This is exactly what you’re missing. There are entire countries who will only do what the WHO recommends. If WHO recommendations didn’t matter, that would be a whole other tragedy but that’s kind of where we’re headed unless they’re fixed.
-
-
I’ve seen no evidence that countries following that specific WHO recommendation to the letter had demonstrably worse outcomes. The evidence you mention is largely from lab or modeling studies, and as you have written about wonderfully, doesn’t always translate to the real world.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Individual states have the ability to enforce the policy, not the WHO. That's my point. Do I think that there's a one meter rule to transmission? Of course not. But there's still states that won't enforce these measures. To me, that makes them far worse offenders than the WHO.
-
And it just goes to show, policy based on WHO recommendations-> less spread, better outcomes. Policy ignoring or rejecting WHO recommendations-> more spread, worse outcomes. WHO is not above criticism but they are not the enemy.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Has felt to me that WHO has acted more like a corporation, seeking to avoid liability by only advocating for mitigation measures on which they have concrete data Rather than as a public health agency, by including measures that evidence suggests may help but are not yet proven
-
Part of this is that, as the US has illustrated for everyone, WHO is made up of voluntary participation of member states. They have to make broadly applicable recommendations and that means they have to be cautious when making policy based on unsettled science.
- Show replies
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.