Live data from Hacker News

Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

nature.com

31–40 of 404 posts

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#31
post #6

> For example, even in the middle of the fast-moving epidemic, the WHO dismissed field epidemiology reports as proof of airborne transmission because the evidence was not definitive, something that is difficult to achieve quickly during an outbreak. It seems the responsible thing to do in this situation, rather than tweeting definitively that the virus was "NOT" spread via airborne transition, would've been too withh…

I do feel as though communication was a big fault.

They needed to be comfortable with saying : "We don't know that yet."

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#32

The article claims it was a “mistake” to knowingly make a false statement. I stopped reading immediately at that. This propaganda is disgusting, I used to respect Nature.

Saying it was a mistake elides responsibility and glosses over alternatives. How would you have articulated it, and would you have responded differently?

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#33
I was the first in our office to go permanently WFH in February of 2020, three weeks before our offices closed, because I recognized that SARS-Cov-2 would be a huge problem, when pretty much everyone was in the 'just a flu/cold' mode. Here's the news that did not pass my bullshit detector:

1. Virus is not airborne (as initially claimed). I thought the water droplets claims were true for a while until I saw how fast it spread. It didn't make sense to me that a virus that is dragged onto the ground by water droplets would spread with such speed.

2. CDC (I believe) was claiming that N95 masks won't help as much as other masks. Later it turned out they just didn't want to create scarcity for N95 masks because hospitals need them.

The only bullshit I wasn't able to capitalize on was SPX crashing. I calculated that it should have fallen to less than $1000/share (closer to $500), based on past panic sell patterns, which was obviously not a guarantee, but the government stepped in and I missed out on quite a bit of money. I still think bailing out rich people's money in the stock market was complete bullshit on behalf of the government (but what do I know?).

I know it's all in retrospect now, so it seems like I'm tooting my own horn here, but at the time, it wasn't easy to be the guy who said "see ya guys, I'm going to hide from a virus that's going to turn into a global pandemic and you should all be doing the same because it's the logical thing to do based on the known facts". Even my manager (who approved my request to WFH) looked at me like I'm the token crazy guy from sci-fi movies holding "the end is nigh" sign.

I wish more people thought critically and had healthy skepticism towards all the information they receive, not just the part they disagree with. I was never a fan of blindly trusting anything. I trust, but I verify.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#34
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. They act like they are the "authority" when most of their initial statements were wrong. It's understandable to be wrong because no one knew much about this virus at first, and everyone, including the ones that were proven right, was making guesses. But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting.

>But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting. Is it though? If someone makes an unfounded guess and states it as fact isn't it fair to call that misinformation even if that turns out to be correct? What would be your preferred approach?

how about not calling anything misinformation until you're pretty damn sure you're right yourself?

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#35
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. They act like they are the "authority" when most of their initial statements were wrong. It's understandable to be wrong because no one knew much about this virus at first, and everyone, including the ones that were proven right, was making guesses. But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting.

>But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting. Is it though? If someone makes an unfounded guess and states it as fact isn't it fair to call that misinformation even if that turns out to be correct? What would be your preferred approach?

> Is it though? If someone makes an unfounded guess and states it as fact isn't it fair to call that misinformation even if that turns out to be correct?

That's perfectly right, if you yourself aren't making guesses.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#36
I think there’s still an amazing potential thriller miniseries or decisions-matter video game around really difficult public health strategy. The game theory is terrifying. It plays out locally when the water company issues boil water notices to deter usage. This is a ‘lie’ meant to prevent the need to issue a real boil water notice.

Perhaps our protagonist realizes that lying will save countless lives, but he must fall on his own sword when the deception is revealed. Then, according to plan, he is publicly shamed and fired in order for his agency to retain any credibility.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Follow the money” “George Soros” “Bill Gates” Etc

It's impressive how quickly people can go from "the WHO was wrong about a thing" to "massive conspiracy headed by a secret cabal that rules the world from the shadows" Where's the bug tracker for humanity?

No post body was provided.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#38

Great I wonder if YouTube will now unban all the “disinformation” videos they banned while the WHO was wrong. There were so many people debating this long before the WHO changed its tune. This is why free speech must be protected. Fuck these overlords telling us what to think.

These 'overlords' also tell us to take the vaccines instead of Ivermectin. Blind disrespect for authority is no better than blind respect for authority.

Lol you Ivermectin folk are STILL at it???

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#39

Great I wonder if YouTube will now unban all the “disinformation” videos they banned while the WHO was wrong. There were so many people debating this long before the WHO changed its tune. This is why free speech must be protected. Fuck these overlords telling us what to think.

These 'overlords' also tell us to take the vaccines instead of Ivermectin. Blind disrespect for authority is no better than blind respect for authority.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089809588/ivermectin-covid-t...

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#40
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These 'overlords' also tell us to take the vaccines instead of Ivermectin. Blind disrespect for authority is no better than blind respect for authority.

Lol you Ivermectin folk are STILL at it???

you misread their comment.
Post reply on HN