5 ms·

> the WHO contradicted itself many times during the pandemic Did they? I remember them revising their guidance, which seems like something one would expect dur

> the WHO contradicted itself many times during the pandemic Did they? I remember them revising their guidance, which seems like something one would expect during an emerging crisis, but I don't remember them directly contradicting themselves.

rogerrogerr 1y ago
As super low hanging fruit: June 8, 2020: WHO: Data suggests it's "very rare" for coronavirus to spread through asymptomatics [0] June 9, 2020: WHO expert backtracks after saying asymptomatic transmission 'very rare' [1] 0: https://www.axios.com/2020/06/08/who-coronavirus-asymptomatic-patients?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.axios.com/2020/06/08/who-coronavirus-asymptomati... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/09/who-expert-backtracks-after-saying-asymptomatic-transmission-very-rare?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/09/who-expert-bac... Of course, if we just take the most recent thing they said as "revised guidance", I guess it's impossible for them to contradict themselves. Just rapidly re-re-re-revised guidance.
- 1oooqooq 1y ago
  they also changed the symptoms definitions, so ...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - danparsonson 1y ago
    So as researchers learned more about COVID the WHO should've just ignored any new findings and stuck to their initial guidance? This is absurd.
    - 1oooqooq 1y ago
      no and that was my point. parent connect was stuck on one change and ignoring the other, when it makes perfect sense when you see all changes
- brookst 1y ago
  Is there a difference between an expert opinion in the midst of a pandemic and an organizational recommendation?
  - rogerrogerr 1y ago
    Sure seemed like you'd get kicked off YouTube equally fast for questioning either one.
    - thinkingtoilet 1y ago
      Oh stop it. There was rampant misinformation on youtube all through out the pandemic.
      - mensetmanusman 1y ago
        And unfortunately much of it was spread by official institutions like the WHO.
        pylotlight 1y ago
        and the governments, all of which who were bought and paid for by...... big pharma. This comment was brought to you by Pfizer
      - rogerrogerr 1y ago
        Like that the novel coronavirus first seen in Wuhan may have come from the Wuhan Novel Coronavirus Lab? Yeah, that was banished to the dark corners of Reddit until Jon Stewart said the obvious, and he was considered too big to censor.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        No. People were talking about it all over.
        1y ago
- margalabargala 1y ago
  The difference between a contradiction and a revision is the difference between parallel and serial. I'm not aware that the WHO ever claimed simultaneously contradictory things. Obviously, rapid revisions during a period of emerging data makes YouTube's policy hard to enforce fairly. Do you remove things that were in line with the WHO when they were published? When they were made? Etc
  - zmgsabst 1y ago
    You’re removing people who were correct before the WHO revised their position.
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      That is the problem I discuss in my third paragraph, yes.
    - noncoml 1y ago
      Were they correct because they studied the data or because it just happened that their propaganda for once aligned with the truth? A broken clock says the right time twice a day, that doesn’t mean much. ps: I don’t support the bans but you argument seems flawed to me.
  - naasking 1y ago
    A censorship policy that changes daily is a shitty policy. If people on June 8th criticized that official position before they reversed the next day, do you think it was right or a good idea for them to be censored?
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      > A censorship policy that changes daily is a shitty policy. Yes. > If people on June 8th criticized that official position before they reversed the next day, do you think it was right or a good idea for them to be censored? Obviously not. Like I pointed out to the other commenter, if you were to read the comment of mine you replied to, I have a whole paragraph discussing that. Not sure why you're asking again.
- danparsonson 1y ago
  OK and if you said something that you later realised to be wrong, would you be contradicting yourself by correcting it? What should they have done in this situation? People do make mistakes, speak out of turn, say the wrong thing sometimes; I don't think we should criticise someone in that position who subsequently fixes their error. And within a couple of days in this case! That's a good thing. They screwed up and then fixed it. What am I missing here?
  - f33d5173 1y ago
    Them correcting themselves isn't a bad thing. The point is that it would be absolutely retarded to require that people never disagree with the WHO. Please try and follow the thread of the conversation and not take it down these pointless tangents.
    - danparsonson 1y ago
      No, the point (and my original reply) is that correcting themselves is not the same as contradicting themselves. I didn't say anything about never disagreeing with them, and it's not a tangent, I'm replying to replies to my original comment.
      - f33d5173 1y ago
        You're arguing over language, which is arbitrary. We can choose to define the words however we like. Utterly pointless
  - stinkbeetle 1y ago
    When you're a global organization who is pushing for the censorship of any dissent or questioning of your proclamations, it's really on you not to say one thing one day then the opposite the next day, isn't it? They could have taken some care to make sure their data and analysis was sound before making these kinds of statements. If you posted to YouTube that it is very rare for asymptomatics to spread the disease, would you be banned? What if you posted it on the 9th in the hours between checking their latest guidance and their guidance changing? What if you posted it on the 8th but failed to remove it by the 10th? What if you disagreed with their guidance they gave on the 8th and posted something explaining your stance? Would you still get banned if your heresy went unnoticed by YouTube's censors until the 10th at which time it now aligns with WHO's new position? Banned not for spreading misinformation, but for daring to question the secular high priests?
wdr1 1y ago
> Did they? They said it was a fact that COVID is NOT airborne. (It is.) Not they believed it wasn't airborne. Not that data was early but indicated it wasn't airborne. That it was fact. In fact, they published fact checks on social media asserting that position. Here is one example on the official WHO Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/WHO/posts/3019704278074935/?locale=hu_HU&_rdr https://www.facebook.com/WHO/posts/3019704278074935/?locale=...
- danparsonson 1y ago
  None of that argues that they contradicted themselves. You and several others have just hijacked this thread to pile on the WHO. Argue that they were incompetent in their handling of it, sure, whatever. That's not the comment you're replying to.
Manuel_D 1y ago
Some WHO reports were suggesting that lockdowns do more harm than good as early as late 2020.

