them out then, right?
  - louwrentius 7y ago
    Thank you for the laugh.
    - mmazing 7y ago
      You are quite welcome. :D
  - troughway 7y ago
    Very hard for the market to sort out NSA-backed companies like Google, Facebook et al.
  - guscost 7y ago
    The market won't sort them out, but the courts will. Wait until they are deemed a publisher, and no longer exempt from liability[0] for all of the content that they publish. Unfortunately they hire a lot of lobbyists so it might be a long wait. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
    - 7y ago
pishpash 7y ago
So Google will just use what they built for China then?
api 7y ago
Spam, scams, misinformation, etc. is why we can't have nice things. Every open service ends up becoming locked down because of abuse once it reaches a certain size. The choice is between censoring YouTube or allowing it to become a cesspool of garbage in which the bad drives out the good. It's just like any other Internet forum.
EGreg 7y ago
That's exactly the problem. All our politicians around the world were so reactionary, many knew it has a 1-2 week incubation period, but no one was willing to make an order saying "WEAR MASKS" when no one was testing positive yet. They could have gotten ahead of this thing and prevented the outbreaks. The quarantines are a last resort because PUBLIC POLICY FAILED to contain the outbreaks. WE WILL FACE THIS SITUATION AGAIN when the quarantines are lifted and everyone re-emerges. We must have a clear framework: compulsory wearing of masks and using sanitizer when entering buildings. Fines for anyone caught on camera removing their masks. They have to understand the masks aren't to protect the person wearing them, but the others. It has to be done en masse, and that's what government should be coordinating. Please watch this video I put together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiPaYI-x4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiPaYI-x4E
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  Obviously it's good advice to wear masks in public when confronted with a respiratory disease capable of asymptomatic transmission for days after infection. The masks don't make any one person safer, but widespread usage makes us all safer. Trouble is, there weren't enough masks at first. It's not clear that there are now, for that matter. One of the few things Trump is correct about is that the WHO has bungled this situation at pretty much every step of the way. So no, it's not OK for YouTube to tie their policies to WHO directives. They're a US company, so they should be referring to CDC guidelines (1) instead. 1: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...
  - SilasX 7y ago
    There weren’t enough N95 masks. There were plenty of ad hoc/DIY masks.
    - EGreg 7y ago
      That’s exactly right There were enough surgical masks You could double or triple them up if you thought they were not effective enough The velocity of a particle that could get through that would not be enough to infect a person two feet in front of you This should be obvious
doctoboggan 7y ago
So if you made a video a few weeks ago recommending people wear masks then your video would be banned.
- sjwright 7y ago
  No, because while the CDC did incorrectly dismiss the value of masks and recommended that people focus on hand washing and distancing, they never said you must not wear a mask.
  - doctoboggan 7y ago
    IIRC they said you shouldn’t wear a mask because you are probably doing it wrong and increasing the chance of touching your face.
  - serf 7y ago
    > they never said you must not wear a mask. You're right, but.. What was said (by Surgeon General Jerome Adams) was for the American people to stop buying masks on March 2nd.[0] I don't know why that is effectively any different for folks that had no access to them. [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus-surgeon-general-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus...
glenstein 7y ago
>Where we live, due to local laws, we are now obliged to wear a mask to go shopping. Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO? Examples like these are frivolous. There's a heartland of obvious, flagrant misinformation that is indisputably worth banning and for which a moral case exists to ban immediately: '5g caused corona, this home remedy will cure it!' etc. The go-to move of internet commenters craving debates is to look past the 99.9999% of cases that will get taken down and to tie everyone up in debates about hypotheticals. Instead of telling me about your special what-if edge case, tell me whether you think the example you are bringing forward represents the heartland of content that is being targeted by this policy. Be clear about what percentage of cases you think are represented by your special example.
- grawprog 7y ago
  Since when am I beholden to the WHO? I don't remember voting for any of them or agreeing for them to represent me in any way. They are not my elected government, why should I give the slightest fuck what they tell me to do?
  - adatavizguy 7y ago
    I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding what content is and is not allowed to be hosted on their private servers using their private services. This is very different from government officials that you vote for censoring free speech. Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to post their content on Facebook to share with their friends, on Twitter, stream it live on Twitch, or, host it themselves on their own servers.
    - AlchemistCamp 7y ago
      > I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding... YouTube is part of a gigantic, public company with more power than many world governments. In a very real sense, Alphabet is more powerful than a hypothetical Standard Oil that also owned one of the most popular two newspapers in every single city in the US. Their ability to shape markets, public opinion and even elections in 100+ countries is unprecedented and very easy to use with plausible deniability. Facebook is a similar sort of entity. In aggregate, the two control more personal communications than the postal service. The notion that only a government can be a threat to free speech is outdated and naive.
triceratops 7y ago
> Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO? It's not contradicting the WHO to say "local laws say to wear a mask". That's also a statement of fact. And I can't imagine YT taking down a video saying "follow the law".
cm2187 7y ago
Not the only position that changed radically over time. Head of WHO in early March: > First, COVID-19 does not transmit as efficiently as influenza, from the data we have so far. > With influenza, people who are infected but not yet sick are major drivers of transmission, which does not appear to be the case for COVID-19. > Evidence from China is that only 1% of reported cases do not have symptoms, and most of those cases develop symptoms within 2 days. https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-... Also for a long time the medias were quoting 5-10% death rates when we have now evidence that it will be well under 1%, which infectious disease specialists were saying all along.
- cm2187 7y ago
  Also treatments evolve. We were told that ventilators were absolute critical and it appears now that there may better solutions [1]. My point is you can’t enforce a single truth on a topic like that where our understanding of the virus and what to do is changing. And this understanding drives policy. [1] https://news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-hospital-cuts-covid-19-death-rates-with-black-boxes-for-sleep-disorder-11977789 https://news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-hospital-cuts-cov...
- marcinzm 7y ago
  >Evidence from China is that only 1% of reported cases do not have symptoms, and most of those cases develop symptoms within 2 days. That assumes China is finding almost all cases and is able to track almost all cases. If they only report cases that are serious enough to require medical attention that statement is worthless. Of course, that line of thinking would require questioning China's data which the WHO would never politically do.
