OT: COVID-19 thread #2

[coldfish]

These are some of the people that have been guiding public health policy the past few months. A joke. An absolutely insane joke.

Read on Twitter

if you actually read the entirety of the linked statement, it's quite reasonable. michael tracey took the single line in the whole thing that could be made to look ridiculous when taken out of context and did so. this is not a case of health experts saying that when black people do something it's healthy and when others do it's not. they're saying that IN GENERAL these protests contribute to the health of the black community in the long run because they draw attention to the systematic inequality in our health system. what's not clear is if they're saying that the long-term benefits outweigh the increased COVID-19 risk in this PARTICULAR instance. but that may also be the case given that the black community has been forced to endure additional trauma by viewing what happened in minneapolis while cooped up at home, disproportionately affected both economically and health-wise by the pandemic. at some point there is a psychological breaking point, and that point has painfully obviously been reached in the black community

regardless, what's actually an absolutely insane joke is that you think you know better than the health experts

Health experts have been wrong on:
- Masks
- Transmissibility
- When it came to the US
- Symptoms
- Model projections
- Fatality rate
- Asymptomatic transmission
etc., etc.

There are countless other things that they might get disproved on soon too. For example, health experts were cocksure positive that exposure to other coronavirae gave no immunity to covid 19 to the point where they jacked with antibody tests as a result. There are people starting to put 2 and 2 together that might not be true.

From January to some time in April, I'm not sure health experts got much right. The incompetence was overwhelming. If not for Trump being so bad, we would all be discussing how badly the CDC, WHO and others botched this. An orangutan punching keys randomly on a keyboard would have had a better success rate than the health experts did on covid.

[GetBuLLish]

Health experts have been wrong on:
- Masks
- Transmissibility
- When it came to the US
- Symptoms
- Model projections
- Fatality rate
- Asymptomatic transmission
etc., etc.

There are countless other things that they might get disproved on soon too. For example, health experts were cocksure positive that exposure to other coronavirae gave no immunity to covid 19 to the point where they jacked with antibody tests as a result. There are people starting to put 2 and 2 together that might not be true.

From January to some time in April, I'm not sure health experts got much right. The incompetence was overwhelming. If not for Trump being so bad, we would all be discussing how badly the CDC, WHO and others botched this. An orangutan punching keys randomly on a keyboard would have had a better success rate than the health experts did on covid.

This pandemic has been an absolute disaster for the credibility of health experts. You listed a bunch of their abject failures. But this most recent letter by them is the cherry on top. After months of demanding people to stay home (even if it meant missing funerals of loved ones, losing their businesses, losing their jobs, etc.), they now all of a sudden support thousands of people congregating in close quarters? Just because it advances a cause they like?

It's a complete joke. And anyone with a hint of rationality and objectivity can see it.

[Dresden]

I don't think they've been that bad. The science on corona is unknown. They've made recommendations based on what was known at the time. As more data came in, or more tests were run, they changed their advice based on the new data. That's how science works. I'm not saying they haven't made mistakes, or couldn't have done better. But to expect them to know exactly what to do when confronted with a new pathogen is unrealistic.

[Dresden]

One thing the the health experts got right, at least here in San Francisco. The regional health official knew that Covid would be hitting the Bay Area due to our high Asian population, so as soon as it became apparent in early February that the virus was going to spread outside Wuhan, they started advising our mayor on how to prepare. And because our mayor listened to the health experts, she shut down our city in early March, ahead of everyone else, even though it was heavily criticized by a lot of people, including De Blasio and Cuomo. And that has helped make the Bay Area one of the least affected major metro areas in the country.

[coldfish]

I don't think they've been that bad. The science on corona is unknown. They've made recommendations based on what was known at the time. As more data came in, or more tests were run, they changed their advice based on the new data. That's how science works. I'm not saying they haven't made mistakes, or couldn't have done better. But to expect them to know exactly what to do when confronted with a new pathogen is unrealistic.

If you were to list every question and give a cautious or confident answer the error list is laughably bad.

Examples
Do masks help prevent covid?
Cautious: We aren't sure, so we recommend them
Confident: No evidence of it, we don't recommend them (CDC answer, proven wrong)

Is covid airborne?
Cautious: There may be microparticles that can travel long distances and infect people
Confident: Nope, its mostly large particle and touch transmission (CDC answer, proven wrong)

Do antibodies work?
Cautious: We have no direct studied evidence that they work and provide immunity (CDC answer, basically proven wrong)
Confident: Yes, antibodies work and give the person immunity

Some times the health organizations were cautious, other times aggressive. In almost every case, they were wrong. The mask one in particular is laughable. Multiple countries were telling people that masks work and the CDC/WHO ignored them only to give incorrect guidance that likely cost lives.

