3 ms·
It's pedantically accurate but grossly irresponsible for an agency that has such influence. Such a statement should only be uttered in scientific circles where
by hnracer 6y ago
It's pedantically accurate but grossly irresponsible for an agency that has such influence. Such a statement should only be uttered in scientific circles where the precise meaning of that statement is understood.
"No evidence" is falsely interpreted by the layperson as evidence of absence, or at least that there isn't a good reason to expect it to be true. But given the asymmetric costs involved, it is exactly the wrong assumption that people need to make.
Assume there is airborne transmission -> low cost but hedge extreme downside risk.
Assume there is no airborne transmission -> slightly lower cost, but huge downside risk if incorrect.
Policymakers were misled by the WHO.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> Such a statement should only be uttered in scientific circles where the precise meaning of that statement is understood. > Policymakers were misled by the WHO. Man, if only "policy makers" had access to "scientific circles" so they could stop getting their public health pandemic response ideas from reading Twitter.
- hnracer 6y agoGiven the number of politicians and media figures (who have influence over politicians) going along with the "no evidence" line early on, I believe the deleterious impact that I mentioned was real and significant. That's only ~10% of the reason that people are critical of the WHO though. They also refused to declare a pandemic until until weeks after it had spread globally, even though early R estimates were around 3, which delayed countries' ability to respond quickly. They wouldn't recommend masks until months into the pandemic, even though similar viruses such as SARS were airborne. The list of heinous mistakes is laundry-list long.