bad_user 7y ago
> "I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :(" Sorry but there is always just one truth. It might be incomplete, but it's always just one. And trusting the scientific consensus is always the best option period.
bad_user 7y ago
What WHO is saying is that there is no solid proof that wearing a mask will do much to protect you. And they are correct in saying that. They do not say that masks offer no protection. They also don't say that you shouldn't wear masks. Actual scientists give advice based on available evidence. When there is no evidence, or available evidence is too weak, they don't give that advice and they also don't fall in the trap of considering a lack of evidence as being evidence of absence. This is what politicians do, like Trump. Let's not mix these.
- o_p 7y ago
  Thats why you shouldnt hear scientists for advice and use your brain. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you wear a mask and doesnt have effect, nothing happens, if it does, thats a benefit, so you can only win by wearing one. You can be rational and completly dumb at the same time.
  - empthought 7y ago
    “If you wear a tinfoil hat and doesn’t have effect, nothing happens. If it does, that’s a benefit, so you can only win by wearing one.” Not disagreeing on masks, but your argument here is a real stinker.
    - o_p 7y ago
      Theres clearly a difference in the magnitude of probabilities between masks and tinfoil hats actually working, and we are not in a global electromagnetic disaster right now.
      - bad_user 7y ago
        If there isn't enough evidence, based on what are you calculating those probabilities?
  - bad_user 7y ago
    If you wear masks, but there aren't enough on sale, you end up exposing medical personnel. Viral load matters. Exposure to high viral loads has killed young and healthy doctors. For medics masks save lives. Wearing masks in a situation in which medics don't have enough masks is a textbook tragedy of the commons. Yes, you can be rational and completely dumb at the same time, I agree.
eloff 7y ago
I think what YouTube is doing is with the best intentions - but I hate it. Silencing speech you don't agree with is a dangerous road littered with totalitarian regimes. Doing so at YouTube's scale underlines how much unchecked power corporations have in our society. I think they should not have the power to decide what voice deserves a platform and what does not. They should be regulated as a utility given their market share. You should be able to challenge YouTube in court with the first amendment. This currently isn't possible with private companies.
- sjwright 7y ago
  The greatest risk vector for your free speech rights is to misunderstand them, falsely claim that they’re absolute and have your society collapse.
  - eloff 7y ago
    How does free speech lead to the collapse of society? I think you're making one heck of a leap there.
    - Zenbit_UX 7y ago
      He's saying you're misunderstanding your rights regarding free speech, which sounds accurate as you seem to think you have rights on YouTube's platform. (You don't.) Free speech only protects you from the government, there are many places that saying dumb or offensive things will get you kicked out or censored. So yes I agree with OP, the fact that you don't understand these rights but sit at your desk and yell "but my free speech!" or "un-American!" when YouTube is trying to combat disinformation during a global health crisis could likely be a precursor to a collapse of your society. While it won't be a direct cause of the collapse, if an educated programmer on HN doesn't get it, I don't favor the prospects for the rest of the society.
      - eloff 7y ago
        I literally said you can't challenge YouTube on first amendment grounds, because it doesn't work that way. I'm not sure how that is me misunderstanding anything. More like you both misunderstood me. What I'm saying is YouTube is a monopoly. So if you say something on there that they don't like, and they censor you, you've been effectively silenced. What other video platform will you use to get your message out? Whatever you choose you won't reach nearly as many people. Should Google have that kind of power? I don't think so. They should be regulated and the government (and by extension the people who vote for it) should make those decisions, not a corporation.
immutate 7y ago
It's about fact, not truth. There's a difference.
mehrdadn 7y ago
That's not contradictory. You wear masks whenever your local laws or WHO tell you to, and you satisfy both of them.
TheBobinator 7y ago
Few things to be said here. First, people are, in general, really bad at navigating traumatic events and situations. Now if you've been through some real Sh!tty situations in your past, you're better able to navigate new ones, but don't make the assumption if you are able to navigate them, they can as well. Giving them 10 different sources of information including things like 5G being to blame and other disinformation can create more problems than its worth including riots. Second, The WHO has been flogged thoroughly by the US government in the States and rightfully so given the misleading statements that were made at the onset about the ability of china to keep the virus contained. You look at the WHO ARCGIS webpage for Covid and it's got outbreaks with 30 people in a circle the same size as the US outbreak; there's some degree of obvious derision by the WHO for the west in general and the US in particular which in my estimation, factored into what they communicated. At this point it's hitting every country, so every country is going to request a reform and furthermore every country is going to be look for other trade partners aside from china. Youtube at this point is an international utility so they are siding with an international firm; in the short term this is wise. Long-term, you can expect a US institution to take over as the authority as the vast majority of medical research worldwide is done in the US.
intopieces 7y ago
WHO is giving medical advice, not legal advice. There isn't a contradiction here; if, because of local conditions, local government has prescribed you to wear masks when you go shopping, it isn't because your local government is making a medical diagnosis about you. It's because they want to stop the spread and they can't know that you are healthy or not. This isn't a hard call. Neither is restricting people promoting miracle cures that lead people to swallow fish antibiotics in the name of "free speech". Big companies have a responsibility to fight misinformation. Letting the public "figure it out on their own" is simply social darwinism, and it's cruel.
specialist 7y ago
Surely there's some daylight between honest disagreement and misinformation campaigns?
- yellowapple 7y ago
  Perhaps, but given Google's track record of banning users without explanation for strange reasons I somehow doubt YouTube is able to perceive that daylight.
nelox 7y ago
Did you actually read the advice? It explicitly provides advice addressing your concern. "In some countries masks are worn in accordance with local customs or in accordance with advice by national authorities in the context of COVID-19. In these situations, best practices should be followed about how to wear, remove, and dispose of them, and for hand hygiene after removal". It then goes on to say ... "Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for healthy people in community settings. As described above, the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks. WHO offers the following advice to decision makers so they apply a risk-based approach." https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-... I dare say the answer to your question is, no.
- WA 7y ago
  I dare to ask the question how wearing a mask carries critical risk vs wearing no mask.
  - allannienhuis 7y ago
    It's pretty easy to find official answers to that question. This is from the bccdc.ca website: > Masks may give a person a false sense of security and are likely to increase the number of times a person will touch their own face (e.g., to adjust the mask). http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/prevention-risks/masks http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19...
