4 ms·

> 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back

by knzhou 6y ago

> 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one saying that specific studies haven’t yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they’d managed to find were tied to the market). The WHO never, ever said that it can’t be transmitted, and they absolutely never said that people should do nothing about COVID-19. They were urging nations to act for months before they actually did. > 4. Masks don't work (but health workers need them!). They don't say masks don't work either, they say that health workers need them more. Here you need to remember that the W stands for "World". They worry the most about the poorer countries who have much fewer masks available.

langitbiru 6y ago
"they said that healt workers need them more" -> WHO could say that normal people should use cloth masks (not surgical/N95 masks). Problem solved. I still think WHO made a blunder in their recommendation about mask usage.
- Kiro 6y ago
  Why would they say that when there is no scientific consensus yet?
  - langitbiru 6y ago
    We already had experience with similar type of virus (SARS). Based on this experience, Korea and Taiwan did just fine. Why couldn't WHO?
jfoster 6y ago
> Here you need to remember that the W stands for "World". So they give dubious advice to the entire world since the good advice doesn't perfectly fit the world in entirety? There are many better options: don't give advice, explain two sets of advice, ask for advice from governments to be followed, make the advice generic enough that it still applies to the world. An example of advice that might apply anywhere in the world: "Face coverings will help to reduce transmission. In most parts of the world, masks will be in short supply and needed by health care workers much more than the general population. Masks can be made from any type of cloth. Although these may not have the same efficacy as high grade masks and the efficacy will be dependent upon the material used as well as the degree of seal against the face, these will help to reduce transmission."
- Kiro 6y ago
  Just because countries have mandated a mask requirement doesn't mean there is a scientific consensus yet. You all talk like this it's a fact that masks for the broad public will actually help. In my country the general advice is the opposite. We simply don't know so I'm not surprised that WHO hasn't taken a firm stance yet.
  - jfoster 6y ago
    Is there any credible hypothesis on it not reducing transmission?
triyambakam 6y ago
You've certainly repeated this same comment a number of times, maybe it helps you feel like you believe it more. The WHO tweeted about a study with a preliminary conclusion that there is no human to human transmission. Whatever other statements that the WHO made, you seem to be denying that by tweeting this they did not by default endorse the results. They added no other context - they shouldn't tweet something they don't believe is true and they shouldn't expect everyone to always read their other sources if they contrast with their Twitter account.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  > there is no human to human transmission "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus" There is a world of difference between "no human to human transmission" as you claim they said and "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" as they actually said. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
  - triyambakam 6y ago
    I fail to see this world of difference. Can you explain?
    - fmoralesc 6y ago
      It's the difference between: - There is no evidence that P - There is evidence that NOT-P (without accounting for whether higher order evidence [evidence of evidence] counts as first-order evidence).
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      "There is no alien life in the universe" vs "There is no clear evidence of alien life in the universe". Or say I have a jug containing marbles. I tell you there are either ninety-nine yellow marbles and one blue or one hundred yellow marbles. I'll draw 10 marbles and you pick "no blue" or "no clear evidence of blue" as your statement. If you're wrong, you owe $1M to charity. I've drawn 10 yellow. Which statement do you pick?
zimpenfish 6y ago
> The WHO never, ever said that it can’t be transmitted They did, however, say that there was "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission". That claim in GP's post is at least partially accurate if disingenuous for argument's sake (I would counter that "no clear evidence" is a much less strong claim than "no evidence".) https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
roenxi 6y ago
Go to their daily situation report and search it for "Taiwan". An entire country isn't there. Now I don't particularly care whether they want to list Taiwan or not, but the only reason for that decision (when they are listing places like the Holy See!) is because they are moderating their position based on Chinese interests. This is basically conversation ending evidence that the WHO is willing to act as a mouthpiece for Communist Party positions. That really should be it as far as YouTube's decision is concerned. The WHO are not an appropriate source for deciding what media people see. No body where the CPC is involved is. The CPC is not trustworthy; they can and will abuse the trust YouTube is placing in a body they have serious influence.
- freddie_mercury 6y ago
  Why should the WHO recognize Taiwan as a country when the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and all of Europe do not? Expecting more from the WHO than you expect from the members who fund it seems insupportable.
  - paulnechifor 6y ago
    Many countries do "recognize" Taiwan unofficially, but surely matters of life or death should be treated a bit differently. It's disgraceful that WHO refused information requests from Taiwan and to see senior officials feigning deafness when questioned about Taiwan.

by knzhou 6y ago

langitbiru 6y ago

"they said that healt workers need them more" -> WHO could say that normal people should use cloth masks (not surgical/N95 masks). Problem solved. I still think WHO made a blunder in their recommendation about mask usage.

