3 ms·

By the time of the tweet, it was pretty well established that there was at least familial spread (aka human to human) in Wuhan. Everyone raised at eyebrow at t

By the time of the tweet, it was pretty well established that there was at least familial spread (aka human to human) in Wuhan. Everyone raised at eyebrow at the tweet because it goes against all observations on the spread, even from official Chinese reports. The WHO is clearly a very conservative and cautious organization. They won't do anything without really good studies and evidence. In this pandemic, though, this staunch stance gives a perception counter to lot of common sense and comes off as inaction.

ceejayoz 6y ago
There was suspicion. There was not "clear evidence" yet (in the WHO's hands, at least; China may have had evidence they weren't sharing). Full timeline here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/trumps-false-claim-that-who-said-coronavirus-was-not-communicable/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/trumps-fa... Later that same day: > Van Kerkhove added, however, that human-to-human transmission would not be surprising given the WHO’s experience with SARS, MERS and other respiratory pathogens. > Van Kerkhove’s message was not lost on reporters. The Telegraph in Britain headlined its article on the news conference: “WHO refuses to rule out human-to-human spread in China’s mystery coronavirus outbreak.” It only took a few more days for the evidence to emerge to the WHO's satisfaction, too. Widespread attempts to justify American officials' inaction in February/March based off the Jan 14 tweet are disingenuous. > Jan. 19 WHO tweet: “An animal source seems the most likely primary source of this novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak, with some limited human-to-human transmission occurring between close contacts.” > Jan. 20 WHO tweet: “It is now very clear from the latest information that there is at least some human-to-human transmission of #nCoV2019. Infections among health care workers strengthen the evidence for this.” At the time, there were only 222 confirmed cases in the world, including four deaths.
sudosysgen 6y ago
If it was a foodborne disease that came from a food market, there could have been perceived familial spread that was really just delayed onset and not H2H. I was personally of the opinion that it was H2H at the time, but taking a few more days and having a complete confirmation was absolutely the right thing to do, given how we wasted that time anyways. There would have been no real upside and many downsides to such a decision for everyone.
newacct583 6y ago
> By the time of the tweet, it was pretty well established that there was at least familial spread That's going to need a cite. But again, you're trying to ding them on a technicality about wording (you've just moved the goalposts from the usual "they said it wasn't contagious!" line) instead of applying what to most folks seems like the obvious interpretation.

ceejayoz 6y ago

There was suspicion. There was not "clear evidence" yet (in the WHO's hands, at least; China may have had evidence they weren't sharing). Full timeline here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/trumps-false-claim-that-who-said-coronavirus-was-not-communicable/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/trumps-fa... Later that same day: > Van Kerkhove added, however, that human-to-human transmission would not be surprising given the WHO’s experience with SARS, MERS and other respiratory pathogens. > Van Kerkhove’s message was not lost on reporters. The Telegraph in Britain headlined its article on the news conference: “WHO refuses to rule out human-to-human spread in China’s mystery coronavirus outbreak.” It only took a few more days for the evidence to emerge to the WHO's satisfaction, too. Widespread attempts to justify American officials' inaction in February/March based off the Jan 14 tweet are disingenuous. > Jan. 19 WHO tweet: “An animal source seems the most likely primary source of this novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak, with some limited human-to-human transmission occurring between close contacts.” > Jan. 20 WHO tweet: “It is now very clear from the latest information that there is at least some human-to-human transmission of #nCoV2019. Infections among health care workers strengthen the evidence for this.” At the time, there were only 222 confirmed cases in the world, including four deaths.

sudosysgen 6y ago

If it was a foodborne disease that came from a food market, there could have been perceived familial spread that was really just delayed onset and not H2H. I was personally of the opinion that it was H2H at the time, but taking a few more days and having a complete confirmation was absolutely the right thing to do, given how we wasted that time anyways. There would have been no real upside and many downsides to such a decision for everyone.

newacct583 6y ago

> By the time of the tweet, it was pretty well established that there was at least familial spread That's going to need a cite. But again, you're trying to ding them on a technicality about wording (you've just moved the goalposts from the usual "they said it wasn't contagious!" line) instead of applying what to most folks seems like the obvious interpretation.