First of all I need to say this is exactly what they should do. Clear up a statement as soon as possible. Thanks for that. But this is such a mistake that I’m not sure how or if WHO pronouncements can be covered now.
-
-
Show this thread
-
They walked back their statement first by saying it can be transmitted asymptomatically, then said 40% of spread can be asymptomatic. And fell back to the obvious— which is way too early to know.
Show this thread -
So why did the WHO express such certainty? Today we heard the following: -that wasn’t a WHO opinion -they had contradictory studies -they have only one small non-peer reviewed set of observations
Show this thread -
-please read our footnotes from prior statements so you can tell we don’t mean what we say And of course there’s the obvious— -symptomatic people sneeze & cough more -symptomatic people are isolated & we are seeing the largest global spread right now
Show this thread -
-pre symptomatic is when a lot of virus shedding happens (as they said) -can’t tell pre symptomatic from asymptomatic ppl -they refined the use of “very rare” to mean they were just talking about one set of non reviewed data -meanwhile humans interpret very rare to mean VERY RARE
Show this thread -
There are 4 contradictory studies on the matter And most importantly showing certainty was way out of proportion. To be fair US reporting oversimplified it too.
Show this thread -
I’m inclined in general to be on the forgiving side when people admit mistakes. Particularly in the heat of science. But here it’s hard to be understanding.
Show this thread -
First of all, stop expressing certainty when you don’t have it. Second, stop speaking at press conferences if you’re not speaking for the organization.
Show this thread -
Third, the time for the correction was YESTERDAY. Fourth, public health communication isn’t ancillary to public health. It is the central component in battling it.
Show this thread -
To understand this better, listen to this conversation with Chelsea Clinton about the WHO and public health communications. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/in-the-bubble-with-andy-slavitt/id1504128553?i=1000475171890 …
Show this thread -
-We’ve been here before. When the WHO said antibodies don’t mean immunity, they had to walk it back and say they meant they haven’t been able to study it yet after panicking many people.
Show this thread -
WHO hasn’t shown as much regret as they have explained to us we don’t know how to interpret them.
Show this thread -
We are going to have to follow the messy scientific process of 2 steps forward, 1 step back. We will end up learning things which contradict what we believed. Scientists can’t be blamed for sharing what they know when they know it ...
Show this thread -
But much much more humility & care should be expected from WHO. In the meantime if I were a reporter I would never source them until I fact check them.
Show this thread -
If you missed the WHO press conference and want to see it, it is here. https://twitter.com/who/status/1270347893061214208?s=21 …https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1270347893061214208 …
Show this thread -
If you missed the whole flap from yesterday, here is the walkthrough. Pre-walkback. https://twitter.com/aslavitt/status/1270135499659923458?s=21 …https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/1270135499659923458 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.