    - WA 7y ago
      And I think it makes sense to be doubtful about this. It’s as if you’re saying wearing a helmet gives you a false sense of security. Wearing a mask may give some people a false sense of security. But at the end of the day the question is if mask-wearing populations have less infections than non-mask wearing populations.
    - tidenly 7y ago
ummwhat 7y ago
In practice this will mean "YouTube is taking down obvious contrarian theory vids which convince followers to burn 5g towers and the like". No one is actually interested in censoring your nuanced criticisms of the WHO. Your form of objection doesn't risk inciting idiots to violence.
kebman 7y ago
Rumour on the street is that the advice is in place because local governments don't want people hoarding face masks, because there's a massive shortage of it in most Western countries, [1] so much so that several hospitals have eveb asked for private donations of face masks, and even the Directorate of Health. [2] This is half admitted at least by my own health authorities in Norway. The advice from the Norwegian "CDC", the NIPH/FHI, was that you shouldn't wear a mask! [3] The claim, as it was broadcast in an interview, was that there is no evidence that wearing a mask protects you from contagion. This again springs out of the advice from the WHO. But they also claimed that it's in fact a danger of spreading the disease by wearing a mask! [4] [5] Except it's pretty controversial, and there are studies that directly contradict the official advice, for instance the now infamous bus study from Wuhan (now retracted),[6] but there are others. FHI has since relaxed this verdict, and there are news stories of them even turning 180 and advicing the use of face masks.[7] [1] Norwegian language source: https://www.varden.no/nyheter/mangel-pa-munnbind-sykehusene-har-fatt-beskjed-om-rasjonering/ https://www.varden.no/nyheter/mangel-pa-munnbind-sykehusene-... [2] Norwegian language source: https://www.dagsavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/helsedirektoratet-ber-om-munnbind-1.1685973 https://www.dagsavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/helsedirektorate... [3] Norwegian language source: https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/coronavirus/fakta/renhold-og-hygiene/ https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/coronavirus/fakta/renhold-og-hygi... [4] Norwegian language source: https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/munnbind-kan-fore-til-mer-smitte-1.14458136 https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/munnbind-kan-fore-til-mer-smi... [5] Norwegian language source: https://forskning.no/ntb-sykdommer-virus/fhi-munnbind-gir-falsk-trygghet-mot-sykdomssmitte/1639818 https://forskning.no/ntb-sykdommer-virus/fhi-munnbind-gir-fa... [6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8094933/How-one-man-spread-coronavirus-NINE-people-bus.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8094933/How-one-man... [7] Norwegian language source: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/GGLm0l/helsedirektoratet-munnbind-kan-absolutt-ha-noe-for-seg https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/GGLm0l/helsedirektorate...
smsm42 7y ago
Well, there's certainly truth, just WHO is not exactly the best way to it. And, as it appears, Youtube is certainly not the place one would look for a discussion that would reveal the truth. For them, whatever the official position of minitrue is this moment is the truth.
101404 7y ago
> Current WHO advice: "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19." That's really dangerous advice. Because most people with COVID19 don't even know they have it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tpetry 7y ago
The idea is not to stop you from spreading the information that you should wear q mask everywhere. They want you to stop spreading dangerous false information like the idea of injecting hand sanitiser to your lungs, oh, wait...
BiteCode_dev 7y ago
Youtube is not a public service, it's not a democratic discussion platform and it's not neutral in any way. It's a for profit advertised funded private video streaming site. People use it to have debates, but that works as long is it's providing more value than trouble to google.
dependenttypes 7y ago
In the words of DJB: "Are you surprised to hear WHO saying that healthy skydivers don't need to and shouldn't use parachutes? This is backed up by a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, published in the British Medical Journal, cited more than 1000 times: https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459" https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459" From https://twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/1245493436939042816 https://twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/1245493436939042816
- denzil_correa 7y ago
  > Interpretation: Although there is widespread interest regarding the BMJ paper arguing that randomized trials are not necessary for practices of clear benefit, there are few analogies in medicine. Most parachute analogies in medicine are inappropriate, incorrect or misused. http://cmajopen.ca/content/6/1/E31.full http://cmajopen.ca/content/6/1/E31.full
asdkjh345fd 7y ago
This is precisely why this sort of "helpful" censorship is not helpful. The WHO is wrong, plain and simple. There's dozens of studies that very clearly show even home made masks are highly effective in spreading viral diseases.
AdamHede 7y ago
I don't think we need to declare "One truth", in order to remove the worst layer of misinformation. It's a false dichotomy. What is the effectivness of (homemade) masks? Disbuted, so here information should be free Should you inject disinfectives into you bloodstream to cure Covid-19? No. This is misinformation, is easily identified. If there is doubt, it should be allowed. There will obviously always be a grey area, but for the time being, a lot of good can be done, without any harm.
Retric 7y ago
WHO guidelines around masks are not being contradicted by local laws. Both say masks are useful to reduce the spread. That’s different than saying 5g causes the disease, or worse hand washing compromises the immune system and should be avoided.
captainbland 7y ago
I think that would only be contradictory if the WHO advice said strictly don't wear a mask otherwise. In this case you're still free to choose to wear a mask even if the WHO doesn't say you should, or if local laws require it so it's not a contradiction even though it's not the exact same advice/requirement.
- aembleton 7y ago
  Do the WHO tell you not to drink disinfectant? I guess that means it would be fine to release a video saying that this will provide you with protection.
  - captainbland 7y ago
    No they already ban videos that encourage people to take actions which would be physically harmful to themselves or others.
smdz 7y ago
In some countries like India, it is mandatory to wear masks. And you could be beaten up by the police, punished, penalized, arrested and jailed for not doing so. That goes completely against the WHO guidelines. Can they ban the country's government? The mixed messages did leave me confused in the initial stages until major TV channels broadcasted what the government wanted. Until then I thought the news was a rumor.
mgamache 7y ago
Of course there is one truth. We may not know it now or ever, and might be really nuanced. That doesn't excuse the institutions we ask to guard our health from dispensing obvious misinformation. The WHO and CDC are lying for different reasons about masks. The WHO downplayed the virus against evidence in January when it should have been letting the world know of the threat. This virus is mild compared to what will (probably) eventually happen.
jonbutton 7y ago
The WHO advice you are referring to is pertaining to medical masks (clearly stated in the section title of that page "When and how to wear medical masks to protect against coronavirus?") Medical masks need to be used only if you have a proper reason to prevent the unavailability of stock to healthcare people.

