> The figure was actually 3.4% and it was just the dumb fatality-divided-by-cases estimate. IMO they failed to convey the uncertainty in this estimate.
I don't believe you're referring to the same statement as the prior person. In the case that you are, that statement is very precise, very correct, and ultimately uninteresting if you're wondering how dangerous COVID is. It's observational (and has minimal uncertainty) as opposed to trying to understand the actual case fatality rate.
> The point is that it is obvious that a pandemic is prevented by restricting all travel.
Yes, if you do so before the thing spreads. If you can't, then no, localized bans aren't really useful. By the time, for example, Trump, was considering a ban on all travel from China, it wouldn't have helped. I'm not sure what the point of linking to a random youtube channel is.
> The point is it was an outright lie which decreased trust in the institution as someone at the NYT also noted. Arguably, a much better lie would have been that DIY masks are just as effective as professional masks.
It's not though. Cite me a paper that shows that cloth masks prevent the spread of corona. The best you'll find is a paper that Zeynep Tufecki (whose tweet you cited), a literature professor at UNC Chapel Hill, coauthored, that concludes that Cloth masks and handwashing limit the spread of COVID-19.
So here's the chain of reasoning:
1. that there is no reliable data that shows that cloth masks are helpful
2. there is data that shows that misuse of cloth masks can be harmful
3. Therefore, we should be cautious and perhaps not recommend cloth masks
Which of those three statements do you feel the WHO got wrong? Please give cited evidence for your disagreement.
> I don't believe you're referring to the same statement as the prior person.
I am the same person.
> that statement is very precise, very correct, and ultimately uninteresting if you're wondering how dangerous COVID is
Indeed, but they've compared that figure to the CFR of the common flu. IMO when saying X% have died, they should rather say "between X and Y" and add that this figure is much more uncertain than the CFR of the common flu under normal circumstances. That's my entire point of critique. I know they need to dumb things down to be consumable by the media, but still.
Well, of course. The earlier the better, the smaller the impact on the economy. The WHO and most countries reacted way too late.
> I'm not sure what the point of linking to a random youtube channel is.
I've linked to the YouTube channel because it's by an epidemiologist who covered the early outbreak in detail and repeatedly he called out the WHO not being proactive enough. It was obvious it was going to spread and stopping global travel for a couple of weeks would have saved us presumably trillions of USD if one could predict most countries would indeed do a full lockdown later.
> Which of those three statements do you feel the WHO got wrong? Please give cited evidence for your disagreement.
Those three statements are detached from the part I quoted, which is "a medical mask is not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons". This sentence is a lie at worst and overconfident at best. Other coronaviruses have similar transmission characteristics and molecule sizes and there was literature that even simple DIY masks help reduce the spread of e.g. SARS-CoV-1. The reason being that the highest viral loads are suspended in droplets which are large enough to be caught by simple fabric or a face shield. AFAIK the evidence that people tend to misapply masks is rather slim by comparison.
I don't believe you're referring to the same statement as the prior person. In the case that you are, that statement is very precise, very correct, and ultimately uninteresting if you're wondering how dangerous COVID is. It's observational (and has minimal uncertainty) as opposed to trying to understand the actual case fatality rate.
> The point is that it is obvious that a pandemic is prevented by restricting all travel.
Yes, if you do so before the thing spreads. If you can't, then no, localized bans aren't really useful. By the time, for example, Trump, was considering a ban on all travel from China, it wouldn't have helped. I'm not sure what the point of linking to a random youtube channel is.
> The point is it was an outright lie which decreased trust in the institution as someone at the NYT also noted. Arguably, a much better lie would have been that DIY masks are just as effective as professional masks.
It's not though. Cite me a paper that shows that cloth masks prevent the spread of corona. The best you'll find is a paper that Zeynep Tufecki (whose tweet you cited), a literature professor at UNC Chapel Hill, coauthored, that concludes that Cloth masks and handwashing limit the spread of COVID-19.
So here's the chain of reasoning:
1. that there is no reliable data that shows that cloth masks are helpful
2. there is data that shows that misuse of cloth masks can be harmful
3. Therefore, we should be cautious and perhaps not recommend cloth masks
Which of those three statements do you feel the WHO got wrong? Please give cited evidence for your disagreement.