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.
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.
www.cnbc.com
coronavirus.jhu.edu
