6 ms·

From down-playing the threat of COVID-19 in the early stages to the mixed messaging on mask effectiveness and the timidly inconsistent guidelines for managing t

From down-playing the threat of COVID-19 in the early stages to the mixed messaging on mask effectiveness and the timidly inconsistent guidelines for managing the outbreak, I've lost trust in both the WHO and the CDC. This issue only erodes that trust further. I fear the erosion in trust between the public and public health agencies is causing permanent damage in our abilities to mitigate future disasters. I have the same distrust for social services that purportedly protect kids from abuse yet turn kids over to abusive foster parents. There's zero accountability for the damage these events contribute to and if you ask the people in charge they just shrug their shoulders.

themihai 6y ago
The health issue is complex and as such the right decisions are complex as well. I guess WHO and CDC could have issued guidelines to keep a permanent lock-down until a vaccine is found or at least until the virus is better understood but there are political, social and economic issues and WHO and CDC are in the middle of this big mess.
- fuckyah 6y ago
  You are kidding right? There’s no studies that prove lockdowns are effective
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
How did WHO downplay the threat of the virus? They've pretty consistently given good advice on how to handle the outbreak, and countries that have done the things they've emphasized (notably, test, trace and isolate) have done well.
- ericlewis 6y ago
  I would assume by downplay they mean: “didn’t call it a pandemic when everyone else thought it was one”
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    A lot of people think that deciding to call an outbreak a "pandemic" is an important step that triggers action. It's not. The important step - the one with real legal consequences - is the declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The WHO declared a PHEIC on 30 January, about a month and a half before they called the outbreak a "pandemic." One WHO official made a funny statement in which he expressed his annoyance with ignorant journalists who don't know that using the word "pandemic" isn't important, in terms of the actual public health response and the procedures laid down in the International Health Regulations: > A sign of the WHO’s frustration was visible during a news conference this week – one of around 30 hour-long briefings the WHO has held for international media since the COVID-19 outbreak began. A senior official who had been asked repeatedly by journalists about whether the disease constituted a pandemic gave a half-joking but tetchy response: "This is a word you love, right? You just can't wait, can you?" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-messaging-insi/who-officials-rethink-epidemic-messaging-amid-pandemic-debate-idUSKBN2101AY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-me...
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      But this article indicates that using the word "pandemic" is important. It describes how the pandemic declaration in 2009 "triggered some countries to take expensive measures", and explains that the WHO refused to say "pandemic" because they thought it implies the disease can't be controlled.
      - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        The word "pandemic" is not a major trigger in public health. PHEIC is the trigger. "Pandemic" may have psychological significance to many people, especially those who don't know about global public health policy and have never heard of the term "PHEIC." The WHO feared that the psychological impact of using the term might actually be counterproductive, because it signals that the spread of the disease cannot be controlled. In any case, SARS-COV-2 objectively did not become a pandemic until long after a PHEIC was declared.
- beamatronic 6y ago
  They have been worse than useless. There was a point where they told the public that masks don’t help. And recently one of their leaders said that “asymptotic transmission is rare” which is a deadly lie. It was retracted, but incalculable damage is done by these mixed, inconsistent messages.
  - lbeltrame 6y ago
    > their leaders said that “asymptotic transmission is rare” which is a deadly lie How it is a lie? People talk a lot about the presence of asymptomatic transmission, but: 1. No one knows for sure if completely asymptomatic people are contagious, and the extent of such contagiousness; 2. People equate asymptomatic with presymptomatic, which is a totally different story; 3. The evidence is at best, inconsistent. There is one case report of a non-contagious "asymptomatic" (reading the paper, the symptoms were there, just not the usual ones), and Singapore contact tracing of a number of completely asymptomatic people did not seem to find infected people in contact with them. Presymptomatic state is a different matter, and it looks more contagious, but again, a lot of it is speculation, because it's really hard to measure. This transmission is there. The extent of it is not known.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    They've been giving the best available information available at the time. > There was a point where they told the public that masks don’t help. Because that was a widespread belief among researchers at the time. > recently one of their leaders said that “asymptotic transmission is rare” which is a deadly lie. First, it wasn't a "lie," and using that hyperbolic language is not helpful. Second, there is still a lot of confusion within the scientific community about whether asymptomatic transmission actually is important. Studying transmission is really difficult. Further, the WHO official did not definitively state that asymptomatic transmission is rare. She made it clear that the whole question is very uncertain at the moment - because it is. > incalculable damage is done by these mixed, inconsistent messages. The message is mixed because the state of knowledge about a lot of aspects of this virus is uncertain or changing. It's impossible (and undesirable) to be 100% consistent when the state of knowledge changes. What is actually damaging is that people are attacking the WHO and trying to destroy it, because it hasn't met the impossible standard (omniscience about a novel virus) that the critics are setting. The WHO has done a very difficult job fairly well, and is being most viciously attacked by precisely the country that has had one of the most incompetent responses to the outbreak.
soundsop 6y ago
> I fear the erosion in trust between the public and public health agencies is causing permanent damage in our abilities to mitigate future disasters No, it just means communities/towns/cities/counties/states should not cede responsibility to the bureaucratic organizations. I think this pandemic will make us safer in the future because local authorities will not trust the WHO or the CDC and move forward with their own planning and actions.

