5 ms·

Read the article. The headline is not at all supported by the content, which itself is based on a single-word quote from a WHO spokesperson that leaves a great

by timr 4y ago

Read the article. The headline is not at all supported by the content, which itself is based on a single-word quote from a WHO spokesperson that leaves a great deal of doubt about the intent of the comment. Literally the first paragraph of the story contradicts the headline: > The discovery of two cases of bird flu within the same family in Cambodia has highlighted the concern over potential human-to-human spread of the virus, although experts have stressed the risk remains low. By the third paragraph, you will know that human-to-human transmission hasn't even been confirmed in this case. By the fourth paragraph, you will know that the thing "worrying" the WHO is the growth of human cases, not this particular case. Unfortunately, most people don't read past the headline, and the Guardian knows it.

biorach 4y ago
After 2 cases in the same family in Cambodia a director of the WHO says “The global H5N1 situation is worrying given the wide spread of the virus in birds around the world and the increasing reports of cases in mammals including humans,” The Guardian's headline is "WHO says avian flu cases in humans ‘worrying’ after girl’s death in Cambodia" This sounds a) reasonable grounds for worry by someone who studies epidemics and b) an accurate headline by the Guardian.
- timr 4y ago
  > a) reasonable grounds for worry by someone who studies epidemics What does this have to do with the accuracy of the headline? You're just appealing to authority -- but the same authority figure says, in the same article, that the 2 cases in Cambodia may not even be an example of human-to-human transmission: > “So far, it is too early to know if it’s human-to-human transmission or exposure to the same environmental conditions,” Briand told a virtual press conference hosted in Geneva. The line you're quoting also explicitly says that the "worry" is general spread, not this particular example.
  - biorach 4y ago
    They are worried that it may have been human to human transmission. Yes, they say they don't know for sure, but even the possibility is worrying to them. Hence, "worrying" in the title

by timr 4y ago

biorach 4y ago

After 2 cases in the same family in Cambodia a director of the WHO says “The global H5N1 situation is worrying given the wide spread of the virus in birds around the world and the increasing reports of cases in mammals including humans,” The Guardian's headline is "WHO says avian flu cases in humans ‘worrying’ after girl’s death in Cambodia" This sounds a) reasonable grounds for worry by someone who studies epidemics and b) an accurate headline by the Guardian.

timr 4y ago
> a) reasonable grounds for worry by someone who studies epidemics What does this have to do with the accuracy of the headline? You're just appealing to authority -- but the same authority figure says, in the same article, that the 2 cases in Cambodia may not even be an example of human-to-human transmission: > “So far, it is too early to know if it’s human-to-human transmission or exposure to the same environmental conditions,” Briand told a virtual press conference hosted in Geneva. The line you're quoting also explicitly says that the "worry" is general spread, not this particular example.
- biorach 4y ago
  They are worried that it may have been human to human transmission. Yes, they say they don't know for sure, but even the possibility is worrying to them. Hence, "worrying" in the title