rogerrogerr 1y ago

As super low hanging fruit: June 8, 2020: WHO: Data suggests it's "very rare" for coronavirus to spread through asymptomatics [0] June 9, 2020: WHO expert backtracks after saying asymptomatic transmission 'very rare' [1] 0: https://www.axios.com/2020/06/08/who-coronavirus-asymptomatic-patients?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.axios.com/2020/06/08/who-coronavirus-asymptomati... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/09/who-expert-backtracks-after-saying-asymptomatic-transmission-very-rare?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/09/who-expert-bac... Of course, if we just take the most recent thing they said as "revised guidance", I guess it's impossible for them to contradict themselves. Just rapidly re-re-re-revised guidance.

1oooqooq 1y ago
they also changed the symptoms definitions, so ...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- danparsonson 1y ago
  So as researchers learned more about COVID the WHO should've just ignored any new findings and stuck to their initial guidance? This is absurd.
  - 1oooqooq 1y ago
    no and that was my point. parent connect was stuck on one change and ignoring the other, when it makes perfect sense when you see all changes
brookst 1y ago
Is there a difference between an expert opinion in the midst of a pandemic and an organizational recommendation?
- rogerrogerr 1y ago
  Sure seemed like you'd get kicked off YouTube equally fast for questioning either one.
  - thinkingtoilet 1y ago
    Oh stop it. There was rampant misinformation on youtube all through out the pandemic.
    - mensetmanusman 1y ago
      And unfortunately much of it was spread by official institutions like the WHO.
      - pylotlight 1y ago
        and the governments, all of which who were bought and paid for by...... big pharma. This comment was brought to you by Pfizer
    - rogerrogerr 1y ago
      Like that the novel coronavirus first seen in Wuhan may have come from the Wuhan Novel Coronavirus Lab? Yeah, that was banished to the dark corners of Reddit until Jon Stewart said the obvious, and he was considered too big to censor.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        No. People were talking about it all over.
        1y ago
margalabargala 1y ago
The difference between a contradiction and a revision is the difference between parallel and serial. I'm not aware that the WHO ever claimed simultaneously contradictory things. Obviously, rapid revisions during a period of emerging data makes YouTube's policy hard to enforce fairly. Do you remove things that were in line with the WHO when they were published? When they were made? Etc
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  You’re removing people who were correct before the WHO revised their position.
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    That is the problem I discuss in my third paragraph, yes.
  - noncoml 1y ago
    Were they correct because they studied the data or because it just happened that their propaganda for once aligned with the truth? A broken clock says the right time twice a day, that doesn’t mean much. ps: I don’t support the bans but you argument seems flawed to me.
- naasking 1y ago
  A censorship policy that changes daily is a shitty policy. If people on June 8th criticized that official position before they reversed the next day, do you think it was right or a good idea for them to be censored?
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    > A censorship policy that changes daily is a shitty policy. Yes. > If people on June 8th criticized that official position before they reversed the next day, do you think it was right or a good idea for them to be censored? Obviously not. Like I pointed out to the other commenter, if you were to read the comment of mine you replied to, I have a whole paragraph discussing that. Not sure why you're asking again.
danparsonson 1y ago
OK and if you said something that you later realised to be wrong, would you be contradicting yourself by correcting it? What should they have done in this situation? People do make mistakes, speak out of turn, say the wrong thing sometimes; I don't think we should criticise someone in that position who subsequently fixes their error. And within a couple of days in this case! That's a good thing. They screwed up and then fixed it. What am I missing here?
- f33d5173 1y ago
  Them correcting themselves isn't a bad thing. The point is that it would be absolutely retarded to require that people never disagree with the WHO. Please try and follow the thread of the conversation and not take it down these pointless tangents.
  - danparsonson 1y ago
    No, the point (and my original reply) is that correcting themselves is not the same as contradicting themselves. I didn't say anything about never disagreeing with them, and it's not a tangent, I'm replying to replies to my original comment.
    - f33d5173 1y ago
      You're arguing over language, which is arbitrary. We can choose to define the words however we like. Utterly pointless
- stinkbeetle 1y ago
  When you're a global organization who is pushing for the censorship of any dissent or questioning of your proclamations, it's really on you not to say one thing one day then the opposite the next day, isn't it? They could have taken some care to make sure their data and analysis was sound before making these kinds of statements. If you posted to YouTube that it is very rare for asymptomatics to spread the disease, would you be banned? What if you posted it on the 9th in the hours between checking their latest guidance and their guidance changing? What if you posted it on the 8th but failed to remove it by the 10th? What if you disagreed with their guidance they gave on the 8th and posted something explaining your stance? Would you still get banned if your heresy went unnoticed by YouTube's censors until the 10th at which time it now aligns with WHO's new position? Banned not for spreading misinformation, but for daring to question the secular high priests?

wdr1 1y ago

> Did they? They said it was a fact that COVID is NOT airborne. (It is.) Not they believed it wasn't airborne. Not that data was early but indicated it wasn't airborne. That it was fact. In fact, they published fact checks on social media asserting that position. Here is one example on the official WHO Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/WHO/posts/3019704278074935/?locale=hu_HU&_rdr https://www.facebook.com/WHO/posts/3019704278074935/?locale=...

danparsonson 1y ago
None of that argues that they contradicted themselves. You and several others have just hijacked this thread to pile on the WHO. Argue that they were incompetent in their handling of it, sure, whatever. That's not the comment you're replying to.

Manuel_D 1y ago

Some WHO reports were suggesting that lockdowns do more harm than good as early as late 2020.