Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
It's plausible, sure. It was strange they waited so long with many experts calling them out.
If anything this Taiwan/China slap fight thing with the WHO trying to play both sides has to stop. I'm convinced it got a lot of people killed needlessly. If nothing else China needs to admit they done ####ed up and drop this whole "Taiwan can't be in the WHO they are MINE bull####"
Unfortunately this won't happen. Maybe never. Certainly would require a regime change in China
Their comments on January 14th were a mistake, but how much of a mistake? Remember, we are doing a lot of judging from the rearview mirror here.
Isn't the average incubation period now believed to be 5 days? Isn't that pretty the same as most respiratory viruses?
The median incubation period is believed to be 5 days, 97.5% within 11 days, 98.9% within 14 days. I've quoted the study here a few hundred pages ago. Not sure anyone gave an average
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Not going to address your political comments, but will post some facts:
It just infuriates me when people point to all sorts of stupid conspiracies like 5G towers cause Cornoa, but won't look at an actual conspiracy that actually causes corona.
Some conspiracy theories do turn out to be conspiracy fact. That happens when the facts begin to be revealed. Until then, people aren't interested because the vast majority of conspiracy theories never turn into conspiracy fact.
Well, we know now that China was withholding information, if not lying.
I didn't make any political statements until I was called out unfairly for making a political statement, and then I only pointed out many are posting with underlying political motives, but yes, let's move on.
What is the official guideline for labeling a "pandemic", and did the WHO fail to use that guideline?
Don't quickly move to the next blunder, address that one.
It's not easy. And no doubt early on when they first arrived in China, they felt pressure from China.
I've been sneezing for three months. Freaking record pollen year in the pacific northwest.
Try your camera, iPhone camera's will read a QR code. I'm sure whatever you have will too.I never have seen how to read a QR code on my phone. I’m sure it’s easy ... just never saw how it was done
For narrow definitions of "mask", this could be accurate. Namely, if "mask" here means strictly "fit-tested N95 or equivalent" and no other kind of face covering.
What part of that sentence is inaccurate? It seems to align with what most scientists and medical experts have been saying.
There's A LOT of confusion out there about what exactly "a mask" is, and how much they protect and by what means. A lot of info gets conflated about a lot of different kinds of face coverings.
I've got my issues with the WHO, too. Nevertheless, I think I can answer your question in red: It's because the situations are nuanced and ever-changing. What you're actually being told in this thread, I think, is something like "Getting things wrong should not necessarily mean invalidation".
Well, have been saying until about a month ago. I’m not aware of many experts who say that masks/face coverings should only be used when taking care of someone with COVID.
Well, since they have no other guidance recommending use on any other type of face covering, I think it’s pretty safe to assume that by “mask” they mean any face covering.
I gotcha. To me, that all looks like old guidance from, say, the back half of February. Is any of that guidance dated on the WHO site?
You’re completely misstating the reason we are discussing the WHO. I dared to bring them up, and immediately was mocked by MR A, and off we go.
Dumb take. WHO was reporting on the information given, with a asteroid sized grain of salt. I know Trump told you to blame WHO for everything, but try to use your own thoughts.
I think it was BBC I was listening to a few weeks ago, but there is ongoing investigation on "how" this happened. I'm not sure if it's been talked about in this thread, but the more digging that goes on, the more it seems like the local government in Wuhan was a major factor in not getting out the correct information initially. Then, by the time the federal government got what they needed, things were on the brink of out of control so they then began covering their tracks. There are a few more updates that need to happen before I jump, but it really seems this started with a local cover up.
Keep in mind that there is a group of people who will take one example of the WHO doing something wrong and conclude they are completely worthless, but when the POTUS talks to the nation on live TV about injecting disinfectant in to the human body as a way to kill the virus, or he tells people they should make up their own minds about how to use prescription drugs, they'll ignore it.
Yes it is possible it could turn into a conspiracy fact. The more factual evidence comes out about an actual conspiracy, the more interest it will get from the people.
I went and found the WHO page you were referencing. Going by the videos and by the graphics further down the page, they seem to be talking about disposable earloop masks, not N95s. Hmmm.
Plus, that entire page is undated.Reading through this stuff -- which kind of veers all over the place IMHO -- WHO seems to have a concern about face coverings/masks similar to what @matuski has posted in here from time to time: That the general population, collectively, won't "wear masks right" and therefore will receive little to no benefit.
Yes, you have one there. And keep in mind, this was all started by shader's dumb take that I was making it political by linking a gif of Jordan laughing.
i think the most common estimate right now for the CFR is anywhere from 0.5% to 1.5%. not saying its right.
