5 ms·

Are you implying that the WHO's statements in the first few months of 2020 removes the credibility of the claim that the pandemic did not to be this bad? I'm wi

by zethus 5y ago

Are you implying that the WHO's statements in the first few months of 2020 removes the credibility of the claim that the pandemic did not to be this bad? I'm with you that it should have been sooner than March 11, 2020 to declare COVID-19 as a pandemic, but the response of almost every country in the world in following year was lackluster at best to prevent widespread mutation opportunities.

hajile 5y ago
I disagree with their premise. Humanity has NEVER stopped the propagation of a disease which is airborne, mutates rapidly, and is well-adjusted to human physiology. SARS wasn't well adapted and not particularly airborne which is why it was reined in. MERS was better adapted and cases STILL pop up NINE YEARS LATER. We mostly stopped mumps, but it didn't mutate rapidly, so it was stopped dead by the vaccine (though there's still 100-200 cases per year in the US alone). COVID is super-well adapted to infect humans, has changed to mutate around the vaccines, and is very airborne. This alone meant we probably weren't stopping it. Adding to the problem, they wouldn't admit any airborne transmission until it had been transmitting for MONTHS. This fact in particular is why there was zero chance they were stopping this once it started.
AzzieElbab 5y ago
I think you are both saying the same thing, which is the WHO bares large portion of blame for letting the virus develop into perpetual pandemic, and so do most of the our governments
- Tagbert 5y ago
  … and, due to the nature of this type of virus, no human efforts to control it would have been fully effective. We can throw blame around and, in hind sight, we can see how many agencies and people could have acted differently and it might have had some affect but ultimately this pandemic was already underway and anything short of 100% lockdown enforced by armed guards would not stop it.
  - AzzieElbab 5y ago
    that was pretty much the idea behind original lockdown but no rapid testing or red/green zoning got implemented.
    - dougmwne 5y ago
      Once the virus got out of Wuhan it was probably impossible to contain it. By the time the first news hit, it had already spread around the world. First world countries may have been able to copy China's lockdown but the rest of the world would have never been able to contain it and it would have kept seeping in through frozen food chains. This was a practical inevitability and blaming governments or the WHO is just an attempted to rationalize an irrational natural event. That's why I think natural origin is the most likely explanation. There's too much temptation to assign blame to evil gain-of-function researchers or hypocritical public health funding.
      - AzzieElbab 5y ago
        by the time the news hit, all international air-travels could have been shutdown(not just from China), all possible super spreader events could have been shutdown, rapid testing could have been approved, smarter zoning could have been implemented, early mask mandates would have also helped. All would have been possible with smarted government(s) and honest functional WHO. Also, I completely disagree about natural origin of virus since complete lack of evidence, no animal in the wild had been identified as carrier. I do not care whether gain-of-function researchers are evil or benign, but at this time all evidence point to them being guilty
nradov 5y ago
By February 2020 the virus had already spread worldwide and it was simply too late to prevent widespread mutation opportunities. The developing countries where many of the mutations appeared usually lacked the capacity for a really effective pandemic response even if they had wanted to do more. You can't worry too much about mutations when you're struggling just to keep people fed.
raxxorrax 5y ago
You would come to the exact same result if the response had been even more rigid (depends on locality I guess). You could argue that any lockdown just delayed the inevitable. And some already said that this is the only goal until a vaccine is found. Now since we have some and many people had the ability to get vaccinated, it is almost sensible to drop all rules again.

by zethus 5y ago

hajile 5y ago

I disagree with their premise. Humanity has NEVER stopped the propagation of a disease which is airborne, mutates rapidly, and is well-adjusted to human physiology. SARS wasn't well adapted and not particularly airborne which is why it was reined in. MERS was better adapted and cases STILL pop up NINE YEARS LATER. We mostly stopped mumps, but it didn't mutate rapidly, so it was stopped dead by the vaccine (though there's still 100-200 cases per year in the US alone). COVID is super-well adapted to infect humans, has changed to mutate around the vaccines, and is very airborne. This alone meant we probably weren't stopping it. Adding to the problem, they wouldn't admit any airborne transmission until it had been transmitting for MONTHS. This fact in particular is why there was zero chance they were stopping this once it started.

AzzieElbab 5y ago

I think you are both saying the same thing, which is the WHO bares large portion of blame for letting the virus develop into perpetual pandemic, and so do most of the our governments

Tagbert 5y ago
… and, due to the nature of this type of virus, no human efforts to control it would have been fully effective. We can throw blame around and, in hind sight, we can see how many agencies and people could have acted differently and it might have had some affect but ultimately this pandemic was already underway and anything short of 100% lockdown enforced by armed guards would not stop it.
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  that was pretty much the idea behind original lockdown but no rapid testing or red/green zoning got implemented.
  - dougmwne 5y ago
    Once the virus got out of Wuhan it was probably impossible to contain it. By the time the first news hit, it had already spread around the world. First world countries may have been able to copy China's lockdown but the rest of the world would have never been able to contain it and it would have kept seeping in through frozen food chains. This was a practical inevitability and blaming governments or the WHO is just an attempted to rationalize an irrational natural event. That's why I think natural origin is the most likely explanation. There's too much temptation to assign blame to evil gain-of-function researchers or hypocritical public health funding.
    - AzzieElbab 5y ago
      by the time the news hit, all international air-travels could have been shutdown(not just from China), all possible super spreader events could have been shutdown, rapid testing could have been approved, smarter zoning could have been implemented, early mask mandates would have also helped. All would have been possible with smarted government(s) and honest functional WHO. Also, I completely disagree about natural origin of virus since complete lack of evidence, no animal in the wild had been identified as carrier. I do not care whether gain-of-function researchers are evil or benign, but at this time all evidence point to them being guilty

nradov 5y ago

By February 2020 the virus had already spread worldwide and it was simply too late to prevent widespread mutation opportunities. The developing countries where many of the mutations appeared usually lacked the capacity for a really effective pandemic response even if they had wanted to do more. You can't worry too much about mutations when you're struggling just to keep people fed.

raxxorrax 5y ago

You would come to the exact same result if the response had been even more rigid (depends on locality I guess). You could argue that any lockdown just delayed the inevitable. And some already said that this is the only goal until a vaccine is found. Now since we have some and many people had the ability to get vaccinated, it is almost sensible to drop all rules again.