As I said, if you arranged all the questions/answers like I did and let an orangutan pick next to the CDC, the orangutan would have got more right.

[Dresden]

I don't think they've been that bad. The science on corona is unknown. They've made recommendations based on what was known at the time. As more data came in, or more tests were run, they changed their advice based on the new data. That's how science works. I'm not saying they haven't made mistakes, or couldn't have done better. But to expect them to know exactly what to do when confronted with a new pathogen is unrealistic.

If you were to list every question and give a cautious or confident answer the error list is laughably bad.

Examples
Do masks help prevent covid?
Cautious: We aren't sure, so we recommend them
Confident: No evidence of it, we don't recommend them (CDC answer, proven wrong)

Is covid airborne?
Cautious: There may be microparticles that can travel long distances and infect people
Confident: Nope, its mostly large particle and touch transmission (CDC answer, proven wrong)

Do antibodies work?
Cautious: We have no direct studied evidence that they work and provide immunity (CDC answer, basically proven wrong)
Confident: Yes, antibodies work and give the person immunity

Some times the health organizations were cautious, other times aggressive. In almost every case, they were wrong. The mask one in particular is laughable. Multiple countries were telling people that masks work and the CDC/WHO ignored them only to give incorrect guidance that likely cost lives.

As I said, if you arranged all the questions/answers like I did and let an orangutan pick next to the CDC, the orangutan would have got more right.

I think you're exaggerating things. The mask thing is probably the biggest mistake. But even then, they were very clear that maintaining a 6' distance was key. And they were spot on there, and that still is more important than wearing a mask in terms of preventing infection. So if you just followed their advice and kept your 6' distance, you were in all likelihood going to be fine.

On your other questions- again, I think you're exaggerating the degree to which the public health officials got things wrong. There was always a question of aerosol transmission, but their best guess was that it wasn't a major factor in transmission. And that is still correct. The vast majority of infection, as far as I've read, is that it gets spread from close personal contact, and this happens from the large particles that carry huge amounts of the virus, not from aerools.

On antibodies, again, from the start they were saying it's likely antibodies will be developed and help protect you, but they didn't have evidence of it. And I'm not sure they still do have that evidence.

[coldfish]

I don't think they've been that bad. The science on corona is unknown. They've made recommendations based on what was known at the time. As more data came in, or more tests were run, they changed their advice based on the new data. That's how science works. I'm not saying they haven't made mistakes, or couldn't have done better. But to expect them to know exactly what to do when confronted with a new pathogen is unrealistic.

If you were to list every question and give a cautious or confident answer the error list is laughably bad.

Examples
Do masks help prevent covid?
Cautious: We aren't sure, so we recommend them
Confident: No evidence of it, we don't recommend them (CDC answer, proven wrong)

Is covid airborne?
Cautious: There may be microparticles that can travel long distances and infect people
Confident: Nope, its mostly large particle and touch transmission (CDC answer, proven wrong)

Do antibodies work?
Cautious: We have no direct studied evidence that they work and provide immunity (CDC answer, basically proven wrong)
Confident: Yes, antibodies work and give the person immunity

Some times the health organizations were cautious, other times aggressive. In almost every case, they were wrong. The mask one in particular is laughable. Multiple countries were telling people that masks work and the CDC/WHO ignored them only to give incorrect guidance that likely cost lives.

As I said, if you arranged all the questions/answers like I did and let an orangutan pick next to the CDC, the orangutan would have got more right.

I think you're exaggerating things. The mask thing is probably the biggest mistake. But even then, they were very clear that maintaining a 6' distance was key. And they were spot on there, and that still is more important than wearing a mask in terms of preventing infection. So if you just followed their advice and kept your 6' distance, you were in all likelihood going to be fine.

On your other questions- again, I think you're exaggerating the degree to which the public health officials got things wrong. There was always a question of aerosol transmission, but their best guess was that it wasn't a major factor in transmission. And that is still correct. The vast majority of infection, as far as I've read, is that it gets spread from close personal contact, and this happens from the large particles that carry huge amounts of the virus, not from aerools.

On antibodies, again, from the start they were saying it's likely antibodies will be developed and help protect you, but they didn't have evidence of it. And I'm not sure they still do have that evidence.

