3 ms·
I'm also glad we have a WHO as central point of information and knowledge. But the WHO could have been more careful with how they put out information. For exam
by thdrdt 6y ago
I'm also glad we have a WHO as central point of information and knowledge.
But the WHO could have been more careful with how they put out information.
For example: "...no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission,...". This was a true statement, there was no evidence at that time. But they also knew what was going on in China. They could have asked themselves: what if it is human-to-human transmittable? Then they would have never used those words, because those words downplayed the potential risks.
I agree with you the media (and governments) blew this up later when the evidence was there. The WHO never said it was not human-to-human transmittable, but words were taken out of context and suddenly the WHO was to blame.
- blackoil 6y agoThe problem is leaders should not be basing decisions on a tweet but by listening to experts they have at hand. e.g. someone like Fauci would have told what that tweet means. The second point, none of the nations did do anything different on 23rd Jan when WHO confirmed the H2H transmission and its severity, so how did that tweet made any difference?
- jml7c5 6y agoIt is worth noting thst the @WHO account tweeted clarification just a few hours later. Whoever made that tweet did not consider their audience correctly, and the resulting misinterpretation is partially on them. But the way it's been spun as some sort of smoking gun is shocking given it is so easy to debunk.