hrayr 7y ago

I don't think that's contradicting. Directly contradicting would be "Don't wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19". What you described sounds more like extending the current WHO recommendations.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Only in the same sense that "take vitamin C" is an extension of the WHO recommendations, and Wojcicki explicitly mentioned that as an example of what's banned.
- jimsmart 7y ago
  My understanding here, from the quote in the article, is that one is ok to say 'Take vitamin C', but it is not ok to say 'Take vitamin C, it will cure you [of x]'.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
I think "You need to wear a mask when you go out of the house" directly contradicts "you only need to wear a mask when taking care of someone with COVID-19"
- tantalor 7y ago
  The "only" is a typo.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    Nope, check the link.
    - tantalor 7y ago
      No I mean it is a typo on the WHO page, I sent them feedback suggesting this phrasing: "Wear a mask if you are healthy and you are taking care of a person with COVID-19."
      - garmaine 7y ago
        It’s a bit presumptuous to assume that the WHO has a typo in a document like this. Besides their messaging has been consistent.
        tantalor 7y ago
        Anyone can make a mistake.
        garmaine 7y ago
        I've worked at large government agencies. These things are reviewed and signed off by dozens of people before posting. Besides, like I said this is not the only place they've said this. They've been consistent in down-playing the importance of masks.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        How do you know they made a typo, rather than that's what they meant?
        7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwaway55554 7y ago
> I don't think that's contradicting. Sure it is. Only means exclusively, one, no more. They're saying, "You exclusively need to wear a mask if you're taking care of a person with C-19". This action, excluding all others.
- ketzu 7y ago
  "Only" qualifies "need". "you only need to wear a seat belt on public roads" and "you should wear a seat belt on private roads" are not contradictions.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    You're confusing a declarative v. an imperative statement. What you propose is a declarative, and you're correct that it ain't contradictory. The WHO's messaging, however, is imperative¹ (emphasis theirs): "For healthy people wear a mask only if you are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCov infection" This makes it clear that it directly contradicts the more widely-accepted similarly-imperative advice of "wear a mask in public, no matter what". ---- ¹: https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coronavirus/masks/masks-2.png https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coro...
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  In English, "you only need to" is completely different from "you need to only".

scumbert 7y ago

China has it under control. It will not become a pandemic. It doesn't transmit between humans. Who is Taiwan? Wouldn't dare contradict the WHO...

