3 ms·

Taiwan did not warn the WHO. Go read the actual letter, it was verbatim of what was released by China. Go read the WHO press release again. It literally said

Taiwan did not warn the WHO. Go read the actual letter, it was verbatim of what was released by China. Go read the WHO press release again. It literally said "no evidence of human to human transmission" at the time. It did not say "NO HUMAN TO HUMAN TRANSMISSION." Stop spreading FUD.

alasdair_ 6y ago
In the December 31 2019 email, Taiwan specifically references seven cases of “atypical pneumonia” as well as mentioning it was not found to be SARS (and by implication that it may be something else). Taiwan’s position is that by making it clear the new diaease was an was “atypical pneumonia”, it could reasonably be inferred that human to human transmission was likely. The WHO claiming “no evidence” after this was pointed out to them is the issue - there was some evidence, even if it wasn’t conclusive. Taiwan’s statement is here: https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/ListContent/sOn2_m9QgxKqhZ7omgiz1A?uaid=PAD-lbwDHeN_bLa-viBOuw https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/ListContent/sOn2_m9QgxKqhZ7o...
- dirtyid 6y ago
  Bluntly, Taiwan lied as part of a coordinated propaganda campaign by US and Taiwan [1] [2]. This was around the time western media articles started spinning up revisionist Taiwan WHO stories. Nevermind, it's literally impossible for Taiwan to know epidemiological characteristics of covid19 on Dec31 when their first imported case was on Jan21. It's propaganda, not even good one since it assumes time travel. Taiwan's email is basically what Chinese CDC reported to publicly [3] and to WHO [4] verbatim, note date and content - SARs like viral pneumonia treated in isolation which is standard practice. They provided zero addition information and tried to swing it as new information retroactively to manipulate public opinion. Taiwan's own CDC deputy director of disease control quoted in early January that H2H could not be determined until new cases are confirmed after Jan14 [5]. [1] https://apnews.com/a0b22f45f0cbc8e83e7d496dd2e09556 https://apnews.com/a0b22f45f0cbc8e83e7d496dd2e09556 [2] https://www.state.gov/virtual-forum-on-expanding-taiwans-participation-on-the-global-stage/ https://www.state.gov/virtual-forum-on-expanding-taiwans-par... [3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pneumonia/chinese-officials-investigate-cause-of-pneumonia-outbreak-in-wuhan-idUSKBN1YZ0GP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pneumonia/ch... [4] https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unkown-cause-china/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unk... [5] https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202001060113.aspx https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202001060113.aspx
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But I feel like there's an equivocation on "determined" here. Taiwan was screening passengers from Wuhan from the beginning of January; even if they didn't know human to human transmission occurred, they clearly thought it was a good thing to presume.
    - dirtyid 6y ago
      I think any sensible epidemiology response would presume H2H to be possible if the unknown viral pneumonia is compared to SARS. The fact is Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore response are all inline with WHO recommendations to screen, test, trace and isolate on Jan23. Early Jan screening, pre testkit, was basically temperature checks that is insufficient given asymptomatic transmission. Most East Asian countries did this as well, but in retrospect it was essentially security theater. The only deviation in response was early travel bans to China (initially only to Hubei) but this was also AFTER Hubei lockdown which was a pretty clear broadcast that the situation was serious. I would argue also unnecessary since imported cases statistics from these countries (and others) demonstrate covid19 never spread much in China. For example, Taiwan repatriation ~1000 out of Wuhan with 1 positive test. At the end of the day, countries that took prompt actions based off WHO recommendations did well and without massive civic disruptions. The countries that waited too long suffered.
- throw54673 6y ago
  This is the actual email, it does not mention human to human transmission. > "News resources today indicate that at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, CHINA. Their health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not SARS; however the samples are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment. I would greatly appreciate it if you have relevant information to share with us. Thank you very much in advance for your attention to this matter." https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202004110004 https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202004110004 Remember, when WHO says, “no evidence,” it means there is currently no scientific evidence to prove it, not that it can’t happen. Anecdotes are not evidence.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    I agree it does not use the words “human to human transmission”. At the same time, Taiwan claims that by calling it “atypical pneumonia” there was an inference that human to human transmission was possible, or even likely, and so as a result the claim of “no evidence” by the WHO was overstated. Taiwan is likely also overstating their case. That being said, if the exact same information was passed to the WHO from, say, Germany, it is quite likely it would have been taken with more seriousness. Taiwan being excluded from the WHO to placate China is a bad thing if your primary focus is world health. Politics should play no part.