There are a lot of things out saying that your understanding is the same as the CDC's was . . . which is wrong. Most of the transmission is indoors. 6 feet does virtually nothing for you. If you are in an enclosed room with an infected person talking, singing, yelling, exercising, etc. for an extended period of time, you are getting infected.

Masks are significantly more effective at reducing transmission than the 6 foot guideline.

If you want to read up on case studies, check out the Washington choir practice, South Korea telemarketer floor, South Korea exercise breakout, South Korea restaurant episode, etc. Most of the transmission is aerosol.

There are countless articles out there like this:
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/04/04/some-scientists-studying-covid-transmission-suggest-staying-six-feet-away-may-not-be-enough/

“There’s been advice given and guidance given out for a while, the whole time pretty much, that we need to social distance at six feet and a lot of that was based on research that was done, hate to say it, nearly 100 years ago,” said Kim Prather, University of California San Diego chemistry professor.

[Jimako10]

The WHO is pretty much always used as a political football. If they over prepare for a potential epidemic/pandemic, then they get blamed for ruining the economy. If they under prepare, they get blamed the rise in infections/fatalities. Politically, they are always in a lose-lose situation.

They have no power or jurisdiction at all. They can't force themselves into a country to study without the country's approval. They can't force China to tell them what's really going on. The only thing they can do is evaluate the data as they get it. When dealing with something novel, it's nearly impossible to say anything definitive without extensive studies and the replication of those studies from different labs. Unfortunately, science is slow, but a country's response to the information at hand is purely on the government of that country.

South Korea had the same exact info as the US and everyone else from the WHO. They took the antigen test from the WHO in late Jan and told their medical companies to start mass producing testing kits. By early March, they tested something like 150k people when the US still hadn't even declared an emergency! The FDA didn't even allow private companies to start testing until mid March while SK started in late Jan/early Feb. SK didn't have any extra/insider info that nobody else had, they had a playbook they developed from lessons they learned from MERS, SARS, H1N1, etc. It's silly to blame public health experts when in reality it's politics that get's in the way of addressing serious global problems. Pandemics now are a political football in the US which is incredibly scary to think about.

[Chi town]

Health experts have been wrong on:
- Masks
- Transmissibility
- When it came to the US
- Symptoms
- Model projections
- Fatality rate
- Asymptomatic transmission
etc., etc.

There are countless other things that they might get disproved on soon too. For example, health experts were cocksure positive that exposure to other coronavirae gave no immunity to covid 19 to the point where they jacked with antibody tests as a result. There are people starting to put 2 and 2 together that might not be true.

From January to some time in April, I'm not sure health experts got much right. The incompetence was overwhelming. If not for Trump being so bad, we would all be discussing how badly the CDC, WHO and others botched this. An orangutan punching keys randomly on a keyboard would have had a better success rate than the health experts did on covid.

This pandemic has been an absolute disaster for the credibility of health experts. You listed a bunch of their abject failures. But this most recent letter by them is the cherry on top. After months of demanding people to stay home (even if it meant missing funerals of loved ones, losing their businesses, losing their jobs, etc.), they now all of a sudden support thousands of people congregating in close quarters? Just because it advances a cause they like?

It's a complete joke. And anyone with a hint of rationality and objectivity can see it.

What gatherings are you referring to?

[Dresden]

If you were to list every question and give a cautious or confident answer the error list is laughably bad.

Examples
Do masks help prevent covid?
Cautious: We aren't sure, so we recommend them
Confident: No evidence of it, we don't recommend them (CDC answer, proven wrong)

Is covid airborne?
Cautious: There may be microparticles that can travel long distances and infect people
Confident: Nope, its mostly large particle and touch transmission (CDC answer, proven wrong)

Do antibodies work?
Cautious: We have no direct studied evidence that they work and provide immunity (CDC answer, basically proven wrong)
Confident: Yes, antibodies work and give the person immunity

Some times the health organizations were cautious, other times aggressive. In almost every case, they were wrong. The mask one in particular is laughable. Multiple countries were telling people that masks work and the CDC/WHO ignored them only to give incorrect guidance that likely cost lives.

As I said, if you arranged all the questions/answers like I did and let an orangutan pick next to the CDC, the orangutan would have got more right.

I think you're exaggerating things. The mask thing is probably the biggest mistake. But even then, they were very clear that maintaining a 6' distance was key. And they were spot on there, and that still is more important than wearing a mask in terms of preventing infection. So if you just followed their advice and kept your 6' distance, you were in all likelihood going to be fine.