9999px 7y ago
Please don't let the bad-faith "China bad" idiocy leak here from Reddit.
- flukus 7y ago
  I had the best possible faith in the WHO at the of 2019, they squandered it by playing politics and pandering to China. The CCP though, they deserve every bit of bad faith they get, long before and long after this crises, they've well an truly earned it and only the most naive would give them any respect.
- camelite 7y ago
  Nevermind the supposed sources, op's sarcastic criticisms of the WHO are all entirely on point.

tjr 7y ago

This is largely my concern here also. The virus in question has only been around, and been studied, (as far as we know) for a few months. Doctors and scientists have been trying for decades to determine what people should eat, and are still not completely in agreement...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

lern_too_spel 7y ago

It also says you should wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing, which contradicts the "only" wording of the previous statement.

tantalor 7y ago
coughing or sneezing -> not healthy
- yellowapple 7y ago
  To add to this: just because you're not coughing or sneezing when you leave the house doesn't mean you'll stay that way throughout your quarantine-breaking excursion among the public. This is especially relevant for seasonal allergy sufferers like myself. Might as well just assume that you'll probably end up needing to cough or sneeze at some point and just wear the mask.

stcredzero 7y ago

I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( The idea is: "We are the decent, good, people who know the truth. Now we control the platforms, so it's only well and good we control the information, and we tell the deplorable others what they can and can't say." Almost everyone in the history books as a horrible oppressor has told themselves that narrative. Many of them were brave, noble, and well meaning, and had an ideology that told them they were in the right. How are the employees of YouTube or any tech company exempt from those forces? What makes them somehow wiser or smarter than everyone else in history?

mmazing 7y ago
Let the market sort them out then, right?
- louwrentius 7y ago
  Thank you for the laugh.
  - mmazing 7y ago
    You are quite welcome. :D
- troughway 7y ago
  Very hard for the market to sort out NSA-backed companies like Google, Facebook et al.
- guscost 7y ago
  The market won't sort them out, but the courts will. Wait until they are deemed a publisher, and no longer exempt from liability[0] for all of the content that they publish. Unfortunately they hire a lot of lobbyists so it might be a long wait. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
  - 7y ago

pishpash 7y ago

So Google will just use what they built for China then?

api 7y ago

Spam, scams, misinformation, etc. is why we can't have nice things. Every open service ends up becoming locked down because of abuse once it reaches a certain size. The choice is between censoring YouTube or allowing it to become a cesspool of garbage in which the bad drives out the good. It's just like any other Internet forum.

EGreg 7y ago

That's exactly the problem. All our politicians around the world were so reactionary, many knew it has a 1-2 week incubation period, but no one was willing to make an order saying "WEAR MASKS" when no one was testing positive yet. They could have gotten ahead of this thing and prevented the outbreaks. The quarantines are a last resort because PUBLIC POLICY FAILED to contain the outbreaks. WE WILL FACE THIS SITUATION AGAIN when the quarantines are lifted and everyone re-emerges. We must have a clear framework: compulsory wearing of masks and using sanitizer when entering buildings. Fines for anyone caught on camera removing their masks. They have to understand the masks aren't to protect the person wearing them, but the others. It has to be done en masse, and that's what government should be coordinating. Please watch this video I put together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiPaYI-x4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiPaYI-x4E

CamperBob2 7y ago
Obviously it's good advice to wear masks in public when confronted with a respiratory disease capable of asymptomatic transmission for days after infection. The masks don't make any one person safer, but widespread usage makes us all safer. Trouble is, there weren't enough masks at first. It's not clear that there are now, for that matter. One of the few things Trump is correct about is that the WHO has bungled this situation at pretty much every step of the way. So no, it's not OK for YouTube to tie their policies to WHO directives. They're a US company, so they should be referring to CDC guidelines (1) instead. 1: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...
- SilasX 7y ago
  There weren’t enough N95 masks. There were plenty of ad hoc/DIY masks.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    That’s exactly right There were enough surgical masks You could double or triple them up if you thought they were not effective enough The velocity of a particle that could get through that would not be enough to infect a person two feet in front of you This should be obvious

doctoboggan 7y ago

So if you made a video a few weeks ago recommending people wear masks then your video would be banned.

sjwright 7y ago
No, because while the CDC did incorrectly dismiss the value of masks and recommended that people focus on hand washing and distancing, they never said you must not wear a mask.
- doctoboggan 7y ago
  IIRC they said you shouldn’t wear a mask because you are probably doing it wrong and increasing the chance of touching your face.
- serf 7y ago
  > they never said you must not wear a mask. You're right, but.. What was said (by Surgeon General Jerome Adams) was for the American people to stop buying masks on March 2nd.[0] I don't know why that is effectively any different for folks that had no access to them. [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus-surgeon-general-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus...

