the irresponsibility of this article is astounding to me. the headline is misleading and only if you fully read the article AND watch the embedded video, do you understand what the WHO is really saying (which is not what the headline states they are saying)
Government responses should focus on detecting and isolating infected people with symptoms, said the WHO's Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove.www.cnbc.com
What I would give to have a competent government right now. Our dire situation could have been avoided.In New Zealand, which has had the best response to COVID-19. The country is virus free, per their government.
I'm just glad that in my town in Westchester people are being respectful. Everyone is wearing masks - or at least putting the mask on when they approach someone on the sidewalk.I truly wish WHO wasn't insisting people not wear masks at the beginning. I really think that was the biggest single blunder thus far.
My wife, the good Dr. G, is very skeptical about masks. I am hesitant about disagreeing with her on medical issues, but I think this is one area where she’s got it wrong.I'm just glad that in my town in Westchester people are being respectful. Everyone is wearing masks - or at least putting the mask on when they approach someone on the sidewalk.
This is worth reporting but not a big deal if the league handles the situation well, at least through the tournament.
You have to realize that no-one has ever dealt with this virus before. The recommendations are updated when the WHO knows more information.WHO is to blame. WHO has been abysmal with communications. You can't let someone from WHO speak to the press using terms of art like Asymptomatic Spread and then complain when the public think it means what we all think it means. Public communication is arguably the most important part of public health once a crisis erupts, and WHO has no fucking idea how to speak to the public.
This entire thread is recommended, but I will highlight this:
That's an irrelevant general response to specific instances of malfeasance, and it does not apply to any of them. So it's not surprising that you make no attempt to show how it does.You have to realize that no-one has ever dealt with this virus before. The recommendations are updated when the WHO knows more information.
You can’t expect them to have all the perfect answers immediately when all the science around this pandemic has not been completed or literally cannot be determined.
It’s like saying a head coach isn’t doing a good job because they made substitutions.
WHO operates to save lives and protect people from harm. They have no intention to do otherwise.That's an irrelevant general response to specific instances of malfeasance, and it does not apply to any of them. So it's not surprising that you make no attempt to show how it does.
There was no new information between their June 8 and June 9 statements about asymptomatic spread. None. It is a joke to suggest otherwise. That you not only wrote this but at least one person Liked it makes me weep for logic and honesty. They used a term of art while speaking to the general public and didn't have the sense to define it. You communicate to the public you have, not ones you wish had. WHO itself completely undermined and withdrew what someone said under its authority just one day before, and did not itself pretend that it a new study came out or the science changed, yet that is your go-to defense. This communication was the primary subject of the post you responded to and your proffered defense it has zero relevance. You used a BS blanket defense that even WHO was unwilling to offer and debase its credibility even further. Congratulations. I should be done, but let's go on.
Masks. There never was any evidence that wearing masks was harmful. None. Yet WHO told us not to wear them. They did not just say masks probably don't help but if it makes you feel better go ahead. They affirmatively told us not to wear them at a time when there was zero evidence it harmed anyone and at a time when we did know this was a respiratory illness transmitted at least in part via close proximity, coughs and sneezes. And they said don't wear masks. Not something defensible like, "we don't know" or "the evidence does not meet our scientific peer reviewed standards but it can't hurt so do what you want". They said don't buy them and don't wear them for which there was never any evidence scientific or otherwise. They did it because they feared that N95 masks would be diverted from medical personnel to the general public. Which is to say they lied to us to keep us from doing something that would keep our communities safe because they thought they knew better. Then they were proven wrong as evidenced by the reality that when the public started buying masks in bulk we -- guess what -- listened to what they finally said with honesty and bought regular cloth masks and N95 manufacturers and distributors kept their supply chain to medical responders unchanged.
"No evidence of human-to-human transmission." Two problems here. First, it was CCP disinformation, negated even at the time by the actions the Chinese government was taking to lock people in their apartments, and shutting off internal movement of people from Wuhan province into the rest China (but not stop infected people moving from China to the world). Second, public health communicators cannot use the phrase "no evidence of X" when speaking to the public the same way scientists do when communicating among themselves. Because a scientist hears "we don't yet know enough about X" but the public absolutely hears "X is not true." And again, you have to communicate to the public that exists in real life, not some idealized public that knows terms of art.
Similarly with the antibodies. Yes, it is far from proven that antibodies produce immunity that is universal, complete, and long lasting. But the fact that every reported instance so far that someone was reinfected has turned out to be a false positive is evidence that antibodies have some effect at least. It's not proof. There is a difference between evidence and proof that everyone in the world understands but WHO and its defenders. It's not peer reviewed. It is not established fact. But it is evidence, and to say otherwise is to mislead.
WHO has failed miserably during this pandemic in so many levels. It would be irresponsible NOT to evaluate the structure and design, reform is absolutely necessary. They had the benefit of the doubt, people died because of it.WHO operates to save lives and protect people from harm. They have no intention to do otherwise.
It’s fine to be critical but it’s a dangerous game to sow doubt in the institutions that are working to keep us safe.
we already play home games in their stadium might as well use their training facilities