98 ms·

How you read them is irrelevant. What's relevant is that hundreds of thousands of people read the first one, took it at face value, and decided that the coronav

How you read them is irrelevant. What's relevant is that hundreds of thousands of people read the first one, took it at face value, and decided that the coronavirus is not a threat. The WHO definitely misled people with that first one, the only thing up for debate is whether it was deliberately or due to incompetent messaging. GP comment is a bit too categorical but it's not even a contested fact that WHO initially downplayed the epidemic, put out recommendations to keep borders open, and still continues to spread disinformation e.g. about not needing to wear masks. I won't even say anything about the string of corruption allegations and ties to China. And then the fact that WHO basically pretended Taiwan doesn't exist[1] and is clearly aligned with Chinese political interests over even its primary mission. Giving absolute authority over 'truth' to an entity with such a shitty track record is insane. [1]: https://twitter.com/studioincendo/status/1243909358133473285 https://twitter.com/studioincendo/status/1243909358133473285

joshuamorton 6y ago
Can you explain how the WHO is given "absolute authority"? The WHO has a list of medical guidance. I've yet to see anyone in this thread complain about any of the medical guidance the WHO has provided. The most relevant is likely this page: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2.... None of this is controversial. > put out recommendations to keep borders open This is incorrect. The WHO recommended against banning travel from certain parts of the world. Completely closing you borders (to non-citizens) was not covered. You can read the WHO's actual statement[1], and it's well reasoned. The value of unrestricted travel for emergency equipment and personnel outweighs the value of restricted travel from certain areas. But short term restrictions are alright if necessary to build up infrastructure (iow, to flatten the curve temporarily). > about not needing to wear masks. They recommend against random everyday people using medical masks. Given the PPE shortage, this is not unreasonable advice. They defer to local authorities for more stringent recommendations. > And then the fact that WHO basically pretended Taiwan doesn't exist Does this impact their medical advice? [1]: https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...

joshuamorton 6y ago

Can you explain how the WHO is given "absolute authority"? The WHO has a list of medical guidance. I've yet to see anyone in this thread complain about any of the medical guidance the WHO has provided. The most relevant is likely this page: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2.... None of this is controversial. > put out recommendations to keep borders open This is incorrect. The WHO recommended against banning travel from certain parts of the world. Completely closing you borders (to non-citizens) was not covered. You can read the WHO's actual statement[1], and it's well reasoned. The value of unrestricted travel for emergency equipment and personnel outweighs the value of restricted travel from certain areas. But short term restrictions are alright if necessary to build up infrastructure (iow, to flatten the curve temporarily). > about not needing to wear masks. They recommend against random everyday people using medical masks. Given the PPE shortage, this is not unreasonable advice. They defer to local authorities for more stringent recommendations. > And then the fact that WHO basically pretended Taiwan doesn't exist Does this impact their medical advice? [1]: https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...