| > 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... |