Earlier quoted context omitted.
You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped. It's pretty common. I agree the not changing your mind is worse, but they also describe this thing as being driven by consensus as doctors, so you're having to change a bunch of people's minds who think they're the very best at what they do. It's a serious fai…
I feel like bending into that with increased dishonesty only makes that worse though. There's only a 'gotcha' if you change your mind while pretending you were never wrong, if you explain what evidence changed your mind then there's not that much power in pointing out 'flip-flopping'. But at a deeper level, it shows that they should have been more careful with the messaging from the start. The actual message should h…
Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne
101–110 of 404 posts
Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne
#102Early 2020 the Dutch Maurice de Hond, who studies social geography, noticed a pattern in outbreaks. His conclusion at the time also was transmission via aerosols. But because he had no related degree in virology most people ignored him. Now two years later everybody agrees with him. It's sad that people are too proud to cooperate with other people working in other domains (and sometimes even in the same domain).
She believes the 2020 US presidential election was “stolen”, partly by being hacked by China (the Mr. Pillow Guy CEO hypothesis). She knows nothing about the details of the domain, but she has a strong conviction opinion on the topic. I spent a lot of time investigating what evidence was publicly available and was thoroughly unconvinced.
Is it “sad” that I am “too proud” to adopt her logic/thinking/chain of facts?
Or is it simply that the domain experts are overwhelmed with noise (bad ideas from non-domain-experts)?
The default mentality of scientists should be skepticism of conclusions and creativity/curiosity for hypotheses. That’s a difficult mindset for one individual. There is a reason why red teams and blue teams are specialized.
Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne
#103Can someone please clarify for me what is the implication if Covid is airborne? Does it mean that masks and social distancing were actually useful? Or the opposite?
Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne
#104It is rather interesting to consider that many countries in Asia (China / Japan / Taiwan / Vietnam / Malaysia that I am aware of) happily ignored the WHO on masks and, with regards to Japan, actively promoted the airborne nature of COVID-19 early on. I remember seeing specials on NHK visualising the spread from a sneezing person in a room in March 2020. There were also a lot of helpful PSAs like the 3C model [0] and…
> with regards to Japan, actively promoted the airborne nature of COVID-19 early on. I remember seeing specials on NHK visualising the spread from a sneezing person in a room in March 2020.
Sneezing would be the droplets distribution theory, which is now "debunked". If the virus is airborne, there's no need to sneeze to spread it.
Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne
#105I 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 i…
I'm going to assume you're in the US? Most countries were already in the process of announcing health restrictions by February 2020. Taiwan had already been screaming for 2 months that it was airborne, and had limited airline travel and started mask mandates.
Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with that. But I think there's a small gap in credibility loss between "being right in the first place" and "being wrong, but admitting it promptly". And a much larger gap between "being wrong, but admitting it promptly", and "being wrong, and refusing to admit it until everyone has known you were wrong for a long time".
There's also the interesting "being right, but essentially having guessed and tied various other crackpot theories to the reasoning" that muddies the water further. For example, that COVID was always airborne, but it is actually the vaccine that causes it because the microchips they put in it have little propellers on them and they use them to fly around the room.
Like saying: “X could be bad for you”, but offering no evidence, theories or studies. Then it turns out X does have some downsides.
I don’t think you get any credit for having randomly guessed a correct answer.
Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne
#107>“We’re really talking here about two failures, not one,” says Sandman. “Being reluctant to change your mind, and being reluctant to tell people you changed your mind.” Like other public-health and scientific organizations, the WHO “are afraid of losing credibility by acknowledging that they got something wrong”, he says. Quite a good summary for the entire clusterfuck that was the pandemic response. I still cant wra…
You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped. It's pretty common. I agree the not changing your mind is worse, but they also describe this thing as being driven by consensus as doctors, so you're having to change a bunch of people's minds who think they're the very best at what they do. It's a serious fai…
Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne
#108>“We’re really talking here about two failures, not one,” says Sandman. “Being reluctant to change your mind, and being reluctant to tell people you changed your mind.” Like other public-health and scientific organizations, the WHO “are afraid of losing credibility by acknowledging that they got something wrong”, he says. Quite a good summary for the entire clusterfuck that was the pandemic response. I still cant wra…
You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped. It's pretty common. I agree the not changing your mind is worse, but they also describe this thing as being driven by consensus as doctors, so you're having to change a bunch of people's minds who think they're the very best at what they do. It's a serious fai…
I think you are talking about Fauci's flip-flop here. The point is not about his flip-flop on mask mandate. The point was about his confidence. You do not go and say confidently, on National TV, that masks don't stop the virus and that people should stop buying masks from stores as it is needed for emergency workers. Then turn around half a year later, after the pandemic is in full swing and say that masks are important as it stops the virus. Both times he said it he said that it is based on credible scientific evidence. This is what ticks people off.
If you do not know something and have no facts to back up your claim, don't say it. If you want to still say it (as you don't want people to hoard masks), appeal to the people to not hoard masks out of fear as those masks are needed for the frontline workers. Better still, get the US Government to buy those masks or ban stores from selling masks to general public until you have equipped frontline workers. Then ease the ban. Do not lie by saying that masks don't prevent virus as it sends a negative message and reassurance that everything is fine. Then turn around half a year later and say it is dangerous! This sort of flip-flop is not acceptable to anyone. Especially when it comes to disaster response.
You are an expert for a reason. People trust your words. You are in a position of power when it comes to your own field. Don't degrade/misuse that position.
The reason WHO lost its credibility is because of it shutting down alternative takes, continuous flip-flops and ever changing directives/mandates.
It would have been better if WHO started by saying "We don't know. It is a novel virus. We are still learning as we go along. We will issue directives as and when we get more information. Please note that these directives are temporary and only based on evidence we have right in front of us. If things change, we will keep you informed. We still aren't sure what to make of it". This is all WHO needed to do. This would have instilled a bit of fear yes (which in hindsight was actually needed to make lockdowns effective and mask mandates effective). You took away the "fear" factor at the very beginning of the virus outbreak and then when people got the message, you try to tell them to now start fearing the virus. Why would people buy your argument? And how many of them will take you seriously after such a drastic flip-flop? Rather than confidently put out statements that the virus isn't airborne or doesn't spread through contact WHO should have been honest from the start. That it doesn't know anything and is learning as we go along. That the virus maybe dangerous and that we have to be cautious.
Another big one is that WHO announced it is not human-to-human transmissible: https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152
"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China."
There was no disclaimer to say that this investigation is ongoing. That this preliminary data collected will have a final investigation as well. That it can change as more data becomes available. Communication is key in disaster response. You do not say anything with 100% certainty if you do not know it to be true.
Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
We heard about 'sars outbreak in china' around xmas of 2019, at the end of Jan I flew to the UK and at the airport literally every single Asian person wore a mask, and myself. I didn't see any non-asian person wearing a mask. Wore mask the whole flight, on the way home I had 2 elderly people on the plane tell me I was scaring them for wearing a mask. I got back beginning Feb and went WFH while the rest of the office…
> We heard about 'sars outbreak in china' around xmas of 2019 That's impossible, unless you're saying after the new year still means around xmas. Taiwan discovered it on Dec. 31 2019 via a Wuhan news report about several cases held in isolation. They forwarded that info to the WHO. [1] > At 6:30 a.m. on Dec. 31, Dr. Lo at Taiwan’s CDC woke to an alert on his phone. > His colleagues in the media monitoring unit had de…
Information was floating around in China and Taiwan before that. Cases in China date back to October/November 2019. The Wuhan Doctor referred to it as a 'sars like virus'.
Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne
#110Great 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.
So yeah blind disrespect for authorities has a much better track record.