5 ms·

Or in January 2020 if it was contagious at all: https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152

ceejayoz 6y ago
People keep mixing up “absence of evidence” and “evidence of absence” with this tweet. There is no reason to believe the WHO was in possession of secret evidence of human-to-human transmission on that date, and they noted that it was entirely possible said evidence would emerge soon. It did shortly afterwards.
- IshKebab 6y ago
  Despite the common saying, absence of evidence is evidence of absence a lot of the time. To put it in boring mathematical terms. If you have a bag filled with a million playing cards, and you inspect 1000 of them and they're all red, that's pretty good evidence that there aren't any black cards in the bag! But blind followers of the "absence of evidence" dogma would say "No it isn't! Just because you haven't found a black card yet doesn't say anything about whether there are any black cards at all." which is clearly nonsense. The differentiating factor is have you looked? I think it's reasonable for people to assume the WHO had actually investigated how people contracted covid (otherwise why bother tweeting?), in which case them saying "[we looked but] we couldn't find any evidence of human to human transmission" is clearly misleading.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    No, see, this is precisely the problem. You're just making up a different version of the tweet to fit your narrative. > I think it's reasonable for people to assume the WHO had actually investigated how people contracted covid... The tweet explicitly says "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities". The WHO team didn't get there until Jan 20. https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit-wuhan-china-jan-2020 https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit... > otherwise why bother tweeting? Because everyone was wondering at the time if they had the evidence yet. > "[we looked but] we couldn't find any evidence of human to human transmission" is clearly misleading That's not what they said, though.
    - IshKebab 6y ago
      > Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities Right it doesn't matter who looks, just that someone does. The Chinese looked! And they didn't find any evidence of human-to-human transmission. That is evidence that there isn't any. Not very compelling evidence but still evidence.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > That is evidence that there isn't any. Again, this is a bit you're adding out of nowhere. The WHO did not make that claim in the tweet, and is quoted on the same day as that tweet saying evidence of human-to-transmission is likely to emerge.
- offby37years 6y ago
  Should discussion of election fraud be stifled due to “absence of evidence” then?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    People alleging election fraud should present evidence of it. People alleging human-to-human transmission of a pathogen should similarly present evidence of it. Within a week of that tweet, the WHO had said evidence in hand. (https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit-wuhan-china-jan-2020 https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit...)
    - offby37years 6y ago
      > People alleging election fraud should present evidence of it. Agreed, which is exactly why the topic should not be verboten.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        It isn't. They slap a warning label on clear falsehoods. (Not very effectively, I might add. If you think the subject can't be discussed on Twitter, you don't use Twitter much.) Trump's suspension was for inciting violence.
        swader999 6y ago
        That was the first phase, now you are banned if you suggest or present evidence contrary to the outcome.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        I suspect we have differing definitions of evidence.
        swader999 6y ago
paganel 6y ago
As late as early February 2020 being concerned about the coronavirus meant you risked being labeled as a right-wing, Trump-lover, conspiracy theorist. One of the first Twitter accounts that was getting the straight facts out of Wuhan starting with late January was this lady [1], and because she had written for Epoch Times (among other things) of course meant that everything she was saying was potentially a big, fat lie meant to denigrate the Chinese. I was told as such by at least one user on this very website back then. [1] https://twitter.com/jenniferatntd https://twitter.com/jenniferatntd

ceejayoz 6y ago

People keep mixing up “absence of evidence” and “evidence of absence” with this tweet. There is no reason to believe the WHO was in possession of secret evidence of human-to-human transmission on that date, and they noted that it was entirely possible said evidence would emerge soon. It did shortly afterwards.

IshKebab 6y ago
Despite the common saying, absence of evidence is evidence of absence a lot of the time. To put it in boring mathematical terms. If you have a bag filled with a million playing cards, and you inspect 1000 of them and they're all red, that's pretty good evidence that there aren't any black cards in the bag! But blind followers of the "absence of evidence" dogma would say "No it isn't! Just because you haven't found a black card yet doesn't say anything about whether there are any black cards at all." which is clearly nonsense. The differentiating factor is have you looked? I think it's reasonable for people to assume the WHO had actually investigated how people contracted covid (otherwise why bother tweeting?), in which case them saying "[we looked but] we couldn't find any evidence of human to human transmission" is clearly misleading.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  No, see, this is precisely the problem. You're just making up a different version of the tweet to fit your narrative. > I think it's reasonable for people to assume the WHO had actually investigated how people contracted covid... The tweet explicitly says "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities". The WHO team didn't get there until Jan 20. https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit-wuhan-china-jan-2020 https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit... > otherwise why bother tweeting? Because everyone was wondering at the time if they had the evidence yet. > "[we looked but] we couldn't find any evidence of human to human transmission" is clearly misleading That's not what they said, though.
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    > Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities Right it doesn't matter who looks, just that someone does. The Chinese looked! And they didn't find any evidence of human-to-human transmission. That is evidence that there isn't any. Not very compelling evidence but still evidence.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > That is evidence that there isn't any. Again, this is a bit you're adding out of nowhere. The WHO did not make that claim in the tweet, and is quoted on the same day as that tweet saying evidence of human-to-transmission is likely to emerge.
offby37years 6y ago
Should discussion of election fraud be stifled due to “absence of evidence” then?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  People alleging election fraud should present evidence of it. People alleging human-to-human transmission of a pathogen should similarly present evidence of it. Within a week of that tweet, the WHO had said evidence in hand. (https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit-wuhan-china-jan-2020 https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit...)
  - offby37years 6y ago
    > People alleging election fraud should present evidence of it. Agreed, which is exactly why the topic should not be verboten.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      It isn't. They slap a warning label on clear falsehoods. (Not very effectively, I might add. If you think the subject can't be discussed on Twitter, you don't use Twitter much.) Trump's suspension was for inciting violence.
      - swader999 6y ago
        That was the first phase, now you are banned if you suggest or present evidence contrary to the outcome.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        I suspect we have differing definitions of evidence.
        swader999 6y ago

paganel 6y ago

As late as early February 2020 being concerned about the coronavirus meant you risked being labeled as a right-wing, Trump-lover, conspiracy theorist. One of the first Twitter accounts that was getting the straight facts out of Wuhan starting with late January was this lady [1], and because she had written for Epoch Times (among other things) of course meant that everything she was saying was potentially a big, fat lie meant to denigrate the Chinese. I was told as such by at least one user on this very website back then. [1] https://twitter.com/jenniferatntd https://twitter.com/jenniferatntd