5 ms·

Ouch! I feel exactly like when the WHO stated once and again “NOT A PANDEMIC!!” And then, just because a silly observational threshold was passed “PANDEMIC!!!

Ouch! I feel exactly like when the WHO stated once and again “NOT A PANDEMIC!!” And then, just because a silly observational threshold was passed “PANDEMIC!!!!!”. Same as “not recession/recession” just because of a silly totally arbitrary threshold...

FooBarWidget 7y ago
What exactly do you expect? If we can predict a recession, the world wouldn't have recessions. There's a reason why the label "pandemic" is purely an observational threshold and not a warning for what's to come.
Gwypaas 7y ago
Because they in the next breath said it had potential to become a pandemic if no intervention is done? At the same time declaring it an emergency outbreak of a novel virus? Words have meaning, and pandemic a very specific one. Would you have declared SARS a pandemic when the first cases started to show up simply because it's a scary virus?
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  A pandemic actually had an incredibly vague meaning. It’s been the topic of heated debate amongst epidemiologists for quite a while. You can read this [0] to get a hint of vague it all is, and if you look, you’ll find plenty of different highly qualified perspectives on the topic. The WHO waited until it spread to over 100 countries before it called it a pandemic. This wasn’t because it had crossed a very specific threshold to become classified as one. It was an opinionated decision. It wasn’t supported by a strict technical definition, or academic concensus. Because those things don’t exist. The definition of a pandemic is very simple: > an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people Laymen are perfectly capable of understanding this, and forming their own perfectly reasonable opinions about it themselves. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize the WHO’s decision making around this, and they absolutely don’t have a technical definition to hide behind. [0]: http://www9.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/ http://www9.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  They need to change how they communicate this though. It shouldn't be binary. It was clear to me that this would become a pandemic by mid January and hearing them say it isn't a pandemic was disheartening even though it was clinically correct. Perhaps they sound introduce probability to pre-pandemic viruses. Something like the doomsday clock.
  - antientropic 7y ago
    "Would become a pandemic" is not the same as "is a pandemic". Why is it disheartening? The WHO wasn't saying this virus was not a threat of becoming a pandemic.
    - croon 7y ago
      I think he's inferring that it's lawyer-speak. There's a lot of grey area within "wasn't saying this virus was not a threat of becoming a pandemic". It's a problem I see a lot in technical people (often somewhat on the spectrum). They communicate everything technically correct, but with complete disregard for how the nuances in framing alters the perception to other people. You can argue that the recipient is responsible for assessing everything they hear/read correctly, but I would put equal responsibility on how you choose to communicate yourself. We're drifting somewhat from the context, but the main one affected by how other people interpret me is me, so I have a lot of incentive to self-reflect on how I'm perceived. "Falling out of an airplane doesn't kill you" might be technically correct, but it betrays the very concept of communication.
    - rorykoehler 7y ago
      It's not aligned with how media communication works these days. People only hear the "not a pandemic" part.
      - notahacker 7y ago
        I don't think anyone who wasn't intrinsically sceptical of 'might become a pandemic', or otherwise highly motivated to dismiss warnings about potential pandemics heard the WHO and thought 'absolutely nothing to worry about here'. How media communication works is that the disease was hyped as a major threat to humanity in January (why would we even be hearing about a disease in China otherwise?), but everybody still downplaying the threat in late March is furiously spinning that they didn't receive any warning
7952 7y ago
It's not arbitrary though. Genetic variation is common within a particular species. Some humans have red hair. That doesn't mean they are substantively different. What the author is saying is that differences seen in Corona virus are also not substantive.
mikekchar 7y ago
Sorry to piggy back on your post. I'm not intending to aim this at you, but it made me think. I'm finding a lot of the current reactions to Covid-19 are pretty similar to the stages of grief. Denial - It's not really a problem. We don't have to disrupt our lives. It will all disappear in a few weeks. It's all a conspiracy theory. Anger - If (some organisation) had done their job, we wouldn't be in this mess! It's all the fault of the (some country)! Bargaining - If we get the new cases below X (or wait for X weeks), then we can all go back to our normal lives. I did what I'm supposed to do, you can't tell me I have to shelter in place any longer (well, a little bit of anger mixed in there) Depression - We are so screwed. That's it. The world as we knew it is over. Our politicians, health organisations, etc are so incompetent that there is no escape. Acceptance - Yep. It's a bad situation alright. However, it will pass eventually. It will be difficult for people. A lot of people will die. A lot will lose their jobs. The economy will probably be hurting for a very long time, but we will come out of it eventually.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  And just like grief, you cycle through some or all of the stages repeatedly.
- joshstrange 6y ago
  You might find this article on "Adjustment Reactions: The Teachable Moment in Crisis Communication" [0] (1/17/05) interesting. I found out about it through the peak prosperity daily COVID-19 updates [1] back in mid-March. [0] https://www.psandman.com/col/teachable.htm https://www.psandman.com/col/teachable.htm [1] https://youtu.be/ogf6Hru2trE?list=PLRgTUN1zz_oeQpnJxpeaEkFimDeepqyWf&t=714 https://youtu.be/ogf6Hru2trE?list=PLRgTUN1zz_oeQpnJxpeaEkFim... (queued up to when he talks about this article)
Chris2048 7y ago
Maybe they just need to turn the term into a scalar? i.e. "This outbreak has 45% pandemicity!"

