10 ms·

Notably (from NPR): >However WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stressed in a statement it "does not meet the criteria of pandemic emergency" and

Notably (from NPR): >However WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stressed in a statement it "does not meet the criteria of pandemic emergency" and advised countries against closing their borders.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
rob_c 5mo ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > "no evidence of human to human transmission" Directly contradicted by the WHO: "...spreads from person to person through direct contact with the blood, secretions, organs, or other bodily fluids of infected individuals or contaminated surfaces" [1]. [1] https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2026-DON602 https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2...
  - dpark 5mo ago
    That’s a reference to the early Covid 19 investigations/reporting. https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      Ooooh, got it.
    - mindslight 5mo ago
      People always bring this up as if there is some collective responsibility for they themselves having believed an obviously politically motivated narrative. Like personally I'd just take some responsibility, admit I was suckered, and try to do better in the future. But rather with the context of how it's brought up, it's clear they're just still at it buying into new nonsense political narratives. "Can't get fooled again"
      - dpark 5mo ago
        You could interpret this kind of statement as a hardline “never trust anything the government says” stance. You could also interpret it as espousing healthy skepticism. You can’t tell which it is from a one line comment, so it’s not at all clear the person who said this is buying into any particular political narrative.
        mindslight 5mo ago
        I'd call it unhealthy skepticism. Someone who is operating at the level where they might have blindly trusted what the WHO says does not need a push that merely makes them more skeptical of the WHO while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators sending narratives their way.
        dpark 5mo ago
        > while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators You insist on assuming based on a one-line comment that the person is a gullible sheeple. And maybe they are, but I fail to see how you have established this.
        mindslight 5mo ago
        It's the exact same one line comment made by lots of other people advocating a particularly malevolent political movement, so yes this is the reasonable inference (your inflammatory description notwithstanding). If OP intended some nuanced point, they didn't do the work to expound upon it. And while I certainly have sympathy for how intellectual libertarian discussion points get colonized by populist authoritarian movements, the dynamic is what it is.
dkga 5mo ago
I suspect this is to mitigate perverse incentives for countries to avoid reporting outbreaks and collaborating with the WHO for fear of tanking their economy

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

rob_c 5mo ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> "no evidence of human to human transmission" Directly contradicted by the WHO: "...spreads from person to person through direct contact with the blood, secretions, organs, or other bodily fluids of infected individuals or contaminated surfaces" [1]. [1] https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2026-DON602 https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2...
- dpark 5mo ago
  That’s a reference to the early Covid 19 investigations/reporting. https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    Ooooh, got it.
  - mindslight 5mo ago
    People always bring this up as if there is some collective responsibility for they themselves having believed an obviously politically motivated narrative. Like personally I'd just take some responsibility, admit I was suckered, and try to do better in the future. But rather with the context of how it's brought up, it's clear they're just still at it buying into new nonsense political narratives. "Can't get fooled again"
    - dpark 5mo ago
      You could interpret this kind of statement as a hardline “never trust anything the government says” stance. You could also interpret it as espousing healthy skepticism. You can’t tell which it is from a one line comment, so it’s not at all clear the person who said this is buying into any particular political narrative.
      - mindslight 5mo ago
        I'd call it unhealthy skepticism. Someone who is operating at the level where they might have blindly trusted what the WHO says does not need a push that merely makes them more skeptical of the WHO while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators sending narratives their way.
        dpark 5mo ago
        > while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators You insist on assuming based on a one-line comment that the person is a gullible sheeple. And maybe they are, but I fail to see how you have established this.
        mindslight 5mo ago
        It's the exact same one line comment made by lots of other people advocating a particularly malevolent political movement, so yes this is the reasonable inference (your inflammatory description notwithstanding). If OP intended some nuanced point, they didn't do the work to expound upon it. And while I certainly have sympathy for how intellectual libertarian discussion points get colonized by populist authoritarian movements, the dynamic is what it is.

dkga 5mo ago

I suspect this is to mitigate perverse incentives for countries to avoid reporting outbreaks and collaborating with the WHO for fear of tanking their economy