glenstein 7y ago

>Where we live, due to local laws, we are now obliged to wear a mask to go shopping. Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO? Examples like these are frivolous. There's a heartland of obvious, flagrant misinformation that is indisputably worth banning and for which a moral case exists to ban immediately: '5g caused corona, this home remedy will cure it!' etc. The go-to move of internet commenters craving debates is to look past the 99.9999% of cases that will get taken down and to tie everyone up in debates about hypotheticals. Instead of telling me about your special what-if edge case, tell me whether you think the example you are bringing forward represents the heartland of content that is being targeted by this policy. Be clear about what percentage of cases you think are represented by your special example.

grawprog 7y ago
Since when am I beholden to the WHO? I don't remember voting for any of them or agreeing for them to represent me in any way. They are not my elected government, why should I give the slightest fuck what they tell me to do?
- adatavizguy 7y ago
  I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding what content is and is not allowed to be hosted on their private servers using their private services. This is very different from government officials that you vote for censoring free speech. Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to post their content on Facebook to share with their friends, on Twitter, stream it live on Twitch, or, host it themselves on their own servers.
  - AlchemistCamp 7y ago
    > I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding... YouTube is part of a gigantic, public company with more power than many world governments. In a very real sense, Alphabet is more powerful than a hypothetical Standard Oil that also owned one of the most popular two newspapers in every single city in the US. Their ability to shape markets, public opinion and even elections in 100+ countries is unprecedented and very easy to use with plausible deniability. Facebook is a similar sort of entity. In aggregate, the two control more personal communications than the postal service. The notion that only a government can be a threat to free speech is outdated and naive.

triceratops 7y ago

> Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO? It's not contradicting the WHO to say "local laws say to wear a mask". That's also a statement of fact. And I can't imagine YT taking down a video saying "follow the law".

cm2187 7y ago

Not the only position that changed radically over time. Head of WHO in early March: > First, COVID-19 does not transmit as efficiently as influenza, from the data we have so far. > With influenza, people who are infected but not yet sick are major drivers of transmission, which does not appear to be the case for COVID-19. > Evidence from China is that only 1% of reported cases do not have symptoms, and most of those cases develop symptoms within 2 days. https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-... Also for a long time the medias were quoting 5-10% death rates when we have now evidence that it will be well under 1%, which infectious disease specialists were saying all along.

cm2187 7y ago
Also treatments evolve. We were told that ventilators were absolute critical and it appears now that there may better solutions [1]. My point is you can’t enforce a single truth on a topic like that where our understanding of the virus and what to do is changing. And this understanding drives policy. [1] https://news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-hospital-cuts-covid-19-death-rates-with-black-boxes-for-sleep-disorder-11977789 https://news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-hospital-cuts-cov...
marcinzm 7y ago
>Evidence from China is that only 1% of reported cases do not have symptoms, and most of those cases develop symptoms within 2 days. That assumes China is finding almost all cases and is able to track almost all cases. If they only report cases that are serious enough to require medical attention that statement is worthless. Of course, that line of thinking would require questioning China's data which the WHO would never politically do.

bad_user 7y ago

> "I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :(" Sorry but there is always just one truth. It might be incomplete, but it's always just one. And trusting the scientific consensus is always the best option period.

bad_user 7y ago

What WHO is saying is that there is no solid proof that wearing a mask will do much to protect you. And they are correct in saying that. They do not say that masks offer no protection. They also don't say that you shouldn't wear masks. Actual scientists give advice based on available evidence. When there is no evidence, or available evidence is too weak, they don't give that advice and they also don't fall in the trap of considering a lack of evidence as being evidence of absence. This is what politicians do, like Trump. Let's not mix these.

o_p 7y ago
Thats why you shouldnt hear scientists for advice and use your brain. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you wear a mask and doesnt have effect, nothing happens, if it does, thats a benefit, so you can only win by wearing one. You can be rational and completly dumb at the same time.
- empthought 7y ago
  “If you wear a tinfoil hat and doesn’t have effect, nothing happens. If it does, that’s a benefit, so you can only win by wearing one.” Not disagreeing on masks, but your argument here is a real stinker.
  - o_p 7y ago
    Theres clearly a difference in the magnitude of probabilities between masks and tinfoil hats actually working, and we are not in a global electromagnetic disaster right now.
    - bad_user 7y ago
      If there isn't enough evidence, based on what are you calculating those probabilities?
- bad_user 7y ago
  If you wear masks, but there aren't enough on sale, you end up exposing medical personnel. Viral load matters. Exposure to high viral loads has killed young and healthy doctors. For medics masks save lives. Wearing masks in a situation in which medics don't have enough masks is a textbook tragedy of the commons. Yes, you can be rational and completely dumb at the same time, I agree.

eloff 7y ago

I think what YouTube is doing is with the best intentions - but I hate it. Silencing speech you don't agree with is a dangerous road littered with totalitarian regimes. Doing so at YouTube's scale underlines how much unchecked power corporations have in our society. I think they should not have the power to decide what voice deserves a platform and what does not. They should be regulated as a utility given their market share. You should be able to challenge YouTube in court with the first amendment. This currently isn't possible with private companies.

