3 ms·

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

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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
    It's not aligned with how media communication works these days. People only hear the "not a pandemic" part.
    - notahacker 6y 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
      - rorykoehler 6y ago
        I don't disagree with anything you said. I do think a more defensive approach to communication is warranted though. The world is run by people I wouldn't trust to flip a burger.

AmericanChopper 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
  It's not aligned with how media communication works these days. People only hear the "not a pandemic" part.
  - notahacker 6y 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
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      I don't disagree with anything you said. I do think a more defensive approach to communication is warranted though. The world is run by people I wouldn't trust to flip a burger.