zlacker

>>lazycr+(OP)
The WHO is a useless organization. For political reasons, it will be necessary to engage, but hopefully US authorities will not treat it as an information source.

The US should use its own primary sources in future to evaluate disease spread. China will lie to the WHO and the WHO will protect it.

But to know the truth, we should use our modern equivalents of Key Hole. There is no truth but that which you have examined yourself.

>>renewi+17
I watched the WHO press briefings in about the first month.

If the Western world would have done what the WHO advised at the time, we all more or less would have a COVID stuation like the Chinese have for some time.

>>the-du+6b
Could you elaborate on what that situation is?

>>katbyt+Oc
Mask early, serious lockdown as soon as it becomes serious, and don’t end lockdowns before numbers are way low. We masked late, put lockdowns in place late if at all, and ended them way too early, which means that some countries went through several ones. And we’re not through yet.

That said, I don’t share the optimism of the parent poster. This would be a heavy burden in terms of freedom and human rights for a result that is far from certain. There have been some resurgences, the extent of which is of course unknown because the truth would be damageable to China. And there is no knowing whether the next variant would start it all over again, in which it would be back to square one.

>>kergon+Dd
I am curious about this “pro-lockdown, pro-mask” advice from ethe WHO.

I am almost certain that they took a long time to recommend masking. I also am fairly confident that the WHO was/is opposed to lockdowns and it certainly still opposes travel restrictions.

>>ern+lj
> I am almost certain that they took a long time to recommend masking.

They did. Initially they recommended testing and isolating (which obviously could not scale much). Their guidelines were still happily ignored as they were updated, though.