alasdair_ 6y ago

In the December 31 2019 email, Taiwan specifically references seven cases of “atypical pneumonia” as well as mentioning it was not found to be SARS (and by implication that it may be something else). Taiwan’s position is that by making it clear the new diaease was an was “atypical pneumonia”, it could reasonably be inferred that human to human transmission was likely. The WHO claiming “no evidence” after this was pointed out to them is the issue - there was some evidence, even if it wasn’t conclusive. Taiwan’s statement is here: https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/ListContent/sOn2_m9QgxKqhZ7omgiz1A?uaid=PAD-lbwDHeN_bLa-viBOuw https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/ListContent/sOn2_m9QgxKqhZ7o...

dirtyid 6y ago
Bluntly, Taiwan lied as part of a coordinated propaganda campaign by US and Taiwan [1] [2]. This was around the time western media articles started spinning up revisionist Taiwan WHO stories. Nevermind, it's literally impossible for Taiwan to know epidemiological characteristics of covid19 on Dec31 when their first imported case was on Jan21. It's propaganda, not even good one since it assumes time travel. Taiwan's email is basically what Chinese CDC reported to publicly [3] and to WHO [4] verbatim, note date and content - SARs like viral pneumonia treated in isolation which is standard practice. They provided zero addition information and tried to swing it as new information retroactively to manipulate public opinion. Taiwan's own CDC deputy director of disease control quoted in early January that H2H could not be determined until new cases are confirmed after Jan14 [5]. [1] https://apnews.com/a0b22f45f0cbc8e83e7d496dd2e09556 https://apnews.com/a0b22f45f0cbc8e83e7d496dd2e09556 [2] https://www.state.gov/virtual-forum-on-expanding-taiwans-participation-on-the-global-stage/ https://www.state.gov/virtual-forum-on-expanding-taiwans-par... [3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pneumonia/chinese-officials-investigate-cause-of-pneumonia-outbreak-in-wuhan-idUSKBN1YZ0GP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pneumonia/ch... [4] https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unkown-cause-china/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unk... [5] https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202001060113.aspx https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202001060113.aspx
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  But I feel like there's an equivocation on "determined" here. Taiwan was screening passengers from Wuhan from the beginning of January; even if they didn't know human to human transmission occurred, they clearly thought it was a good thing to presume.
  - dirtyid 6y ago
    I think any sensible epidemiology response would presume H2H to be possible if the unknown viral pneumonia is compared to SARS. The fact is Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore response are all inline with WHO recommendations to screen, test, trace and isolate on Jan23. Early Jan screening, pre testkit, was basically temperature checks that is insufficient given asymptomatic transmission. Most East Asian countries did this as well, but in retrospect it was essentially security theater. The only deviation in response was early travel bans to China (initially only to Hubei) but this was also AFTER Hubei lockdown which was a pretty clear broadcast that the situation was serious. I would argue also unnecessary since imported cases statistics from these countries (and others) demonstrate covid19 never spread much in China. For example, Taiwan repatriation ~1000 out of Wuhan with 1 positive test. At the end of the day, countries that took prompt actions based off WHO recommendations did well and without massive civic disruptions. The countries that waited too long suffered.
throw54673 6y ago
This is the actual email, it does not mention human to human transmission. > "News resources today indicate that at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, CHINA. Their health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not SARS; however the samples are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment. I would greatly appreciate it if you have relevant information to share with us. Thank you very much in advance for your attention to this matter." https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202004110004 https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202004110004 Remember, when WHO says, “no evidence,” it means there is currently no scientific evidence to prove it, not that it can’t happen. Anecdotes are not evidence.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  I agree it does not use the words “human to human transmission”. At the same time, Taiwan claims that by calling it “atypical pneumonia” there was an inference that human to human transmission was possible, or even likely, and so as a result the claim of “no evidence” by the WHO was overstated. Taiwan is likely also overstating their case. That being said, if the exact same information was passed to the WHO from, say, Germany, it is quite likely it would have been taken with more seriousness. Taiwan being excluded from the WHO to placate China is a bad thing if your primary focus is world health. Politics should play no part.