sjwright 7y ago
The greatest risk vector for your free speech rights is to misunderstand them, falsely claim that they’re absolute and have your society collapse.
- eloff 7y ago
  How does free speech lead to the collapse of society? I think you're making one heck of a leap there.
  - Zenbit_UX 7y ago
    He's saying you're misunderstanding your rights regarding free speech, which sounds accurate as you seem to think you have rights on YouTube's platform. (You don't.) Free speech only protects you from the government, there are many places that saying dumb or offensive things will get you kicked out or censored. So yes I agree with OP, the fact that you don't understand these rights but sit at your desk and yell "but my free speech!" or "un-American!" when YouTube is trying to combat disinformation during a global health crisis could likely be a precursor to a collapse of your society. While it won't be a direct cause of the collapse, if an educated programmer on HN doesn't get it, I don't favor the prospects for the rest of the society.
    - eloff 7y ago
      I literally said you can't challenge YouTube on first amendment grounds, because it doesn't work that way. I'm not sure how that is me misunderstanding anything. More like you both misunderstood me. What I'm saying is YouTube is a monopoly. So if you say something on there that they don't like, and they censor you, you've been effectively silenced. What other video platform will you use to get your message out? Whatever you choose you won't reach nearly as many people. Should Google have that kind of power? I don't think so. They should be regulated and the government (and by extension the people who vote for it) should make those decisions, not a corporation.

immutate 7y ago

It's about fact, not truth. There's a difference.

mehrdadn 7y ago

That's not contradictory. You wear masks whenever your local laws or WHO tell you to, and you satisfy both of them.

TheBobinator 7y ago

Few things to be said here. First, people are, in general, really bad at navigating traumatic events and situations. Now if you've been through some real Sh!tty situations in your past, you're better able to navigate new ones, but don't make the assumption if you are able to navigate them, they can as well. Giving them 10 different sources of information including things like 5G being to blame and other disinformation can create more problems than its worth including riots. Second, The WHO has been flogged thoroughly by the US government in the States and rightfully so given the misleading statements that were made at the onset about the ability of china to keep the virus contained. You look at the WHO ARCGIS webpage for Covid and it's got outbreaks with 30 people in a circle the same size as the US outbreak; there's some degree of obvious derision by the WHO for the west in general and the US in particular which in my estimation, factored into what they communicated. At this point it's hitting every country, so every country is going to request a reform and furthermore every country is going to be look for other trade partners aside from china. Youtube at this point is an international utility so they are siding with an international firm; in the short term this is wise. Long-term, you can expect a US institution to take over as the authority as the vast majority of medical research worldwide is done in the US.

intopieces 7y ago

WHO is giving medical advice, not legal advice. There isn't a contradiction here; if, because of local conditions, local government has prescribed you to wear masks when you go shopping, it isn't because your local government is making a medical diagnosis about you. It's because they want to stop the spread and they can't know that you are healthy or not. This isn't a hard call. Neither is restricting people promoting miracle cures that lead people to swallow fish antibiotics in the name of "free speech". Big companies have a responsibility to fight misinformation. Letting the public "figure it out on their own" is simply social darwinism, and it's cruel.

specialist 7y ago

Surely there's some daylight between honest disagreement and misinformation campaigns?

yellowapple 7y ago
Perhaps, but given Google's track record of banning users without explanation for strange reasons I somehow doubt YouTube is able to perceive that daylight.

nelox 7y ago

Did you actually read the advice? It explicitly provides advice addressing your concern. "In some countries masks are worn in accordance with local customs or in accordance with advice by national authorities in the context of COVID-19. In these situations, best practices should be followed about how to wear, remove, and dispose of them, and for hand hygiene after removal". It then goes on to say ... "Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for healthy people in community settings. As described above, the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks. WHO offers the following advice to decision makers so they apply a risk-based approach." https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-... I dare say the answer to your question is, no.

WA 7y ago
I dare to ask the question how wearing a mask carries critical risk vs wearing no mask.
- allannienhuis 7y ago
  It's pretty easy to find official answers to that question. This is from the bccdc.ca website: > Masks may give a person a false sense of security and are likely to increase the number of times a person will touch their own face (e.g., to adjust the mask). http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/prevention-risks/masks http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19...
  - WA 7y ago
    And I think it makes sense to be doubtful about this. It’s as if you’re saying wearing a helmet gives you a false sense of security. Wearing a mask may give some people a false sense of security. But at the end of the day the question is if mask-wearing populations have less infections than non-mask wearing populations.
  - tidenly 7y ago

ummwhat 7y ago

In practice this will mean "YouTube is taking down obvious contrarian theory vids which convince followers to burn 5g towers and the like". No one is actually interested in censoring your nuanced criticisms of the WHO. Your form of objection doesn't risk inciting idiots to violence.

