[Someone1234]

This is incredibly vague.

WHAT measures did the WHO "disagree" with that saved Canada? I'd love to see this post cited up to include what measuring you're referring to in both parts (agree w/WHO and disagree) and where the WHO disagreed with Canada's measures.

[benjohnson]

The WHO advised against the public wearing masks and advised against travel restrictions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/all-uk-hospita...

https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...

As I understand it - many Canadians of Asian decent in Vancouver BC wore masks early on.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article...

EDIT: As of 3/30 WHO still doesn't recommend wearing masks (except for the obviously sick) - contrary to Vancouver BC who now require at least a covering or mask.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-r...

[Someone1234]

> The WHO advised against the public wearing masks

Nope. Your article is actually about the UK's government's advice and lumps in the WHO. Here's a WHO publication from 30th of January 2020 [0] that advises all sick with "flu-like symptoms" be provided a mask (as well as healthcare workers).

The WHO, like every national government, have recommended prioritizing masks to the sick and healthcare workers since the start of the year. Canada didn't contradict that and still doesn't as far as I've read.

Giving masks to asymptomatic members of the public only makes sense when there's a large enough supply to do so without starving essential services or known carriers.

> and advised against travel restrictions.

Your own link contradicts this claim.

> However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities.

> Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.

They then go on to essentially say that it won't work (and spoilers: It didn't work, they were 100% correct).

It also fails to show how Canada acted against the WHO advice? That was the core claim above, and your response doesn't even attempt to show that.

In fact Canada has been in lock-step with the WHO since the beginning and still is. Even according to your links.

[0] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/risk-co...

[philliphaydon]

The WHO still right now does not support wearing masks if you’re not sick. The fact that we know that people can be sick and spread the virus and still not show any symptoms suggests that every country in Asia supporting wearing the masks early on is right and the WHO is wrong.

[dijksterhuis]

As ever, the face mask issue is more complicated than it appears at first glance.

Yes, if everyone in the world had a sufficient supply of face masks and wore them correctly all of the time then the R0 would drop significantly.

The two keys parts of that statement are _sufficient supply_ and _wear them correctly_.

There is not a sufficient supply of face masks for everyone on the planet. Anyone purchasing face masks for themselves (without showing symptoms) are taking stock away from, for example, healthcare workers. Who definitely need the supplies.

I've seen people who have bought facemasks touching their face and fiddling with the masks. They don't know how to wear them correctly, making their purchase a complete waste. They've wasted stock that could have been made available to healthcare workers.

If the world was perfect and every human was perfect then yes I would agree with your statement.

But it isn't and they aren't.

WHO seems to understand this and so it seems to be a factor in their advice.

I believe they may have even made a statement to this effect at some point?

[banads]

It's not complicated at all, except for those who wish to cover up responsibility for how unprepared we have been.

>There is not a sufficient supply of face masks for everyone on the planet. Anyone purchasing face masks for themselves (without showing symptoms) are taking stock away from, for example, healthcare workers. Who definitely need the supplies.

Anyone that has access to cloth can make a rudimentary mask that is better than nothing.

>If the world was perfect and every human was perfect then yes I would agree with your statement.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[aianus]

> They then go on to essentially say that it won't work (and spoilers: It didn't work, they were 100% correct).

How didn't it work?

All of the really successful countries at handling this pandemic continue to have significant travel measures that interfere with international traffic.

For example: Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, Vietnam, even (infuriatingly, given their opposition to anyone else doing it [0]) Mainland China itself!

[0] https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/china-praises-canada-slams-u-s-...

[darepublic]

I think he saying that Canada followed WHO advice to their detriment whereas Taiwan strayed from WHO advice with success. I don't know about any specific examples but the efficacy of masks is one I've heard about -- essentially the WHO discouraged use of masks whereas now the common wisdom seems to be that even makeshift masks when widely used are a lot better than none.