Kiro 6y ago
Why would they say that when there is no scientific consensus yet?
- langitbiru 6y ago
  We already had experience with similar type of virus (SARS). Based on this experience, Korea and Taiwan did just fine. Why couldn't WHO?

jfoster 6y ago

> Here you need to remember that the W stands for "World". So they give dubious advice to the entire world since the good advice doesn't perfectly fit the world in entirety? There are many better options: don't give advice, explain two sets of advice, ask for advice from governments to be followed, make the advice generic enough that it still applies to the world. An example of advice that might apply anywhere in the world: "Face coverings will help to reduce transmission. In most parts of the world, masks will be in short supply and needed by health care workers much more than the general population. Masks can be made from any type of cloth. Although these may not have the same efficacy as high grade masks and the efficacy will be dependent upon the material used as well as the degree of seal against the face, these will help to reduce transmission."

Kiro 6y ago
Just because countries have mandated a mask requirement doesn't mean there is a scientific consensus yet. You all talk like this it's a fact that masks for the broad public will actually help. In my country the general advice is the opposite. We simply don't know so I'm not surprised that WHO hasn't taken a firm stance yet.
- jfoster 6y ago
  Is there any credible hypothesis on it not reducing transmission?

triyambakam 6y ago

You've certainly repeated this same comment a number of times, maybe it helps you feel like you believe it more. The WHO tweeted about a study with a preliminary conclusion that there is no human to human transmission. Whatever other statements that the WHO made, you seem to be denying that by tweeting this they did not by default endorse the results. They added no other context - they shouldn't tweet something they don't believe is true and they shouldn't expect everyone to always read their other sources if they contrast with their Twitter account.

zimpenfish 6y ago
> there is no human to human transmission "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus" There is a world of difference between "no human to human transmission" as you claim they said and "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" as they actually said. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
- triyambakam 6y ago
  I fail to see this world of difference. Can you explain?
  - fmoralesc 6y ago
    It's the difference between: - There is no evidence that P - There is evidence that NOT-P (without accounting for whether higher order evidence [evidence of evidence] counts as first-order evidence).
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    "There is no alien life in the universe" vs "There is no clear evidence of alien life in the universe". Or say I have a jug containing marbles. I tell you there are either ninety-nine yellow marbles and one blue or one hundred yellow marbles. I'll draw 10 marbles and you pick "no blue" or "no clear evidence of blue" as your statement. If you're wrong, you owe $1M to charity. I've drawn 10 yellow. Which statement do you pick?

zimpenfish 6y ago

> The WHO never, ever said that it can’t be transmitted They did, however, say that there was "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission". That claim in GP's post is at least partially accurate if disingenuous for argument's sake (I would counter that "no clear evidence" is a much less strong claim than "no evidence".) https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152

roenxi 6y ago

Go to their daily situation report and search it for "Taiwan". An entire country isn't there. Now I don't particularly care whether they want to list Taiwan or not, but the only reason for that decision (when they are listing places like the Holy See!) is because they are moderating their position based on Chinese interests. This is basically conversation ending evidence that the WHO is willing to act as a mouthpiece for Communist Party positions. That really should be it as far as YouTube's decision is concerned. The WHO are not an appropriate source for deciding what media people see. No body where the CPC is involved is. The CPC is not trustworthy; they can and will abuse the trust YouTube is placing in a body they have serious influence.

freddie_mercury 6y ago
Why should the WHO recognize Taiwan as a country when the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and all of Europe do not? Expecting more from the WHO than you expect from the members who fund it seems insupportable.
- paulnechifor 6y ago
  Many countries do "recognize" Taiwan unofficially, but surely matters of life or death should be treated a bit differently. It's disgraceful that WHO refused information requests from Taiwan and to see senior officials feigning deafness when questioned about Taiwan.