kebman 7y ago

Rumour on the street is that the advice is in place because local governments don't want people hoarding face masks, because there's a massive shortage of it in most Western countries, [1] so much so that several hospitals have eveb asked for private donations of face masks, and even the Directorate of Health. [2] This is half admitted at least by my own health authorities in Norway. The advice from the Norwegian "CDC", the NIPH/FHI, was that you shouldn't wear a mask! [3] The claim, as it was broadcast in an interview, was that there is no evidence that wearing a mask protects you from contagion. This again springs out of the advice from the WHO. But they also claimed that it's in fact a danger of spreading the disease by wearing a mask! [4] [5] Except it's pretty controversial, and there are studies that directly contradict the official advice, for instance the now infamous bus study from Wuhan (now retracted),[6] but there are others. FHI has since relaxed this verdict, and there are news stories of them even turning 180 and advicing the use of face masks.[7] [1] Norwegian language source: https://www.varden.no/nyheter/mangel-pa-munnbind-sykehusene-har-fatt-beskjed-om-rasjonering/ https://www.varden.no/nyheter/mangel-pa-munnbind-sykehusene-... [2] Norwegian language source: https://www.dagsavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/helsedirektoratet-ber-om-munnbind-1.1685973 https://www.dagsavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/helsedirektorate... [3] Norwegian language source: https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/coronavirus/fakta/renhold-og-hygiene/ https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/coronavirus/fakta/renhold-og-hygi... [4] Norwegian language source: https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/munnbind-kan-fore-til-mer-smitte-1.14458136 https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/munnbind-kan-fore-til-mer-smi... [5] Norwegian language source: https://forskning.no/ntb-sykdommer-virus/fhi-munnbind-gir-falsk-trygghet-mot-sykdomssmitte/1639818 https://forskning.no/ntb-sykdommer-virus/fhi-munnbind-gir-fa... [6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8094933/How-one-man-spread-coronavirus-NINE-people-bus.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8094933/How-one-man... [7] Norwegian language source: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/GGLm0l/helsedirektoratet-munnbind-kan-absolutt-ha-noe-for-seg https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/GGLm0l/helsedirektorate...

smsm42 7y ago

Well, there's certainly truth, just WHO is not exactly the best way to it. And, as it appears, Youtube is certainly not the place one would look for a discussion that would reveal the truth. For them, whatever the official position of minitrue is this moment is the truth.

101404 7y ago

> Current WHO advice: "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19." That's really dangerous advice. Because most people with COVID19 don't even know they have it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tpetry 7y ago

The idea is not to stop you from spreading the information that you should wear q mask everywhere. They want you to stop spreading dangerous false information like the idea of injecting hand sanitiser to your lungs, oh, wait...

BiteCode_dev 7y ago

Youtube is not a public service, it's not a democratic discussion platform and it's not neutral in any way. It's a for profit advertised funded private video streaming site. People use it to have debates, but that works as long is it's providing more value than trouble to google.

dependenttypes 7y ago

In the words of DJB: "Are you surprised to hear WHO saying that healthy skydivers don't need to and shouldn't use parachutes? This is backed up by a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, published in the British Medical Journal, cited more than 1000 times: https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459" https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459" From https://twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/1245493436939042816 https://twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/1245493436939042816

denzil_correa 7y ago
> Interpretation: Although there is widespread interest regarding the BMJ paper arguing that randomized trials are not necessary for practices of clear benefit, there are few analogies in medicine. Most parachute analogies in medicine are inappropriate, incorrect or misused. http://cmajopen.ca/content/6/1/E31.full http://cmajopen.ca/content/6/1/E31.full

asdkjh345fd 7y ago

This is precisely why this sort of "helpful" censorship is not helpful. The WHO is wrong, plain and simple. There's dozens of studies that very clearly show even home made masks are highly effective in spreading viral diseases.

AdamHede 7y ago

I don't think we need to declare "One truth", in order to remove the worst layer of misinformation. It's a false dichotomy. What is the effectivness of (homemade) masks? Disbuted, so here information should be free Should you inject disinfectives into you bloodstream to cure Covid-19? No. This is misinformation, is easily identified. If there is doubt, it should be allowed. There will obviously always be a grey area, but for the time being, a lot of good can be done, without any harm.

Retric 7y ago

WHO guidelines around masks are not being contradicted by local laws. Both say masks are useful to reduce the spread. That’s different than saying 5g causes the disease, or worse hand washing compromises the immune system and should be avoided.

captainbland 7y ago

I think that would only be contradictory if the WHO advice said strictly don't wear a mask otherwise. In this case you're still free to choose to wear a mask even if the WHO doesn't say you should, or if local laws require it so it's not a contradiction even though it's not the exact same advice/requirement.

aembleton 7y ago
Do the WHO tell you not to drink disinfectant? I guess that means it would be fine to release a video saying that this will provide you with protection.
- captainbland 7y ago
  No they already ban videos that encourage people to take actions which would be physically harmful to themselves or others.

smdz 7y ago

In some countries like India, it is mandatory to wear masks. And you could be beaten up by the police, punished, penalized, arrested and jailed for not doing so. That goes completely against the WHO guidelines. Can they ban the country's government? The mixed messages did leave me confused in the initial stages until major TV channels broadcasted what the government wanted. Until then I thought the news was a rumor.

mgamache 7y ago

Of course there is one truth. We may not know it now or ever, and might be really nuanced. That doesn't excuse the institutions we ask to guard our health from dispensing obvious misinformation. The WHO and CDC are lying for different reasons about masks. The WHO downplayed the virus against evidence in January when it should have been letting the world know of the threat. This virus is mild compared to what will (probably) eventually happen.

jonbutton 7y ago

The WHO advice you are referring to is pertaining to medical masks (clearly stated in the section title of that page "When and how to wear medical masks to protect against coronavirus?") Medical masks need to be used only if you have a proper reason to prevent the unavailability of stock to healthcare people.