Who the fuck runs media at who? This is like the 10th time they've made a serious blunder with messaging.

AFAIK this wasn’t like a formal memo. Sounds like it was someone from WHO who was fielding questions and the asymptomatic spread question came up and then she said it was very rare without including that conclusion came from an extremely small sub-set of data.

This. Everyone's bashing WHO for this when it was just the media taking something they shouldn't have and running with it. If anyone actually reads the articles they'd see it was just a comment during a briefing about conflicting evidence, but of course the titles of the articles imply WHO fucked up. No one reads the articles.

Edit: Lots of responses saying 1. WHO is a terrible organization and 2. that I'm wrong, they should have known better than to say what they did

to address #1: I don't know if WHO is a bad organization, but the reasoning people are giving me here is ignorant garbage. "which Org said that mask have almost no effect in blunting the spread of a respiratory virus again?", well most of them actually. In case anyone forgot, there was/is a shortage of masks at the start of all of this. So, health experts were urging people to NOT buy masks so that healthcare providers could have them instead. As our information on the virus changed, so did their recommendations. That's not a fuck up, it's a correction you goddamn casuals.

to address #2: I don't think any of you actually know where, who, or what WHO said what they did. Damn that's a lot of W's.

• Where: it was during a Q&A. This wasn't a prepared statement. They have these ~45 minute Q&As 3x a week.

• Who: the technical lead on the pandemic. This is not a media rep or someone highly trained in media relations. If they're doing 3x weekly Q&As with the media, they're bound to say something that can be twisted.

• What: She said A LOT. I listened to the full response and find it infuriating that an essentially 3 second segment of her 3 MINUTE answer was taken out of context and twisted. Her answer begins at 32:15 here. She also makes very important distinctions between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic, but I've yet to see any posts highlighting that important info.

These folks are the experts, but they aren't perfect. The info they have is constantly changing and sometimes they may say something that, while correct, can be twisted. As laymen, let's do a better job at understanding our own ignorance on these subjects.

She also makes very important distinctions between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic, but I've yet to see any posts highlighting that important info.

This. This has been driving me nuts as well. At first I was shocked that she hadn't made the distinction, because I was just going off of whatever media snippet I initially read.

"it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual"

If the WHO is giving out information during a pandemic, they need to be on top of clarity and accuracy. They needed to clarify twice, then Fauci had to come in with the actual numbers.

They aren’t some high school club - mistakes matter

Doesn't this highlight the issue of misinformation spread by poor quality journalism? Are there even consequences to journalists responsible for misguiding the public? Scientists are doing their job, journalists need to theirs. If they don't understand something, shouldn't they ask for clarification, not post questionable headlines? As the go between scientists and the general public, shouldn't journalists be held accountable for what they choose to report?

Exactly, this isn't People magazine where you're trying to grab someones attention within 3 seconds at the check out rack, this is a very real, scary issue that people are becoming more and more polarized on. Reduce anyone's 45 minute message into a headline and for sure you're going to find a soundbite that twists things into your favor. Getting a headline out so that you sell more copies at the cost of twisting everyone's faith in WHO, ends up creating more naysayers that are going to listen to health officials less and less. Its impossible to really see the numbers, but I'd think they're contributing to spreading the virus more as now people view health organizations and doctors as less reputable and reliable despite that not being the case at all. Their advice is taken less seriously as things progress. This should IMHO come with VERY serious consequences as you're indirectly endangering the public.

that's literally not what she said. See link in my edit for the actual video of her response.

It's 2020 and people still quote what are obviously chopped up transcriptions when YouTube exists. Quote the source, not the article.

This is a global pandemic. The WHO shouldn’t be surprised that media science reporting is awful. Public messaging is part of the WHO’s mandate and if they can’t handle that, the they shouldn’t make public statements.

Also they are making a subtle distinction that of course nobody is picking up: asymptomatic is not the same as presymtomatic

More like this is the 10th time "Let me explain to you, Mr. Reporter-who-writes-headline, in extraordinary details plus all the incomplete data that we have collected so far that should clarify why my answer to your question should be we don't know yet".

"From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual". This is a verbatim quote.

And the rest of the context was there are very few truly asymptomatic people. Most people who are presumed to be asymptomatic actually have very mild symptoms but they never get the fever.

It was an answer to a question and was reported without context.

it was science that was then reported by non-scientists.

This is all a non-issue, unless, of course, you don't trust scientists.

Don't look now. Youtube comments are going full anti-science. Reddit is following closely behind, if this thread is any indication. We are truly fucked if our future will be full of scientifically illiterate people.

"will be"

lol

Right. It’s the "Culture of Ignorance" that Carl Sagan refereed to in the 70s, in which the attitude is "My ignorance is as valid as your knowledge." And it’s been the case since I don’t know when.

Yeah, I do not believe it is new. The new thing is that science is more open and available today, and we rely upon it more today. So all the nutjobs not believing in science are just more vocal and visible today.