On your other questions- again, I think you're exaggerating the degree to which the public health officials got things wrong. There was always a question of aerosol transmission, but their best guess was that it wasn't a major factor in transmission. And that is still correct. The vast majority of infection, as far as I've read, is that it gets spread from close personal contact, and this happens from the large particles that carry huge amounts of the virus, not from aerools.

On antibodies, again, from the start they were saying it's likely antibodies will be developed and help protect you, but they didn't have evidence of it. And I'm not sure they still do have that evidence.

There are a lot of things out saying that your understanding is the same as the CDC's was . . . which is wrong. Most of the transmission is indoors. 6 feet does virtually nothing for you. If you are in an enclosed room with an infected person talking, singing, yelling, exercising, etc. for an extended period of time, you are getting infected.

Masks are significantly more effective at reducing transmission than the 6 foot guideline.

If you want to read up on case studies, check out the Washington choir practice, South Korea telemarketer floor, South Korea exercise breakout, South Korea restaurant episode, etc. Most of the transmission is aerosol.

There are countless articles out there like this:
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/04/04/some-scientists-studying-covid-transmission-suggest-staying-six-feet-away-may-not-be-enough/

“There’s been advice given and guidance given out for a while, the whole time pretty much, that we need to social distance at six feet and a lot of that was based on research that was done, hate to say it, nearly 100 years ago,” said Kim Prather, University of California San Diego chemistry professor.

There is a lot of speculation going on about how it is transmitted. You are correct in that most transmission is occurring indoors, from what they know. And if you are indoors with an infected person for a prolonged period of time, there will be enough particles in the air that you have a good chance of being infected, even if you're more than 6' away. But most public contact during the shelter in place order was not of that nature. It was people going into a store to buy groceries, or passing by others on the sidewalk. And in those cases, staying 6' away is going to be a pretty good guideline.

I disagree that most transmission is aerosol. From what I've read, most transmission is person to person, in close contact, in enclosed spaces, and the viral load you get is important. And by far the most virus load you are going to get is from breathing in large particles, which contain a lot of the virus, not the tiny aerosol particles.

You can find all sorts of studies out there saying this and that. One study said aerosol particles can travel as far as 30'. However, from what we know so far, your chances of getting infected if you are 30' away from someone is pretty slim, unless you are in an enclosed area for a number of hours, doing something like shouting or singing.

They at first thought you could get infected, too, by touching surfaces, because studies show that the virus can stay alive for 3 days on some surfaces. But now they are pretty sure that while that's possible in theory, in practice, this method of transmission is pretty negligible.

So there's still a lot that's unknown for sure, and that's why guidelines are changing from time to time.

[dice]

on my daily walk i saw a number of restaurants w/ outdoor seating not making much of an effort to social distance. including table spacing. and waiters w/ masks on just leaning right in to customers w/o masks as if the mask completely protects them. i don't know if this level of stupidity is peculiar to americans or just a human race problem

meanwhile, apparently airlines and airports are not strictly enforcing their no masks rule, nor social distancing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/travel/coronavirus-flying-face-masks.html?campaign_id=154&emc=edit_cb_20200605&instance_id=19139&nl=coronavirus-briefing&regi_id=94658923&segment_id=30215&te=1&user_id=7ea4e9d4dbdb5ec9d68d451510e3f47d

I was on the way home Friday night from playing golf with my kids, they get to play for free on weekends after 5PM it is awesome, and we drove by the local bar. It was absolutely packed. My boys asked me if we could go. I said to them isn't it more fun to eat at home and make our own food? I literally have no ambition to go to a crowded place right now, especially ones that I know are making business decisions before health ones.

My wife and I are truly going to be making a conscious choice to go out less. As I've stated before we have found out we are just much happier doing things outside with the family that naturally dictate social distancing.

i saw a poll where only a slim majority of people are significantly concerned about stuff like eating at restaurants right now. 20+% aren't bothered much if at all. probably a culture war component. which brings up another poll i saw: amongst people who rarely if ever wear masks, over 80% support trump. the way he has weaponized this virus for political purposes is disgusting. i think i can safely say that no prior president would have done that. not in quite a few generations, anyway

[GetBuLLish]

As I said, if you arranged all the questions/answers like I did and let an orangutan pick next to the CDC, the orangutan would have got more right.

WHO now saying that asymptomatic spread of the virus is very rare. If true, that would make the lockdowns one of the dumbest, most destructive public health and economic policy decisions of all time.

[coldfish]

As I said, if you arranged all the questions/answers like I did and let an orangutan pick next to the CDC, the orangutan would have got more right.

