211–220 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's contradicting. Directly contradicting would be "Don't wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19". What you described sounds more like extending the current WHO recommendations.
I think "You need to wear a mask when you go out of the house" directly contradicts "you only need to wear a mask when taking care of someone with COVID-19"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: since people are misunderstanding this post, I am 100% pro-ROC and anti-PRC. I wish the ROC could rename itself to something else without triggering a PRC invasion. Check my comment history. I'm 100% pro-ROC and I support the ROC's continued (since 1912) independence as a sovereign entity. 中華民國萬歲 "Taiwan" isn't a country. It's an island controlled by the Republic of China alongside its other holdings. The ROC i…
That is what Chinese claim. I think what Taiwan says matters too.
The ROC has existed since 1912 and has only occupied Taiwan since 1945 (some claim since 1952 and the Treaty of San Francisco). The ROC has been an independent state with continuous diplomatic recognition since 1912. It does not need to declare independence. I just take issue with people calling the ROC "Taiwan" as it gives ammo to PRC shills who intentionally muddy the conversation with their claim that "Taiwan is a part of China" where the term "China" is ambiguous or referencing the "One China" principle which the US doesn't even recognize (acknowledges the existence of, but does not adhere to).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think it speaks more to the unwillingness of a world health organisation to even discuss politically dangerous topics. Which is perfectly reasonable if you understand that these questions are looked at through the lens of international diplomacy and these people don't just wing geopolitical questions because every single answer can cause an international shitstorm (not just in regards to China, but every territori…
Its not that it is unethical But it does support the statement that "The WHO is a political organization with medical leanings". Personally I think that statement puts it a bit too strongly. It would be like saying "PyCon is a feminist organization with technical leanings."
Remember when the WHO didn't recognize Taiwan as a sevreign nation? Obviously the WHO isn't solely objective.
Neither does the US. Taiwan is only recognised by IIRC 12 natinos, mostly small island states. This has become another weird internet talking point as international recognition pretty much unanmiously switched to the PRC in the 1970s.
That's misleading. The US de facto recognizes Taiwan, and the only reason it doesn't recognize it de jure is that the PRC would formally cut off relations if it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_in_Taiwan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_Economic_and_Cultural_R...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want people claiming vitamin C and turmeric will cure COVID-19 to have a voice. Whether that voice has value is an individual decision you and I get to make, on our own. What data do you have, that proves diferuloylmethane is ineffective in treating COVID-19? Are you 100% sure that diferuloylmethane cannot be an ingredient in a battery of medicine to help recover from COVID-19? This is what I know - SARS-COV2 is no…
> I want people claiming vitamin C and turmeric will cure COVID-19 to have a voice. They're scammers. They're perpetrating a scam. "Giving them a voice" means allowing them to scam others out of money. Why should YouTube be complicit in running a scam?
Perhaps you left out the videos that warn others of said scam.
Don't treat adults like chlidren or, pretty soon, you will have a world full of only children with no adult supervision!
Yes, being an adult means having the freedom to drink alcohol and drive a car instead of waiting for a bus or a parent to come pick me up.
It also means having the responsibilities of making my own decisions instead of waiting for someone else to do it for me.
What's the expectation - that if the decision making authority makes a wrong decision that kills me, I can then blame them and collect damages?
That's crazy talk - for one, I will be dead already!
Remember when the WHO didn't recognize Taiwan as a sevreign nation? Obviously the WHO isn't solely objective.
Remember when the WHO didn't recognize Taiwan as a sevreign nation? Obviously the WHO isn't solely objective.
Neither does the US. Taiwan is only recognised by IIRC 12 natinos, mostly small island states. This has become another weird internet talking point as international recognition pretty much unanmiously switched to the PRC in the 1970s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither does the US. Taiwan is only recognised by IIRC 12 natinos, mostly small island states. This has become another weird internet talking point as international recognition pretty much unanmiously switched to the PRC in the 1970s.
It's the awkward way they one representative handled a question on Taiwan. Pretending he didn't hear the question. I think it speaks more to the unwillingness of a world health organisation to even discuss politically dangerous topics.
Free speech (well, most freedoms, really) will die the day we decide "saving lives" is worth _any_ cost. Heck, we already decided trashing the economy is worth "saving lives" (how many?), I imagine some people would be overjoyed to remove the 1st amendment in order to lower disease spread, lower the suicide rate of those vulnerable to hate speech, etc. And why stop there? Remove 2nd amendment and you can save even mo…
Well, if you read the whole thing, the 1st amendment includes the freedom to peaceably assemble, so at least to that extent it has already been removed and to cheering crowds no less.