[perf1]

WHO says something different:

Q: Can asymptomatic coronavirus disease be transmitted?

A: Asymptomatic transmission refers to transmission of the virus from a person, who does not develop symptoms. There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission.

[samvher]

They don't say something different. The key part is who does not develop symptoms, i.e. ever. From what I understand the WHO basically distinguishes between asymptomatic transmission (which they say is uncommon), and presymptomatic transmission.

[rumanator]

> They don't say something different.

I would add that they only state that there are few reports of truly asymptomatic cases (thus suggesting that asymptomatic cases don't exist) and thus so far there have been no documented case of asymptomatic transmission, which is to be expected if asymptomatic cases don't exist.

[perf1]

I don't know. If you are right and they make that distinction. I think they even know much less about presymptomatic transmissions. Because why would they leave that information out.

[samvher]

Because they are handling their communication terribly. A while back there were headlines about this precise topic, i.e. WHO saying that asymptomatic transmission is rare - it caused quite a stir and a number of articles followed explaining the nuances and this distinction.

[ardy42]

> WHO says something different:

IIRC, I've read the WHO tends to drag its feet with new information, and is usually the last major organization to come around to new findings. They might not be the best group to listen to in a fast moving area like this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-o...

> But interviews with nearly 20 scientists — including a dozen W.H.O. consultants and several members of the committee that crafted the guidance — and internal emails paint a picture of an organization that, despite good intentions, is out of step with science....

> But the infection prevention and control committee in particular, experts said, is bound by a rigid and overly medicalized view of scientific evidence, is slow and risk-averse in updating its guidance and allows a few conservative voices to shout down dissent.

> “They’ll die defending their view,” said one longstanding W.H.O. consultant, who did not wish to be identified because of her continuing work for the organization. Even its staunchest supporters said the committee should diversify its expertise and relax its criteria for proof, especially in a fast-moving outbreak....

> The W.H.O. has found itself at odds with groups of scientists more than once during this pandemic.

> The agency lagged behind most of its member nations in endorsing face coverings for the public. While other organizations, including the C.D.C., have long since acknowledged the importance of transmission by people without symptoms, the W.H.O. still maintains that asymptomatic transmission is rare.

> “At the country level, a lot of W.H.O. technical staff are scratching their heads,” said a consultant at a regional office in Southeast Asia, who did not wish to be identified because he was worried about losing his contract. “This is not giving us credibility.”

[AceyMan]

my dimestore mixed metaphor is this:

because WHO is a top of the pyramid standards body (of sorts), they are slow to adopt new lines of thinking. Very waterfall, not agile. When the ISO updates a publication we have a near zero expectation it will be amended any time soon.

WHO follows a similar mechanism, which, prima facie, seems fitting — until it's not — COVID-19 being the glaring counterexample we're living through right here & now.

[jonfw]

They're attempting to paint this advice as coming from experts- but without attaching names, we're relying solely on the credibility of the author from the NYT. Given the incentive structure of being an internet blogger (sensationalism = $$$$), that credibility is very limited.

Science is much more rigorous than this article- but it's a fun read.

[ardy42]

> They're attempting to paint this advice as coming from experts- but without attaching names

You mean these names? They're linked in the article.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa939...

They're credible enough and this action public enough that the WHO got the message: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/health/coronavirus-aeroso....

> we're relying solely on the credibility of the author from the NYT. Given the incentive structure of being an internet blogger (sensationalism = $$$$), that credibility is very limited.

The NYT isn't a blog.

[BurningFrog]

WHO has lost a lot of credibility during the Covid crisis.

[shadowgovt]

It's the risk of having any credibility to burn. In contrast, crackpots spreading rumors about the efficacy of zinc or the logical impossibility that a mask won't stop the virus but does stop oxygen from reaching the brain have no credibility to lose, so their observable percentage loss is lower.

[whatshisface]

It might be false but it's not logically impossible, for example if you were breathing through a tiny but non-filtered hole the aerodynamics could make it very difficult to breathe while allowing aerosol droplets through in small quantities. In fact, there is a good lesson buried in the insanity, which is that having something over your face, even if it is making it harder to breathe, might not be perfect protection.

[hutzlibu]

Yes, but I don't trust crackpots to begin with. As crackpots are just professional drug abusers.

But the WHO are medical professional people. And I am not. Like most people.

And I want to be able to trust the professionals.

[BurningFrog]

I think of WHO as primarily a political organization under the UN.

[hutzlibu]

Yes, a political organisation with the goal, to help fight human diseases on a global scale. And increase human health im general.

And trusted and cited for medical facts all around.

But if they would be caught bending medical facts to political will .. that would be not helpful.

[vorpalhex]

Part of why the situation is complicated is that both you and the parent are correct depending on the source, and both claims are currently supported depending on the source.

The same confusion happened over masks.

[tomrod]

Parent comment assumed asymptomatic means presymptomatic, which is not the case.