4 ms·

IIRC the 'masks wrong' accusation was more about the CDC than the WHO. As I recall, the WHO caught a lot of flak early on for press releases written in strict

IIRC the 'masks wrong' accusation was more about the CDC than the WHO. As I recall, the WHO caught a lot of flak early on for press releases written in strict scientific language that were easily construed to mean something entirely different. They earned a bit of criticism for that, since they should have written those PR bits for the lay audience that it was intended for.

TaupeRanger 6y ago
I fully realize this will incur a mob of downvotes, but the evidence on masks is still unsettled, despite clamoring on social media and some news media. I would encourage people to listen to a balanced view on doctor Vinay Prasad's excellent podcast "Plenary Session". Even mentioning the possibility that this might be true is enough to get shouted down and accused of supporting Trump. In fact, it is quite unclear whether widespread masking is a net positive for US populations. It hasn't been shown to be effective, and there are still many unstudied avenues that could lead to a negative result. Just a couple examples: 1. Giving people a false sense of security, causing them to go out when they feel sick when they otherwise wouldn't. 2. Causing more face-touching behavior while fiddling with the mask, making infection more likely. We just don't know the answer.
andybak 6y ago
The sibling post was rather unjustly flagged. I'm often on the other side of the fence on this but in this case I think it was unfair.
vharuck 6y ago
I've always thought of the WHO as serving an audience of public health experts for the member nations. Then those nations can decide what the best response is within their borders. When I remember back on the news about the other recent pandemic scares (ebola, swine flu, zika), I don't remember hearing any mention of the WHO. I'm sure it happened, but not nearly as much as CDC. We hear about their announcements a lot more often now, but how much is that due to being cast as antagonists by DC?
- vkou 6y ago
  If the Ebola epidemic killed 200,000 people in the United States, due to a completely bungled response by the CDC, you could bet that the supporters of the administration in power at the time would be burning effigies of the WHO.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  That is what the WHO used to do, certainly. It does seem to talk more directly to the press these days, and it's honestly probably not a great idea.
  - vharuck 6y ago
    Going by their news releases page, it doesn't seem like even 2020 has more listings than most years: https://www.who.int/news https://www.who.int/news I'm now leaning more toward my hypothesis that they haven't changed behavior much, but US reporters are citing them now because the current administration brought them into the story. In the past, reporters probably read the WHO announcements but quoted from CDC same academic experts. Again, WHO info is dry.

TaupeRanger 6y ago

I fully realize this will incur a mob of downvotes, but the evidence on masks is still unsettled, despite clamoring on social media and some news media. I would encourage people to listen to a balanced view on doctor Vinay Prasad's excellent podcast "Plenary Session". Even mentioning the possibility that this might be true is enough to get shouted down and accused of supporting Trump. In fact, it is quite unclear whether widespread masking is a net positive for US populations. It hasn't been shown to be effective, and there are still many unstudied avenues that could lead to a negative result. Just a couple examples: 1. Giving people a false sense of security, causing them to go out when they feel sick when they otherwise wouldn't. 2. Causing more face-touching behavior while fiddling with the mask, making infection more likely. We just don't know the answer.

andybak 6y ago

The sibling post was rather unjustly flagged. I'm often on the other side of the fence on this but in this case I think it was unfair.

vharuck 6y ago

I've always thought of the WHO as serving an audience of public health experts for the member nations. Then those nations can decide what the best response is within their borders. When I remember back on the news about the other recent pandemic scares (ebola, swine flu, zika), I don't remember hearing any mention of the WHO. I'm sure it happened, but not nearly as much as CDC. We hear about their announcements a lot more often now, but how much is that due to being cast as antagonists by DC?

vkou 6y ago
If the Ebola epidemic killed 200,000 people in the United States, due to a completely bungled response by the CDC, you could bet that the supporters of the administration in power at the time would be burning effigies of the WHO.
rsynnott 6y ago
That is what the WHO used to do, certainly. It does seem to talk more directly to the press these days, and it's honestly probably not a great idea.
- vharuck 6y ago
  Going by their news releases page, it doesn't seem like even 2020 has more listings than most years: https://www.who.int/news https://www.who.int/news I'm now leaning more toward my hypothesis that they haven't changed behavior much, but US reporters are citing them now because the current administration brought them into the story. In the past, reporters probably read the WHO announcements but quoted from CDC same academic experts. Again, WHO info is dry.