themihai 6y ago

The health issue is complex and as such the right decisions are complex as well. I guess WHO and CDC could have issued guidelines to keep a permanent lock-down until a vaccine is found or at least until the virus is better understood but there are political, social and economic issues and WHO and CDC are in the middle of this big mess.

fuckyah 6y ago
You are kidding right? There’s no studies that prove lockdowns are effective

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

How did WHO downplay the threat of the virus? They've pretty consistently given good advice on how to handle the outbreak, and countries that have done the things they've emphasized (notably, test, trace and isolate) have done well.

ericlewis 6y ago
I would assume by downplay they mean: “didn’t call it a pandemic when everyone else thought it was one”
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  A lot of people think that deciding to call an outbreak a "pandemic" is an important step that triggers action. It's not. The important step - the one with real legal consequences - is the declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The WHO declared a PHEIC on 30 January, about a month and a half before they called the outbreak a "pandemic." One WHO official made a funny statement in which he expressed his annoyance with ignorant journalists who don't know that using the word "pandemic" isn't important, in terms of the actual public health response and the procedures laid down in the International Health Regulations: > A sign of the WHO’s frustration was visible during a news conference this week – one of around 30 hour-long briefings the WHO has held for international media since the COVID-19 outbreak began. A senior official who had been asked repeatedly by journalists about whether the disease constituted a pandemic gave a half-joking but tetchy response: "This is a word you love, right? You just can't wait, can you?" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-messaging-insi/who-officials-rethink-epidemic-messaging-amid-pandemic-debate-idUSKBN2101AY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-me...
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But this article indicates that using the word "pandemic" is important. It describes how the pandemic declaration in 2009 "triggered some countries to take expensive measures", and explains that the WHO refused to say "pandemic" because they thought it implies the disease can't be controlled.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      The word "pandemic" is not a major trigger in public health. PHEIC is the trigger. "Pandemic" may have psychological significance to many people, especially those who don't know about global public health policy and have never heard of the term "PHEIC." The WHO feared that the psychological impact of using the term might actually be counterproductive, because it signals that the spread of the disease cannot be controlled. In any case, SARS-COV-2 objectively did not become a pandemic until long after a PHEIC was declared.
beamatronic 6y ago
They have been worse than useless. There was a point where they told the public that masks don’t help. And recently one of their leaders said that “asymptotic transmission is rare” which is a deadly lie. It was retracted, but incalculable damage is done by these mixed, inconsistent messages.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  > their leaders said that “asymptotic transmission is rare” which is a deadly lie How it is a lie? People talk a lot about the presence of asymptomatic transmission, but: 1. No one knows for sure if completely asymptomatic people are contagious, and the extent of such contagiousness; 2. People equate asymptomatic with presymptomatic, which is a totally different story; 3. The evidence is at best, inconsistent. There is one case report of a non-contagious "asymptomatic" (reading the paper, the symptoms were there, just not the usual ones), and Singapore contact tracing of a number of completely asymptomatic people did not seem to find infected people in contact with them. Presymptomatic state is a different matter, and it looks more contagious, but again, a lot of it is speculation, because it's really hard to measure. This transmission is there. The extent of it is not known.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  They've been giving the best available information available at the time. > There was a point where they told the public that masks don’t help. Because that was a widespread belief among researchers at the time. > recently one of their leaders said that “asymptotic transmission is rare” which is a deadly lie. First, it wasn't a "lie," and using that hyperbolic language is not helpful. Second, there is still a lot of confusion within the scientific community about whether asymptomatic transmission actually is important. Studying transmission is really difficult. Further, the WHO official did not definitively state that asymptomatic transmission is rare. She made it clear that the whole question is very uncertain at the moment - because it is. > incalculable damage is done by these mixed, inconsistent messages. The message is mixed because the state of knowledge about a lot of aspects of this virus is uncertain or changing. It's impossible (and undesirable) to be 100% consistent when the state of knowledge changes. What is actually damaging is that people are attacking the WHO and trying to destroy it, because it hasn't met the impossible standard (omniscience about a novel virus) that the critics are setting. The WHO has done a very difficult job fairly well, and is being most viciously attacked by precisely the country that has had one of the most incompetent responses to the outbreak.

soundsop 6y ago

> I fear the erosion in trust between the public and public health agencies is causing permanent damage in our abilities to mitigate future disasters No, it just means communities/towns/cities/counties/states should not cede responsibility to the bureaucratic organizations. I think this pandemic will make us safer in the future because local authorities will not trust the WHO or the CDC and move forward with their own planning and actions.