331–340 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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," https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=20
Absence of evidence of an effect does not entail evidence of absence of that effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. Something tells me you haven't seen this alleged "preliminary investigation" report, but assuming you had, how do you know China didn't withhold information? The WHO tweet is dated 14 January 2020, but the 1st case of Covid was identified in December 2019. Chinese police forced Dr. Li to remove his comments about Covid19…
I mean, if you actually dig a bit deeper into the story there, Li Wenliang had no expertise in the field, was going off very little information, and was sending out mass messages saying that SARS had returned (which was absolutely not true; SARS is far worse, with 25x the mortality rate of COVID-19), which would have incited completely panic. Yes, in hindsight they should have listened to him, and back in January I w…
If an ear doctor was finding a high number of ebola patients when treating ear conditions you would discount that information because it didn't come from someone study ebola?
The frontline doctors are the ones who will see the cases explode first.
Arresting him and saying it's nothing, he just had a stern talking to. Just like a parent educating child.
Was he putting other lives in jeopardy by sharing the truth or saving lives? Not really the same as speeding.
Let's be honest China didn't want to hurt it's imagine and thought they could cover this up. Big mistake, now they look dishonest and investment will be out not in China going forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The majority of WHO controversies are made up, the WHO are not a political entity so they do not want to comment at all on political issues; and whatever you want to say about Taiwan it is a very heated political situation. They make overt political statements all the time. For one: calling Taiwan racist when it took issue with the WHO’s inaction after their attempts to disseminate health information. Then Tedros c…
Please don't twist the situation. The Head of the WHO was attacked by racist trolls who were outwardly Taiwanese; for excluding Taiwan from membership (like _all_ U.N. projects do), And he commented about the abuse. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/taiwan-who-tedro...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( The idea is: "We are the decent, good, people who know the truth. Now we control the platforms, so it's only well and good we control the information, and we tell the deplorable others what they can and can't say." Almost everyone in the history books as a horrible oppressor has told themselves that narrative. Many…
Almost no one in previous history had an ability to directly target poor, uneducated masses which their own content created in their own bedroom. Also let’s be honest - the likes of Hitler actually came from the likes of people who would tell you to stop listening to WHO advice and to go start fires in 5G towers. Don’t get me wrong, freedom of speech et. al., and we’re probably also going to get burnt by the freedom…
Yes they did - where do you think Martin Luther composed his 95 theses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am noticing, increasingly in the country I live in - the U.S., an extremely concerning attitude towards love for censorship. More concerning is that the proponents have "good intentions" at heart. It's almost as if the concept of freedom is not understood. Freedom is not free. Freedom has a price, often a heavy price that one has to pay for it. The fact that we are not children anymore who desparately need oversigh…
I don't think it is good form to copy/paste this comment to each reply, even if they're making mostly redundant replies. You may want to link to your original comment instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( The idea is: "We are the decent, good, people who know the truth. Now we control the platforms, so it's only well and good we control the information, and we tell the deplorable others what they can and can't say." Almost everyone in the history books as a horrible oppressor has told themselves that narrative. Many…
Thanks to Google, Facebook and the others this is the golden era of being able to widely disseminate your alternate theories on everything. If that is your definition of freedom then you are less oppressed then any other humans in history.
The sort of people who contradict the WHO happened to be right on this one; they predicted a problem early and tended to pre-empt the WHO on upcoming problems. This was also expected, because the WHO only advises stuff that is already obvious to everyone. Interested parties can offer better advice than the WHO because they can move with news while the WHO has to wait.
Case in point, Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity runs a prepper/doomsday style channel. He is also a very smart bloke with an honest-to-goodness PhD in a virus-related field. Who are YouTube to say his opinions are less valid than an organisation that can't say "Taiwan" in a sentence and can only say things that are politically palatable to China and the US?
Chris' advice on the coronavirus has been consistently high quality, accurate, sourced and early compared to the WHO. His only fault is his standards for safety are a lot higher than are reasonable. This policy will be aimed at exactly people like him. He has been contradicting the authorities all the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost no one in previous history had an ability to directly target poor, uneducated masses which their own content created in their own bedroom. Also let’s be honest - the likes of Hitler actually came from the likes of people who would tell you to stop listening to WHO advice and to go start fires in 5G towers. Don’t get me wrong, freedom of speech et. al., and we’re probably also going to get burnt by the freedom…
> Almost no one in previous history had an ability to directly target poor, uneducated masses which their own content created in their own bedroom. Yes they did - where do you think Martin Luther composed his 95 theses?
Current WHO advice: "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19." [0] Where we live, due to local laws , we are now obliged to wear a mask to go shopping. Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO? I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( We keep trying to encourage our ki…
I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( The idea is: "We are the decent, good, people who know the truth. Now we control the platforms, so it's only well and good we control the information, and we tell the deplorable others what they can and can't say." Almost everyone in the history books as a horrible oppressor has told themselves that narrative. Many…
Yes and the reality TV show star criminal idiot is the solution.
You get me 100% with the problem, you lose me totally trying to say MAGA is the answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China has it under control. It will not become a pandemic. It doesn't transmit between humans. Who is Taiwan? Wouldn't dare contradict the WHO...
Please don't let the bad-faith "China bad" idiocy leak here from Reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is false about this tweet? [1] [1] https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
What's false here — a logical fallacy — is to attribute that claim to the WHO, and not to the 'preliminary reports' from 'Chinese authorities'. If a newspaper quotes/summarises the words of an MP/celeb, are those the newspaper's views? This tweet clearly states it is the view of a third-party, and that it is based upon preliminary reports, and it is the third-party's findings.