4 ms·

"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.

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.