FooBarWidget 7y ago

What exactly do you expect? If we can predict a recession, the world wouldn't have recessions. There's a reason why the label "pandemic" is purely an observational threshold and not a warning for what's to come.

Gwypaas 7y ago

Because they in the next breath said it had potential to become a pandemic if no intervention is done? At the same time declaring it an emergency outbreak of a novel virus? Words have meaning, and pandemic a very specific one. Would you have declared SARS a pandemic when the first cases started to show up simply because it's a scary virus?

AmericanChopper 7y ago
A pandemic actually had an incredibly vague meaning. It’s been the topic of heated debate amongst epidemiologists for quite a while. You can read this [0] to get a hint of vague it all is, and if you look, you’ll find plenty of different highly qualified perspectives on the topic. The WHO waited until it spread to over 100 countries before it called it a pandemic. This wasn’t because it had crossed a very specific threshold to become classified as one. It was an opinionated decision. It wasn’t supported by a strict technical definition, or academic concensus. Because those things don’t exist. The definition of a pandemic is very simple: > an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people Laymen are perfectly capable of understanding this, and forming their own perfectly reasonable opinions about it themselves. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize the WHO’s decision making around this, and they absolutely don’t have a technical definition to hide behind. [0]: http://www9.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/ http://www9.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/
rorykoehler 7y ago
They need to change how they communicate this though. It shouldn't be binary. It was clear to me that this would become a pandemic by mid January and hearing them say it isn't a pandemic was disheartening even though it was clinically correct. Perhaps they sound introduce probability to pre-pandemic viruses. Something like the doomsday clock.
- antientropic 7y ago
  "Would become a pandemic" is not the same as "is a pandemic". Why is it disheartening? The WHO wasn't saying this virus was not a threat of becoming a pandemic.
  - croon 7y ago
    I think he's inferring that it's lawyer-speak. There's a lot of grey area within "wasn't saying this virus was not a threat of becoming a pandemic". It's a problem I see a lot in technical people (often somewhat on the spectrum). They communicate everything technically correct, but with complete disregard for how the nuances in framing alters the perception to other people. You can argue that the recipient is responsible for assessing everything they hear/read correctly, but I would put equal responsibility on how you choose to communicate yourself. We're drifting somewhat from the context, but the main one affected by how other people interpret me is me, so I have a lot of incentive to self-reflect on how I'm perceived. "Falling out of an airplane doesn't kill you" might be technically correct, but it betrays the very concept of communication.
  - rorykoehler 7y ago
    It's not aligned with how media communication works these days. People only hear the "not a pandemic" part.
    - notahacker 7y ago
      I don't think anyone who wasn't intrinsically sceptical of 'might become a pandemic', or otherwise highly motivated to dismiss warnings about potential pandemics heard the WHO and thought 'absolutely nothing to worry about here'. How media communication works is that the disease was hyped as a major threat to humanity in January (why would we even be hearing about a disease in China otherwise?), but everybody still downplaying the threat in late March is furiously spinning that they didn't receive any warning

7952 7y ago

It's not arbitrary though. Genetic variation is common within a particular species. Some humans have red hair. That doesn't mean they are substantively different. What the author is saying is that differences seen in Corona virus are also not substantive.

mikekchar 7y ago

Sorry to piggy back on your post. I'm not intending to aim this at you, but it made me think. I'm finding a lot of the current reactions to Covid-19 are pretty similar to the stages of grief. Denial - It's not really a problem. We don't have to disrupt our lives. It will all disappear in a few weeks. It's all a conspiracy theory. Anger - If (some organisation) had done their job, we wouldn't be in this mess! It's all the fault of the (some country)! Bargaining - If we get the new cases below X (or wait for X weeks), then we can all go back to our normal lives. I did what I'm supposed to do, you can't tell me I have to shelter in place any longer (well, a little bit of anger mixed in there) Depression - We are so screwed. That's it. The world as we knew it is over. Our politicians, health organisations, etc are so incompetent that there is no escape. Acceptance - Yep. It's a bad situation alright. However, it will pass eventually. It will be difficult for people. A lot of people will die. A lot will lose their jobs. The economy will probably be hurting for a very long time, but we will come out of it eventually.

rootusrootus 7y ago
And just like grief, you cycle through some or all of the stages repeatedly.
joshstrange 6y ago
You might find this article on "Adjustment Reactions: The Teachable Moment in Crisis Communication" [0] (1/17/05) interesting. I found out about it through the peak prosperity daily COVID-19 updates [1] back in mid-March. [0] https://www.psandman.com/col/teachable.htm https://www.psandman.com/col/teachable.htm [1] https://youtu.be/ogf6Hru2trE?list=PLRgTUN1zz_oeQpnJxpeaEkFimDeepqyWf&t=714 https://youtu.be/ogf6Hru2trE?list=PLRgTUN1zz_oeQpnJxpeaEkFim... (queued up to when he talks about this article)

Chris2048 7y ago

Maybe they just need to turn the term into a scalar? i.e. "This outbreak has 45% pandemicity!"