4 ms·

I can’t believe this is not a new account. Blanket propagandistic statements are not the conversation we have in Hacker News comments.

aguyfromnb 6y ago
>Blanket propagandistic statements Blanket implies "all". Are the OP's following statements incorrect?: "no evidence of Human-to-human spread" when they had evidence, "no evidence of asymptomatic spread" when we all had evidence, "no evidence of aerosol spread" when there was evidence in public view Taiwan warned the WHO with respect to human-to-human transmission. Is this in dispute? https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20200412_01/ https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20200412_01/ >not the conversation we have in Hacker News comments. These are precisely the sorts of conversations people should be having.
- sharken 6y ago
  > These are precisely the sorts of conversations people should be having. Indeed.
- ephemeralism 6y ago
  From your link, the message that Taiwan sent to the WHO: ""News sources indicate at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, China". It also said while China's health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not to be SARS, "they have been isolated for treatment"." Furthermore, from the picture: "I would gladly appreciate if you have relevant information to share with us." So Taiwanese authorities read publicly available news sources about seven atypical pneumonia cases in Wuhan, and because the media reports said the cases were being isolated for treatment, they asked the WHO if they had any additional information. Unless I'm reading it wrong, this does not mean that Taiwan had any additional knowledge other than what they had read from publicly available information.
  - microcolonel 6y ago
    > Unless I'm reading it wrong, this does not mean that Taiwan had any additional knowledge other than what they had read from publicly available information. You are reading it wrong. Taiwan also relayed that PRC doctors were talking to ROC doctors, letting them know that the staff at hospitals were being infected with a new respiratory illness, which would indicate human-to-human spread. They told the WHO about this in December, the WHO continued to contend that there was "no evidence" to suggest human to human spread.
sharken 6y ago
Calling WHO a malicious institution is a bit too much, but let's just say that their track record is far from stellar, some examples: In the 2017/2018 flu season the WHO recommended a trivalent vaccine for the common flu (https://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/virus/recommendations/2017_18_north/en/ https://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/virus/recommendations...) It turned out that another type B variant was the dominant one that year (https://en.ssi.dk/surveillance-and-preparedness/surveillance-in-denmark/annual-reports-on-disease-incidence/influenza-season-2017-2018 https://en.ssi.dk/surveillance-and-preparedness/surveillance...) which caused a total of 1,644 deaths in Denmark, which is almost four times the current death toll for Corona virus in Denmark. Another example: On the 3rd of march the general secretary of the WHO issued this statement: 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-... It says for example this: "Evidence from China is that only 1% of reported cases do not have symptoms, and most of those cases develop symptoms within 2 days." And yet here we are with a 96% asymptomatic rate being reported in a prison. I would rather that the WHO delayed their news flow, instead of reporting too soon on what they think. Oh, and probably they should trust the Chinese regime less than they do.
- makomk 6y ago
  I'm not sure calling them a malicious institution is too much. The WHO pushed hard on the idea that there definitely were no asymptomatic cases and China had confirmed this for sure using arguments that seemed utterly nonsensical - like, they were essentially arguing that asymptomatic cases didn't exist because testing of people with symptoms didn't find them. They had a whole campaign of interviews with US publications to spread this, as part of a broader regurgitation of dubious Chinese propaganda about things like how exactly they contained their own outbreak.

aguyfromnb 6y ago

>Blanket propagandistic statements Blanket implies "all". Are the OP's following statements incorrect?: "no evidence of Human-to-human spread" when they had evidence, "no evidence of asymptomatic spread" when we all had evidence, "no evidence of aerosol spread" when there was evidence in public view Taiwan warned the WHO with respect to human-to-human transmission. Is this in dispute? https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20200412_01/ https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20200412_01/ >not the conversation we have in Hacker News comments. These are precisely the sorts of conversations people should be having.

sharken 6y ago
> These are precisely the sorts of conversations people should be having. Indeed.
ephemeralism 6y ago
From your link, the message that Taiwan sent to the WHO: ""News sources indicate at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, China". It also said while China's health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not to be SARS, "they have been isolated for treatment"." Furthermore, from the picture: "I would gladly appreciate if you have relevant information to share with us." So Taiwanese authorities read publicly available news sources about seven atypical pneumonia cases in Wuhan, and because the media reports said the cases were being isolated for treatment, they asked the WHO if they had any additional information. Unless I'm reading it wrong, this does not mean that Taiwan had any additional knowledge other than what they had read from publicly available information.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  > Unless I'm reading it wrong, this does not mean that Taiwan had any additional knowledge other than what they had read from publicly available information. You are reading it wrong. Taiwan also relayed that PRC doctors were talking to ROC doctors, letting them know that the staff at hospitals were being infected with a new respiratory illness, which would indicate human-to-human spread. They told the WHO about this in December, the WHO continued to contend that there was "no evidence" to suggest human to human spread.

sharken 6y ago

Calling WHO a malicious institution is a bit too much, but let's just say that their track record is far from stellar, some examples: In the 2017/2018 flu season the WHO recommended a trivalent vaccine for the common flu (https://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/virus/recommendations/2017_18_north/en/ https://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/virus/recommendations...) It turned out that another type B variant was the dominant one that year (https://en.ssi.dk/surveillance-and-preparedness/surveillance-in-denmark/annual-reports-on-disease-incidence/influenza-season-2017-2018 https://en.ssi.dk/surveillance-and-preparedness/surveillance...) which caused a total of 1,644 deaths in Denmark, which is almost four times the current death toll for Corona virus in Denmark. Another example: On the 3rd of march the general secretary of the WHO issued this statement: 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-... It says for example this: "Evidence from China is that only 1% of reported cases do not have symptoms, and most of those cases develop symptoms within 2 days." And yet here we are with a 96% asymptomatic rate being reported in a prison. I would rather that the WHO delayed their news flow, instead of reporting too soon on what they think. Oh, and probably they should trust the Chinese regime less than they do.

makomk 6y ago
I'm not sure calling them a malicious institution is too much. The WHO pushed hard on the idea that there definitely were no asymptomatic cases and China had confirmed this for sure using arguments that seemed utterly nonsensical - like, they were essentially arguing that asymptomatic cases didn't exist because testing of people with symptoms didn't find them. They had a whole campaign of interviews with US publications to spread this, as part of a broader regurgitation of dubious Chinese propaganda about things like how exactly they contained their own outbreak.