5 ms·

"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCo

"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China," https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=20 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=20

edejong 6y ago
Absence of evidence of an effect does not entail evidence of absence of that effect.
- xref 6y ago
  Not sure what you're trying to say about the WHOs ongoing evidence gathering in the context of this tweet?
zknz 6y ago
That's not a denial. It's a we have yet to confirm.
- tomp 6y ago
  But surely the prudent, cautious way of wording a non-denial would be "no clear evidence of the impossibility of human-to-human transmission"?
  - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
    And how do you go about testing that hypothesis except for placing infected people next to uninfected people and watching for them to become infected? Their phrasing is correct and so is their methodology.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  That’s totally true, but I don’t think it should be controversial to say that the WHO lied by omission, and that their statement was intentionally intended to convince countries _not_ to lock down.
  - knzhou 6y ago
    "No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the early stages that it was too soon to be sure. All the other tweets from this period are saying the same thing: something might be coming, so countries should prepare.
- hhw 6y ago
  It may not have explicitly stated that there was no human to human transmission, but that was strongly suggestive that there wasn’t. The default assumption should be, that a virus affecting hundreds of people already, could be contagious. Suggesting otherwise, with no reasonable evidence to support such, is deliberately obfuscating if not deliberately misleading. There was absolutely no reason to make such a statement other than to parrot without question what was being reported by the PRC. Considering Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus received support from the PRC in his candidacy for leadership of the WHO, and the significant ties between his home country of Ethiopia and the PRC, I’m skeptical that it was just absolute ignorance without any political influence or bias that prompted such a statement.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jimsmart 6y ago
Actually, technically that is the WHO summarising results from preliminary investigations by the Chinese authorities. Saying that that is the WHO making that claim is incorrect, a kind of logical fallacy. It's like a newspaper reporting on the words/claims of a celeb or politician, and folk claiming that those words/claims were actually the newspaper's claims.
- throwaway_jobs 6y ago
  > Saying that that is the WHO making that claim is incorrect, a kind of logical fallacy. WHO is in fact making that claim at the behest of China. The are not reporting like a newspaper as you claim, because a newspaper would have a duty to investigate the claims, the WHO just took China at their word and republished it. WHO is the UNs international health organization and they are supposed to be independent. The onus is on the WHO to publish this alleged “preliminary investigation” referenced by the Chinese Authorities (hint: it does not exist). Once they admit there was no actual written report of the “preliminary investigation” or data provided by the Chinese Authorities, then they can identify the actual Chinese Authority who made the representations to the WHO, and we can continue to peal back the layers.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Do you think repeating propaganda designed to cover-up a huge outbreak is responsible for such an organization? At the time of that tweet they had zero access to China.

edejong 6y ago

Absence of evidence of an effect does not entail evidence of absence of that effect.

xref 6y ago
Not sure what you're trying to say about the WHOs ongoing evidence gathering in the context of this tweet?

zknz 6y ago

That's not a denial. It's a we have yet to confirm.

tomp 6y ago
But surely the prudent, cautious way of wording a non-denial would be "no clear evidence of the impossibility of human-to-human transmission"?
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  And how do you go about testing that hypothesis except for placing infected people next to uninfected people and watching for them to become infected? Their phrasing is correct and so is their methodology.
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
That’s totally true, but I don’t think it should be controversial to say that the WHO lied by omission, and that their statement was intentionally intended to convince countries _not_ to lock down.
- knzhou 6y ago
  "No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the early stages that it was too soon to be sure. All the other tweets from this period are saying the same thing: something might be coming, so countries should prepare.
hhw 6y ago
It may not have explicitly stated that there was no human to human transmission, but that was strongly suggestive that there wasn’t. The default assumption should be, that a virus affecting hundreds of people already, could be contagious. Suggesting otherwise, with no reasonable evidence to support such, is deliberately obfuscating if not deliberately misleading. There was absolutely no reason to make such a statement other than to parrot without question what was being reported by the PRC. Considering Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus received support from the PRC in his candidacy for leadership of the WHO, and the significant ties between his home country of Ethiopia and the PRC, I’m skeptical that it was just absolute ignorance without any political influence or bias that prompted such a statement.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jimsmart 6y ago

Actually, technically that is the WHO summarising results from preliminary investigations by the Chinese authorities. Saying that that is the WHO making that claim is incorrect, a kind of logical fallacy. It's like a newspaper reporting on the words/claims of a celeb or politician, and folk claiming that those words/claims were actually the newspaper's claims.

throwaway_jobs 6y ago
> Saying that that is the WHO making that claim is incorrect, a kind of logical fallacy. WHO is in fact making that claim at the behest of China. The are not reporting like a newspaper as you claim, because a newspaper would have a duty to investigate the claims, the WHO just took China at their word and republished it. WHO is the UNs international health organization and they are supposed to be independent. The onus is on the WHO to publish this alleged “preliminary investigation” referenced by the Chinese Authorities (hint: it does not exist). Once they admit there was no actual written report of the “preliminary investigation” or data provided by the Chinese Authorities, then they can identify the actual Chinese Authority who made the representations to the WHO, and we can continue to peal back the layers.
0xy 6y ago
Do you think repeating propaganda designed to cover-up a huge outbreak is responsible for such an organization? At the time of that tweet they had zero access to China.