WHO now saying that asymptomatic spread of the virus is very rare. If true, that would make the lockdowns one of the dumbest, most destructive public health and economic policy decisions of all time.

In their defense, this is poor journalism. They are saying that a lot of the transmission is presymptomatic. People who come down with symptoms but infect people a few days before hand. Using the terminology they are, they define asymptomatic transmission as someone who never has symptoms. At all. They even go on to say that many who infect others have symptoms so mild that they don't realize they have it.

Its basically really poorly worded reporting. What they are saying isn't particularly news. The number of people who have the virus and infect others without ever showing even the slightest symptom, at all, at any point, is small.

[dice]

Health experts have been wrong on:
- Masks
- Transmissibility
- When it came to the US
- Symptoms
- Model projections
- Fatality rate
- Asymptomatic transmission
etc., etc.

There are countless other things that they might get disproved on soon too. For example, health experts were cocksure positive that exposure to other coronavirae gave no immunity to covid 19 to the point where they jacked with antibody tests as a result. There are people starting to put 2 and 2 together that might not be true.

From January to some time in April, I'm not sure health experts got much right. The incompetence was overwhelming. If not for Trump being so bad, we would all be discussing how badly the CDC, WHO and others botched this. An orangutan punching keys randomly on a keyboard would have had a better success rate than the health experts did on covid.

This pandemic has been an absolute disaster for the credibility of health experts. You listed a bunch of their abject failures. But this most recent letter by them is the cherry on top. After months of demanding people to stay home (even if it meant missing funerals of loved ones, losing their businesses, losing their jobs, etc.), they now all of a sudden support thousands of people congregating in close quarters? Just because it advances a cause they like?

It's a complete joke. And anyone with a hint of rationality and objectivity can see it.

given that the part in bold there is an outright lie, you clearly didn't even read that letter. it's eminently reasonable

what the letter actually said, for those who care to know, was that the mental health benefit of outraged, stir crazy african americans getting out marching WHILE SOCIAL DISTANCING TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AND WITH MASKS is probably greater than the COVID-19 risk. and as an added bonus, the protests draw attention to the disparities in health care availability, which most certainly has a positive long-term effect on health outcomes if reforms are brought about. not to mention the reduction in terror in the black community if these protests bring about police reforms and a better relationship between police and the community

[dice]

As I said, if you arranged all the questions/answers like I did and let an orangutan pick next to the CDC, the orangutan would have got more right.

WHO now saying that asymptomatic spread of the virus is very rare. If true, that would make the lockdowns one of the dumbest, most destructive public health and economic policy decisions of all time.

"better safe than sorry" is dumb? hope you're not teaching any children that philosophy

[dice]

These are some of the people that have been guiding public health policy the past few months. A joke. An absolutely insane joke.

Read on Twitter

if you actually read the entirety of the linked statement, it's quite reasonable. michael tracey took the single line in the whole thing that could be made to look ridiculous when taken out of context and did so. this is not a case of health experts saying that when black people do something it's healthy and when others do it's not. they're saying that IN GENERAL these protests contribute to the health of the black community in the long run because they draw attention to the systematic inequality in our health system. what's not clear is if they're saying that the long-term benefits outweigh the increased COVID-19 risk in this PARTICULAR instance. but that may also be the case given that the black community has been forced to endure additional trauma by viewing what happened in minneapolis while cooped up at home, disproportionately affected both economically and health-wise by the pandemic. at some point there is a psychological breaking point, and that point has painfully obviously been reached in the black community

regardless, what's actually an absolutely insane joke is that you think you know better than the health experts

Health experts have been wrong on:
- Masks
- Transmissibility
- When it came to the US
- Symptoms
- Model projections
- Fatality rate
- Asymptomatic transmission
etc., etc.

There are countless other things that they might get disproved on soon too. For example, health experts were cocksure positive that exposure to other coronavirae gave no immunity to covid 19 to the point where they jacked with antibody tests as a result. There are people starting to put 2 and 2 together that might not be true.

