4 ms·

> "no evidence of human to human transmission" Directly contradicted by the WHO: "...spreads from person to person through direct contact with the blood, secre

> "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 6mo 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 6mo ago
  Ooooh, got it.
- mindslight 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.
        rob_c 6mo ago
        > some nuanced point it's not nuanced to point out a very large statement which at the time was very VERY anti-trumpian and pro ultra-left, lest not forget "hug a tourist", "lets change the popular naming conventions to technical" and, "oh crap too late now human to human is higher than anything we've seen before" which is basically all memory holed now
        mindslight 6mo ago
        [flagged]
  - rob_c 6mo ago
    no, I bring it up as a perfect example on how the w.h.o. came to a political solution despite masses of evidence to the contrary. every. single. time.

dpark 6mo 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 6mo ago
Ooooh, got it.
mindslight 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.
        rob_c 6mo ago
        > some nuanced point it's not nuanced to point out a very large statement which at the time was very VERY anti-trumpian and pro ultra-left, lest not forget "hug a tourist", "lets change the popular naming conventions to technical" and, "oh crap too late now human to human is higher than anything we've seen before" which is basically all memory holed now
        mindslight 6mo ago
        [flagged]
- rob_c 6mo ago
  no, I bring it up as a perfect example on how the w.h.o. came to a political solution despite masses of evidence to the contrary. every. single. time.