[afarrell]

> Nothing in that statement can fairly be read as "there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19".

So you'd like to be 'entitled to your own set of facts' about how to summarise that WHO post because I am a fallible human, correct?

Would you say that Facebook are composed of infallible humans who never misinterpret the results of dense scientific papers? Or can the human judgement they exercise on complex topics be mistaken?

[ceejayoz]

> So you'd like to be 'entitled to your own set of facts' about how to summarise that WHO post because I am a fallible human, correct?

It is simply not factual that that statement states "there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19". It explicitly states otherwise, in fact.

> There is limited information to determine the overall risk of this reported cluster...

[afarrell]

And your choice to believe the webpage over me is an (entirely reasonable and wise) exercise in human judgement based on other evidence you have access to.