From January to some time in April, I'm not sure health experts got much right. The incompetence was overwhelming. If not for Trump being so bad, we would all be discussing how badly the CDC, WHO and others botched this. An orangutan punching keys randomly on a keyboard would have had a better success rate than the health experts did on covid.

i agree with most of this. my point was that the letter he is referencing is far from "an absolutely insane joke." they might be right, they might be wrong. we'll probably never know

the last model projection that trump/fauci presented at that press conference quite a while back is actually looking to be on the money (100K-250K deaths if reasonable lockdowns/social distancing)

as for when it came to the US, that's pretty much entirely based on where they've found it (available information), no? there's no projection involved in that

what are the differences in symptoms from what they initially thought?

another thing that was broadly thought to be likely was that high temperatures would sharply reduce transmissibility. i heard today that COVID-19 has been found to differ from other coronaviruses in this regard. so given the reopening of states combined with a lot of people being out and about due to weather, we might not see much progress over the summer before presumably getting another wave in the fall

[Dresden]

As I said, if you arranged all the questions/answers like I did and let an orangutan pick next to the CDC, the orangutan would have got more right.

WHO now saying that asymptomatic spread of the virus is very rare. If true, that would make the lockdowns one of the dumbest, most destructive public health and economic policy decisions of all time.

But they didn't know that at the time- so the lockdown was still a smart decision. You have to make decisions on your best available knowledge. If they had not locked down, and asymptomatic spread was common, we would have had 3 or 4 times the number of deaths that we did. And then everyone would be blaming them for not shutting down.

Also, the shelter in place made it imperative that people who were sick stay at home. If they hadn't enforced a universal shut down, a lot of sick people would have been out living their normal lives, spreading the virus like wildfire.

[Jimako10]

Pretty good article on what the WHO should be.

Which WHO do we want after the COVID-19 pandemic? WHO must evolve to become more results-oriented and responsive. Such an evolution requires more than a functional review: it calls for a thorough transformation that overcomes political divisions and empowers WHO with the ability to question and constructively criticise national health strategies.

We call for a WHO whose technical authority is fully recognised by member states and is free of political considerations, and whose funding does not depend on unreliable voluntary contributions; a WHO that gives a fair role to civil society and other non-governmental actors in its governance; and a WHO that primarily focuses on the mandate of a technical agency in health, as set by its founders in 1948.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31298-8/fulltext

[Dresden]

There are a lot of things out saying that your understanding is the same as the CDC's was . . . which is wrong. Most of the transmission is indoors. 6 feet does virtually nothing for you. If you are in an enclosed room with an infected person talking, singing, yelling, exercising, etc. for an extended period of time, you are getting infected.

Masks are significantly more effective at reducing transmission than the 6 foot guideline.

If you want to read up on case studies, check out the Washington choir practice, South Korea telemarketer floor, South Korea exercise breakout, South Korea restaurant episode, etc. Most of the transmission is aerosol.

And by the way, of the events you mention above- which of those did the CDC encourage or say were permissible to do? And how many of them were undertaken with proper social distancing?

I know we have to post signs on our job from the CDC that say:

1) Wash Hands
2) Mainting 6' distance from other workers
3) Wear face covering or mask, and cover sneezes/coughs
4) Do not come to work if you are ill
5) No handshaking, carpooling, or sharing tools
6) Disinfect commonly touched surfaces frequently

So far, all those instructions are correct and have proven to be effective in helping control the spread of the virus. Not sure an orangutan could have come up with a list that was that accurate and concise.

[Dresden]

The WHO is pretty much always used as a political football. If they over prepare for a potential epidemic/pandemic, then they get blamed for ruining the economy. If they under prepare, they get blamed the rise in infections/fatalities. Politically, they are always in a lose-lose situation.

They have no power or jurisdiction at all. They can't force themselves into a country to study without the country's approval. They can't force China to tell them what's really going on. The only thing they can do is evaluate the data as they get it. When dealing with something novel, it's nearly impossible to say anything definitive without extensive studies and the replication of those studies from different labs. Unfortunately, science is slow, but a country's response to the information at hand is purely on the government of that country.

South Korea had the same exact info as the US and everyone else from the WHO. They took the antigen test from the WHO in late Jan and told their medical companies to start mass producing testing kits. By early March, they tested something like 150k people when the US still hadn't even declared an emergency! The FDA didn't even allow private companies to start testing until mid March while SK started in late Jan/early Feb. SK didn't have any extra/insider info that nobody else had, they had a playbook they developed from lessons they learned from MERS, SARS, H1N1, etc. It's silly to blame public health experts when in reality it's politics that get's in the way of addressing serious global problems. Pandemics now are a political football in the US which is incredibly scary to think about.

Good post. And the CDC was warning Trump administration officials of the likelihood that this would become a pandemic in mid January, and throughout February, and Trump was just laughing about it, saying that soon our cases would be down to zero. Can't really blame the CDC, which has also been underfunded for years, for that.