A point I think I've been missing. WHO's noble-lying is mainly aimed at institutions not individuals. Anything they say gets uncritically translated to practice by institutions following "WHO guidelines" so anything they say is closer to code than speechhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-1-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html …
-
-
The solution really is more institutions taking responsibility for their own thinking, and taking cues from multiple sources. Like maybe follow the practices of 2 local prestigious hospitals with the WHO recommendations as tie-breaker.
Show this thread -
WHO recommendations should be thought of as publishing APIs, not human documents
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.