4 ms·

> As I read [0] it is not, in fact, a blanket declaration about transmissibility. It's still misinformation, and it's specifically misinformation that makes th

> As I read [0] it is not, in fact, a blanket declaration about transmissibility. It's still misinformation, and it's specifically misinformation that makes the WHO complicit in 187,420 deaths and counting. There had been plenty of indications by that point that - even if human-to-human transmission had not yet been confirmed - it was still evidently spreading beyond people at ground zero. That is, I ain't sure how you're able to read it as anything but a blanket declaration. The WHO outright said that there's no evidence of human-to-human transmission; this is an outright lie, given that the sheer number of people by that point who were hospitalized with the virus without ever having visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market would be, I would argue, evidence. > When read [2] it's clear that it is not a blanket declaration not to wear masks. No, but it's advice that - if followed - would make any asymptomatic carrier dangerous. The point of wearing masks is not to prevent yourself from being infected (no mask is sufficient for that), but rather to minimize the risk of you spreading SARS-CoV-2 to other people by breathing on them. The WHO seems to have a chronic pattern of being one or more weeks behind the curve on its assessment of COVID-19 and the mitigation thereof. Needless to say, I trust them about as far as I can throw them (which is 0 meters, given the impossibility of throwing an entire organization), and that YouTube is putting them on any kind of authoritative pedestal despite these blatant missteps is ignorant of that behavioral pattern.

La1n 7y ago
>this is an outright lie, given that the sheer number of people by that point who were hospitalized with the virus without ever having visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market would be, I would argue, evidence. Oh yes, the random programmer who know public health better than actual public health experts. You have not done the research, you were not there. You can argue it's evidence, but arguing something is, is not enough. There are many different ways of transmission, secondly the Huanan Seafood Market was suspected as a source of the virus but it could have come from somewhere else too.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  > Oh yes, the random programmer who know public health better than actual public health experts. Apparently yes, given that it's a bit of a smoking gun. Namely because: > the Huanan Seafood Market was suspected as a source of the virus but it could have come from somewhere else too. It was (to my knowledge) the only suspected source for quite a while (up until the later discovery that the currently-known "patient zero" had no connection to it, and even then it's still considered ground zero for the outbreak). If there was any indication that "it could have come from somewhere else", and that "somewhere else" is evidently a place where even fewer patients in common visited ("evidently" because if it was a common factor it would've been mentioned instead of or alongside the seafood market, and yet... no such location was mentioned), then that serves as even stronger evidence that it's somehow spreading between humans, even if the mechanism is unknown. If even a "random programmer" on Hacker News can point this out, then I strongly suspect there were a number of doctors and nurses and other personnel on the front lines who could have and did point this out, too. Plus, China knew as early as 31 December that the "novel coronavirus" was related to SARS (leaking that info is what got Dr. Li Wenliang in trouble), which was already known to spread human-to-human. Seems like "it looks like SARS and probably has similar spreading mechanisms" would be a reasonable assumption when information is limited: better safe than sorry (and in this case, 180,000+ deaths later, "sorry" indeed). I obviously don't blame the WHO for the entirety of that (or even necessarily China; my government dragged its feet, too, like most governments), but the WHO is certainly not blameless, either, and that it continues to spread misinformation like how not everyone should be wearing masks doesn't leave a whole lot of room for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.
  - La1n 7y ago
    >It was (to my knowledge) the only suspected source for quite a while Yes, but the only suspect does not mean conclusive evidence. >Plus, China knew as early as 31 December that the "novel coronavirus" was related to SARS (leaking that info is what got Dr. Li Wenliang in trouble), This is untrue, Li Wenliang said it was SARS, and it's actually another virus. He did not know it was related to SARS but assumed it was SARS due to the symptoms. edit: secondly he did not leak the information, he send it in a private chat to friends, one of whom leaked it.

La1n 7y ago

>this is an outright lie, given that the sheer number of people by that point who were hospitalized with the virus without ever having visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market would be, I would argue, evidence. Oh yes, the random programmer who know public health better than actual public health experts. You have not done the research, you were not there. You can argue it's evidence, but arguing something is, is not enough. There are many different ways of transmission, secondly the Huanan Seafood Market was suspected as a source of the virus but it could have come from somewhere else too.

yellowapple 7y ago
> Oh yes, the random programmer who know public health better than actual public health experts. Apparently yes, given that it's a bit of a smoking gun. Namely because: > the Huanan Seafood Market was suspected as a source of the virus but it could have come from somewhere else too. It was (to my knowledge) the only suspected source for quite a while (up until the later discovery that the currently-known "patient zero" had no connection to it, and even then it's still considered ground zero for the outbreak). If there was any indication that "it could have come from somewhere else", and that "somewhere else" is evidently a place where even fewer patients in common visited ("evidently" because if it was a common factor it would've been mentioned instead of or alongside the seafood market, and yet... no such location was mentioned), then that serves as even stronger evidence that it's somehow spreading between humans, even if the mechanism is unknown. If even a "random programmer" on Hacker News can point this out, then I strongly suspect there were a number of doctors and nurses and other personnel on the front lines who could have and did point this out, too. Plus, China knew as early as 31 December that the "novel coronavirus" was related to SARS (leaking that info is what got Dr. Li Wenliang in trouble), which was already known to spread human-to-human. Seems like "it looks like SARS and probably has similar spreading mechanisms" would be a reasonable assumption when information is limited: better safe than sorry (and in this case, 180,000+ deaths later, "sorry" indeed). I obviously don't blame the WHO for the entirety of that (or even necessarily China; my government dragged its feet, too, like most governments), but the WHO is certainly not blameless, either, and that it continues to spread misinformation like how not everyone should be wearing masks doesn't leave a whole lot of room for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.
- La1n 7y ago
  >It was (to my knowledge) the only suspected source for quite a while Yes, but the only suspect does not mean conclusive evidence. >Plus, China knew as early as 31 December that the "novel coronavirus" was related to SARS (leaking that info is what got Dr. Li Wenliang in trouble), This is untrue, Li Wenliang said it was SARS, and it's actually another virus. He did not know it was related to SARS but assumed it was SARS due to the symptoms. edit: secondly he did not leak the information, he send it in a private chat to friends, one of whom leaked it.