The open data on the internet in January was explicit. I'm not sure any country acted on the real obvious stuff to do in January.
I also think few countries are acting on the real obvious stuff today.
Some things are complicated that will take years to know if they worked (For instance travel bans) but there are still things that should be done today that simply are not.
Like random testing of the population in different test sites around the world to understand how it spreads.
Like a global effort to sort the data coming out in a open way, not just dumping large amounts of research papers on a site.
> On Wednesday, Twitter briefly locked conservative site The Federalist’s account for suggesting people deliberately expose themselves to the novel coronavirus. The Federalist promoted the medically unsound idea of “medical ‘chickenpox parties’” to infect young, healthy people with the virus under controlled quarantine.
Their staff were downplaying this for quite some time, including long after the "the WHO [took] until March 11 to even declare a pandemic":
Put the source aside. What specifically is worse about this proposal than the current approach? A safe and effective vaccine is likely several years away. The economy can't be locked down for that long. The virus is too easily transmissible for containment and contract tracing to be effective. So most of us will be infected eventually. If they're going to get it anyway then doing so in a controlled environment might be a good option for some volunteers.
I'm not endorsing this approach, but we ought to at least analyze it rather than rejecting it out of hand.
> What specifically is worse about this proposal than the current approach?
False dichotomy. There are far better things we could try.
One proposal I've seen batted around is widespread, rapid testing. Checkpoints on the interstates and elsewhere where you get one of the 15 minute rapid tests and get a day pass to continue on your way.
We know we can get R0 down with distancing; NYC's falling new hospitalizations numbers are a clear sign of that. Testing allows us to relax restrictions without it flaring up so fast, and lets us find the flare.
Add in universal, required mask wearing. None of the wishy-washy "we recommend..." bullshit.
It seems unlikely that the current Supreme Court would countenance such a blatant violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments regardless of the potential public health benefits. If you're going to propose an alternative then it needs to be something that could actually be implemented in the real world.
More widespread voluntary testing is certainly needed but it's going to take a while to scale up capacity.
Read the precedents. There's no question that infectious disease carriers can be forcibly quarantined. But forcing apparently healthy people to undergo an invasive medical procedure (a search) in order to exercise their right to assemble would be another thing altogether. And long-term curfews for adults have never been upheld.
We've already banned or severely restricted the right to assemble in like 40+ states, and there's not much reason to believe that won't survive court challenges.
Was there something in the article you found factually inaccurate?
The WHO put out several misleading statements, echoing uncritically the information put out the the CCP, even though the Chinese doctors on the ground were doing their level best to get the word out that there was a big problem.
Are you OK with that, or do you want throw around a bunch of off topic links to muddy the waters?
"WHO Also Failed in the 2013 Ebola Outbreak" is factually inaccurate. The WHO successfully contained that outbreak, including a working vaccine for Ebola. Their definition of "failed" seems to be "one American got it in Dallas".
The Federalist article is trying to spin a yarn of "poor Trump was deceived by the CDC and the WHO" in an attempt to absolve him of any responsibility. It's not at all surprising from The Federalist, but it's sad to see folks fall for it.
The Verge is painting this approach as crazy but it is actually not. The idea is that healthy and young people are at relatively low risk for serious health issues, and can therefore build up immunity and help reduce subsequent spreading of the virus. The Verge paints the length of immunity as an 'unknown' to paint the suggestion as absurd, but in reality there is no reason to doubt that immunity would be durable like it usually is.
Twitter was also wrong to lock the Federalist's account. Per the article you linked, Twitter bans coronavirus-related content that “goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information.” But this reliance on authority is clearly a bad idea in a world where authoritative sources are regularly wrong. The WHO lied about human-to-human transmission, presumably in a bid to align to Beijing's propaganda. They lied about the effectiveness of travel restrictions, likely for the same reasons. They were wrong about airborne transmission. They lied about the effectiveness of masks.
Why should these digital platforms prevent any ideas to enter the sphere of public discussions except for those from limited sources that have a bad track record? This is exactly the risk of censorship and suppressing information and is exactly why Twitter, Facebook, and the rest should not be in the business of serving as editors or censors.
> The Verge paints the length of immunity as an 'unknown' to paint the suggestion as absurd, but in reality there is no reason to doubt that immunity would be durable like it usually is.
"The coronavirus may be “reactivating” in people who have been cured of the illness, according to Korea’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 51 patients classed as having been cured in South Korea have tested positive again, the CDC said in a briefing on Monday. Rather than being infected again, the virus may have been reactivated in these people, given they tested positive again shortly after being released from quarantine, said Jeong Eun-kyeong, director-general of the Korean CDC."
