Did you actually read the advice? It explicitly provides advice addressing your concern. "In some countries masks are worn in accordance with local customs or in accordance with advice by national authorities in the context of COVID-19. In these situations, best practices should be followed about how to wear, remove, and dispose of them, and for hand hygiene after removal". It then goes on to say ... " Advice to deci…
I dare to ask the question how wearing a mask carries critical risk vs wearing no mask.
It's pretty easy to find official answers to that question. This is from the bccdc.ca website:
> Masks may give a person a false sense of security and are likely to increase the number of times a person will touch their own face (e.g., to adjust the mask).
Did you actually read the advice? It explicitly provides advice addressing your concern. "In some countries masks are worn in accordance with local customs or in accordance with advice by national authorities in the context of COVID-19. In these situations, best practices should be followed about how to wear, remove, and dispose of them, and for hand hygiene after removal". It then goes on to say ... " Advice to deci…
I dare to ask the question how wearing a mask carries critical risk vs wearing no mask.
Again, if you read the advice ...
"However, the following potential risks should be carefully taken into account in any decision-making process:
• self-contamination that can occur by touching and reusing contaminated mask
• depending on type of mask used, potential breathing difficulties
• false sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to other preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene
• diversion of mask supplies and consequent shortage of mask for health care workers
• diversion of resources from effective public health measures, such as hand hygiene"
I believe that you, and I, have a robust filter to identify trustworthy content. But would you agree that most people consume only reliable content on YouTube, or Facebook? There is plenty of evidence that is not the case, and these platforms are being actively attacked by bad actors.
IMHO it is better to start from a point of humility and recognize that we all have our own particular blind spots. Technocratic management and epistemology would be prime examples in this case. Who cares if people consume incorrect information? Who decides what is correct? The WHO has been wrong throughout this pandemic. Accusations of misconduct and a pro-CCP bias are still playing out. The establishment sources hav…
This is a mistake. It implies that we should all agree that WHO: 1) Is not corrupt 2) At all times represents the best available expert opinion and advice But all institutions can become corrupted and the second point is highly implausible. WHO ignored Taiwan’s early warning and maintained for a dangerously long time that human to human transmission was not possible. There is a reason why the US cut funding to WHO. T…
the WHO is... corrupt? this is the first I have heard of such an idea. What would someone gain by I guess bribing the WHO?
From "AP Exclusive: Health agency spends more on travel than AIDS" [1]:
> Senior officials have complained internally that U.N. staffers break new rules that were introduced to try to curb its expansive travel spending, booking perks like business class airplane tickets and rooms in five-star hotels with few consequences.
> “We don’t trust people to do the right thing when it comes to travel,” Nick Jeffreys, WHO’s director of finance, said during a September 2015 in-house seminar on accountability — a video of which was obtained by the AP.
> the compliance rate for booking travel in advance was between 28 and 59 percent.
This is a mistake. It implies that we should all agree that WHO: 1) Is not corrupt 2) At all times represents the best available expert opinion and advice But all institutions can become corrupted and the second point is highly implausible. WHO ignored Taiwan’s early warning and maintained for a dangerously long time that human to human transmission was not possible. There is a reason why the US cut funding to WHO. T…
Taiwan didn't even have a confirmed case until January 21. They couldn't possibly have reported anything but unconfirmed rumors from China. WHO warned about human-to-human transmission as soon as it was confirmed by Chinese scientists.
The US cutting funding is obviously a political move in order to shift blame away from the utterly incompetent government.
Some people would like freedom to discuss the coronavirus without being oppressed. They can't on YouTube if this policy takes hold. 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 be…
> freedom to discuss the coronavirus Unfortunately platforms that reach billions must prioritize the danger of misinformation spreading that far and wide over allowing for every dangerous and wrong opinion. The complete and total censorship you fear never emerges, Youtube if anything is far too lenient on allowing terrible opinions to linger on their platform. They never do away with anything besides the most harmful…
The WHO are themselves spreading misinformation for political reasons.
Did you actually read the advice? It explicitly provides advice addressing your concern. "In some countries masks are worn in accordance with local customs or in accordance with advice by national authorities in the context of COVID-19. In these situations, best practices should be followed about how to wear, remove, and dispose of them, and for hand hygiene after removal". It then goes on to say ... " Advice to deci…
Yeah, I just don't understand how in a thread of such important stuff, this comment that's so low-hanging, so based on a non-issue is the top, with dozens of responses to it. It's really bordering on the conspiratorial, it's a bummer to see HN embracing that. It doesn't really make sense. You've got generic advice and then laws, WHO's statement was not in any way a contradiction of the law and it's grade school logic…
If HN has trouble with it though, Google is not going to do much better. They are not known for having a masterful grasp of subtleties. Examples? Look at the abysmal quality of their translations, their repetitive and off target ad personalization, their weak and spotty voicemail transcriptions that miss even the name of the caller when it’s in the address book with the number, their dead or dying OSS hosting, their (lack of) care for their own products, their clunky bloat-feel mobile apps, their spam filters that even send Google Alerts to the spam box, their no fucks given customer service, their takedowns... Even their search results which have not seen any innovation for the last decade as far as I can tell. (I mean you can’t filter out or coalesce useless bad copies of stack overflow posts from site scraping copycat sites that appear alongside the original SO search hit? Really? That’s too hard for you, Google?) I don’t think they are any more capable of parsing WHO statements then a crowd of HN posters. Probably worse.
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…
This is how all news media operated before the internet created mouthpieces for non-professionals. In addition to suppressing some inconvenient truths they filtered out crackpot ideas that have become a plague in modern times.
Before the web was in every house we had professional media often pushing crackpot theories and news agents had a whole section of monthly crackpot magazines, one of mine had them right next to the comic section to get picked up by impressionable young people.
Long before all this "5g causes corona virus" in the early 90's my local paper would often have stories about cell phones causing cancer. Long before "china to blame for coronavirus" we had "legitimate" media pushing the link between Iraq and 911. Long before any WHO was at the center of conspiracy theories the UN was.
Let's not even go into things like current affairs shows and fox news. The internet may have made you more aware of the amount of crazy out there, but it was always there.
This is a mistake. It implies that we should all agree that WHO: 1) Is not corrupt 2) At all times represents the best available expert opinion and advice But all institutions can become corrupted and the second point is highly implausible. WHO ignored Taiwan’s early warning and maintained for a dangerously long time that human to human transmission was not possible. There is a reason why the US cut funding to WHO. T…
the WHO is... corrupt? this is the first I have heard of such an idea. What would someone gain by I guess bribing the WHO?
Bribing? How about Beijing hand placing the director and then letting the corruption trickle down. There are lots of things you can gain from owning a global organization like the WHO. For one, they will tote your colonies like N.Korea as being "the envy of the developing world." They can be used as a tool to influence your enemies. The only limits are your creativity.
Social network, should really be owned by USERS instead of founders/investors. It should be decentralized and it should be governed based on democratic Principles. I once thought that blockchain can do the job but it proved to be untrue.
I wholeheartedly agree. Check out the IndieWeb when you have cycles for it. I think it lines up quite well with what you’ve expressed. https://indieweb.org/principles
Thanks!
I was really inspired by John Barlow's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" so I wanted to build something that can reflect my understanding of his vision, an autonomous cyberspace. I've tried to build blockchain, DApp and App in the past two years, all failed because of technical challenges. I'm on the fourth try and we are now building a "Wechat + Twitter" website. It is now open sourced at: https://github.com/Rackar/dao-quasar