Ok. But the IFR is way more important imo,
... are you saying that WHO expected the world's general public to just kind of know that then-current WHO guidance was necessarily compromised because China wasn't cooperating fully?
I see more and more people doing it right these days.I went and found the WHO page you were referencing. Going by the videos and by the graphics further down the page, they seem to be talking about disposable earloop masks, not N95s. Hmmm.
There is a link about 1/4 down to a page called "Q&A: Masks and COVID-19". That page is dated -- 4/26/2020, well late enough to sensibly recommend at least some face coverings in public indoor establishments. Here's what WHO says there:
Reading through this stuff -- which kind of veers all over the place IMHO -- WHO seems to have a concern about face coverings/masks similar to what @matuski has posted in here from time to time: That the general population, collectively, won't "wear masks right" and therefore will receive little to no benefit.
If you ask me ... I think the WHO guidance author kind of mixes strict medical-mask advice with advice meant for non-medical fabric face coverings. The WHO seems really concerned that regular folks will believe masks/coverings will prevent them from from getting infected and mess things up somehow, when it's actually about containing/mitigating your own exhalations ("source control", as bolded above).
If you ask me, part 2: regardless of the WHO's squishy stance on masks/coverings ... the people I see around me that do wear masks/coverings are doing it right often enough to make a difference. Sure, there are those who wear 'em wrong from time to time. Still too many refuse to wear masks at all. But generally, I think the WHO has a lot less to worry about with masks/coverings than they seem to think.
the number of deaths / the number of confirmed cases on worldometer has been holding pretty steady at around 6% for a while. whatever you want to call that.
I was working on a reply similar to this, but you've summed up my thoughts pretty well. The CDC and the WHO both believe that masks are not essential if you are practicing social distancing and washing your hands.I went and found the WHO page you were referencing. Going by the videos and by the graphics further down the page, they seem to be talking about disposable earloop masks, not N95s. Hmmm.
There is a link about 1/4 down to a page called "Q&A: Masks and COVID-19". That page is dated -- 4/26/2020, well late enough to sensibly recommend at least some face coverings in public indoor establishments. Here's what WHO says there:
Reading through this stuff -- which kind of veers all over the place IMHO -- WHO seems to have a concern about face coverings/masks similar to what @matuski has posted in here from time to time: That the general population, collectively, won't "wear masks right" and therefore will receive little to no benefit.
If you ask me ... I think the WHO guidance author kind of mixes strict medical-mask advice with advice meant for non-medical fabric face coverings. The WHO seems really concerned that regular folks will believe masks/coverings will prevent them from from getting infected and mess things up somehow, when it's actually about containing/mitigating your own exhalations ("source control", as bolded above).
If you ask me, part 2: regardless of the WHO's squishy stance on masks/coverings ... the people I see around me that do wear masks/coverings are doing it right often enough to make a difference. Sure, there are those who wear 'em wrong from time to time. Still too many refuse to wear masks at all. But generally, I think the WHO has a lot less to worry about with masks/coverings than they seem to think.
Do you have a specific type of face covering in mind, or posting more in general?
I have been run out of this thread a half dozen times making this argument.
With the data seeming to indicate for awhile now that airborne droplet transmission is by far the largest risk and that fomite transmission seems pretty small, not recommending facial coverings because they’re worried people won’t wear them correctly or will contaminate themselves by touching their masks/faces seems like pretty bad risk analysis IMO.I went and found the WHO page you were referencing. Going by the videos and by the graphics further down the page, they seem to be talking about disposable earloop masks, not N95s. Hmmm.
There is a link about 1/4 down to a page called "Q&A: Masks and COVID-19". That page is dated -- 4/26/2020, well late enough to sensibly recommend at least some face coverings in public indoor establishments. Here's what WHO says there:
Reading through this stuff -- which kind of veers all over the place IMHO -- WHO seems to have a concern about face coverings/masks similar to what @matuski has posted in here from time to time: That the general population, collectively, won't "wear masks right" and therefore will receive little to no benefit.
If you ask me ... I think the WHO guidance author kind of mixes strict medical-mask advice with advice meant for non-medical fabric face coverings. The WHO seems really concerned that regular folks will believe masks/coverings will prevent them from from getting infected and mess things up somehow, when it's actually about containing/mitigating your own exhalations ("source control", as bolded above).
If you ask me, part 2: regardless of the WHO's squishy stance on masks/coverings ... the people I see around me that do wear masks/coverings are doing it right often enough to make a difference. Sure, there are those who wear 'em wrong from time to time. Still too many refuse to wear masks at all. But generally, I think the WHO has a lot less to worry about with masks/coverings than they seem to think.
