3 ms·

> There is no clear evidence from the preliminary investigation' and 'the preliminary investigation finds that human-to-human transmission is not taking place'

> There is no clear evidence from the preliminary investigation' and 'the preliminary investigation finds that human-to-human transmission is not taking place' are two quite different propositions. Everyone understands the difference. >The WHO opted for an excess of scientific caution No scientific caution would have been independently verifying China’s representations and throughly reviewing their claims before retweeting it to the public.

glenstein 6y ago
>Everyone understands the difference. Not accurate. The commenter that spawned this entire sub-thread claimed that 'no clear evidence' equated to 'does not spread.'
- throwaway_jobs 6y ago
  The commenter who spawned the thread may have worded it that way, but the point is much bigger, the point is the WHO was responsible for spreading misinformation. So even assuming the commenter worded it properly “no clear evidence” WHO tweet is still misinformation to the public because they Tweeted on 01/14/20 but as early as 12/30/19 China had evidence the virus was was being transmitted person to person in the Wuhan hospital, and on 01/08/20 the a Dr. had contracted it.
  - glenstein 6y ago
    So we agree that not everyone understood the difference. The commenter who made that observation was right and you were wrong to brush it away. The loss of that distinction was the basis for at least one person in this thread to wrongly assert the WHO was spreading misinformation. You can't dispute that, so you want to shift to a broader question. I think xster already answered the claims that you are repeating now, and your reply to xster was to expand the conversation even further with even more non-sequiturs and to suggest they were a paid troll. This is the pattern that keeps repeating itself. Someone confidently declares the WHO is spreading misinformation for reasons that turn out to be inaccurate, but take lots of time to refute. And those efforts to focus on previously made statements are met with meandering replies constantly seeking to 'broaden' the conversation.

glenstein 6y ago

>Everyone understands the difference. Not accurate. The commenter that spawned this entire sub-thread claimed that 'no clear evidence' equated to 'does not spread.'

throwaway_jobs 6y ago
The commenter who spawned the thread may have worded it that way, but the point is much bigger, the point is the WHO was responsible for spreading misinformation. So even assuming the commenter worded it properly “no clear evidence” WHO tweet is still misinformation to the public because they Tweeted on 01/14/20 but as early as 12/30/19 China had evidence the virus was was being transmitted person to person in the Wuhan hospital, and on 01/08/20 the a Dr. had contracted it.
- glenstein 6y ago
  So we agree that not everyone understood the difference. The commenter who made that observation was right and you were wrong to brush it away. The loss of that distinction was the basis for at least one person in this thread to wrongly assert the WHO was spreading misinformation. You can't dispute that, so you want to shift to a broader question. I think xster already answered the claims that you are repeating now, and your reply to xster was to expand the conversation even further with even more non-sequiturs and to suggest they were a paid troll. This is the pattern that keeps repeating itself. Someone confidently declares the WHO is spreading misinformation for reasons that turn out to be inaccurate, but take lots of time to refute. And those efforts to focus on previously made statements are met with meandering replies constantly seeking to 'broaden' the conversation.