Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ardy42 2167 days ago
> 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.”

2 comments

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.

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.

> 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.