> The WHO lied about human-to-human transmission
No, the WHO correctly noted at the time that they didn't have sufficient evidence to conclude it was occurring. (China may have been concealing it, certainly.)
> They lied about the effectiveness of travel restrictions
They were likely correct, given recent analysis showing it quietly spreading in NYC back in January.
> They were wrong about airborne transmission
No, you're wrong about what "airborne" versus "droplet" transmission means in epidemiology.
> They lied about the effectiveness of masks
Now this, I can agree with, and if you look at my submission/posting history you'll see plenty of criticism of that approach. It seems likely to have been intended to preserve supplies for healthcare workers, but it backfired.
feel free to check the articles and commentary by CNN, MSNBC, Gov Coumo etcetc from January thru the beginning of March... the Federalist is the least of my worries..Dorsey and his spawn are wrong
> No, the WHO correctly noted at the time that they didn't have sufficient evidence to conclude it was occurring.
This is a stretch. Lookup timelines of China's handling of this issue. For instance from https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/chinas-devas.... Human to human transmission was observed in the second week of December and the WHO continued denying this was the case in mid-January.
Look at the WHO's tweet from January 14th - https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 - "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China". That's not them lacking evidence to conclude on it, that's them irresponsibly parroting Beijing propaganda.
That's exactly why Taiwan has also been criticizing the WHO - see https://www.ft.com/content/2a70a02a-644a-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6.... "Health officials in Taipei said they alerted the WHO at the end of December about the risk of human-to-human transmission of the new virus but said its concerns were not passed on to other countries."
The WHO doesn't have a CIA. They rely on member nations for their information. Taiwan's well-founded suspicions are still not proof; the NRO article you're citing alleges China lied to the WHO to conceal human-to-human transmission.
>The head of the CDC at the time, Tom Frieden, had initially recommended that health-care professionals not use respirators when taking care of patients with Ebola. It took two health-care workers in Dallas contracting Ebola from a patient for the CDC to change its recommendations in October 2014.
The traditional classification system for disease transmission is "contact", "droplet", and "air borne". This is the system that has been taught for well over half a century to every doctor and epidemiologist in the world. But the system is overly simplistic.[1] And that's because the system is based on faulty models from the 1950s that were never revisited or questioned until relatively recently.[2]
During the Ebola outbreak it was still medical heresy to question the droplet/air borne dichotomy. There were just a handful of scientists (one very loud one--Osterholm, I think) pressing the issue. Subsequent research after Ebola vindicated their arguments, but it can take a long time for good science to displace bad science, especially in the conservative medical community, and especially when the new science doesn't make for simple decision trees. The irony is that the old models made (and still make) typically conservative health professionals overly optimistic about the difficulty of transmission of various types of diseases.
[1] See, e.g., Michael T. Osterholm, et al, "Transmission of Ebola Viruses: What We Know and What We Do Not Know", February 19, 2015, https://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00137-15#sec-7 (links directly to the section "The Complexities of Aerosols and Droplets: A Changing Paradigm").
[2] "Medical and infection control professionals have relied for years on a paradigm for aerosol transmission of infectious diseases based on very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data. In the 1940s and 50s, William F. Wells and other 'aerobiologists' employed now significantly out-of-date sampling methods (eg, settling plates) and very blunt analytic approaches (eg, cell culturing) to understand the movement of bacterial aerosols in healthcare and other settings. Their work, though groundbreaking at the time, provides a very incomplete picture." Lisa M. Brosseau, Rachael Jones, "Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola", September 17, 2014, http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentar....
EDIT: And here's a 2019 paper about aerosol transmission of influenza, disputing the droplet orthodoxy, that suggests the continuing predominance of the old models: Timo Smieszek, Gianrocco Lazzari & Marcel Salathé, "Assessing the Dynamics and Control of Droplet- and Aerosol-Transmitted Influenza Using an Indoor Positioning System", February 18, 2019, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-38825-y ("virtually all studies assessing the dynamics and control of influenza assume that it is transmitted solely through direct contact and large droplets, requiring close physical proximity").
The open data on the internet in January was explicit. I'm not sure any country acted on the real obvious stuff to do in January.
I also think few countries are acting on the real obvious stuff today.
Some things are complicated that will take years to know if they worked (For instance travel bans) but there are still things that should be done today that simply are not.
Like random testing of the population in different test sites around the world to understand how it spreads.
Like a global effort to sort the data coming out in a open way, not just dumping large amounts of research papers on a site.