I've always liked this visual aid to explain part of the problem.

The other part is that no matter how wrong one may be about any issue, it's guaranteed that somewhere on the internet you will find like-minded individuals who will gladly back you up.

Sometimes i visit conspiracy sub for shits and giggles, mostly to just laugh at the absurdity of their theories. They must be trolling, yes?

But the things ive been reading on there lately are pretty alarming and honestly really frightening. The amount of "do your own research (95% of the time they mean Youtube)" mentality that’s been spilling into the mainstream is terrifying.

When they said the internet is going to be a great tool to share knowledge, they forgot to add that it can also be used to share the dum dum.

I mean, look at what Dr Fauci is saying. Don't get me wrong, the idiots on r/conspiracy are delusional, but when we've been repeatedly lied to by medical officials "do your own research" isn't bad advice. Doing your own research can be as simple as checking with the WHO, CDC, and other authorities before absorbing "facts" any one of them presents. That's still "doing your own research" while avoiding the pitfalls of YouTube idiot pits.

This is a direct quote I read today:

"One day, this type of thread will go cold when the entire country realizes this was all a hoax. Covid is possibly real but not any worse than the flu. Even WHO admits it now."

So to this guy "it’s rare that asymptomatic people transmit the virus" equals "WHO admits virus is hoax".

/facepalm

And that its ok to not wear mask and pretend nothing happened

It’s a bunch of morons who think they are woke and get reassured by a mentally ill president who adds to conspiracy theories

No, I'm sorry but if you are an internationally recognized org you MUST be more careful with your words (written or spoken). The phrasing of the exact quote is CERTAIN to be misunderstood by the average person. There's a difference between public statements/press releases and scientific papers or communications. This is no different for any other discipline and doesn't require people not trusting science to be an issue. Yes, the press will often spin/misunderstand; but you HAVE to start with good phrasing or you are not blameless.

Don't they think like 35% are asymptomatic? That's a lot

The WHO classification of asymptomatic people, i think, is listed as someone who never develop symptoms at all. So that cuts the numbers way down. They also said that you could be asymptomatic for a few days while being contagious and later on develop symptoms. So Dr Fauci and WHO are both right, just that their definitions aren't totally aligned. Asymptomatic people do spread the virus, but alot of those asymptomatic people don't stay asymptomatic for long.

This is where the very much needed distinction is needed between asymptomatic and pre symptomatic. 2 extremely different things but I don't see the latter discussed nearly enough

From an national health perspective though the fine line between the two types of cases is too complex for many people to understand. Fauci is right in hedging the messaging towards the safe side from a public health perspective.

a scientific definition of asymptomatic is different than a laymens interpretation of their own "asymptoms".

Medically asymptomatic is no symptoms at all. Layman's asymptomatic is an occasional minor cough. "Its nothing, I'm going to work."

Estimate is anywhere from 5-40%. With a range that big the data is practically useless

They should know that reporters and the lay person won't be able to differentiate between presymptomatic and asymptomatic. The general public was grouping the two together, so any answer should differentiate between the two .

The quote says asymptomatic people rarely transmit, though, which is what Fauci is refuting. This doesn't seem like a media slip up, "asymptomatic person rarely transmits" is plainly inaccurate without spin, even if asymptomatic people are relatively rare. Slip of the tongue maybe.

The issue at play is real world data vs computer modeling estimates.

See I tried explaining this to someone on Nextdoor using the same source they provided to justify saying "masks do nothing and we did all this for no reason". And wooboy, was that an interesting look into just how stupid your average suburbanite with nothing to do is.

I just posted an "I told you so" on a friend FB page over this. He posted a two sentence summary article; I watched the video and told him the article misinterpreted the video. WHO were reclassifying/narrowing what asymptomatic meant and the results appeared to be limited to socially distanced populations. He said that I couldn't just accept good news as good news.

Today that same friend was railing against WHO as walking back under political pressure and being full of junk science for their changed stance.

Naturally, I posted "I told you so" and got called a liar for defending the walk back, even after pointing out that my original comment pre-dated the second video and said almost exactly what was in the second video.

These people are entirely devoid of reading comprehension and immune to science.

China

It’s too late, the cat’s out of the bag. Everyone now believes that it’s safe to mingle as long as people aren’t coughing.

If by "everyone" you mean "everyone who didn’t already think the WHO was full of shit", then perhaps.

So is the general public supposed to support the WHO or not? Are they full of shit or not? Is Trump right to withdraw or not? This pandemic has been so terribly mismanaged by public health officials with poor communication and conflicting messaging from all levels (WHO, CDC, White House, State and local gov) since the start. It’s remarkable that millions more aren’t dead.

The problem is that the statement is both correct and incorrect.

Asymptomatic people do not appear to contribute significantly to the spread of COVID-19. This is true.

but...

Asymptomatic is defined in this context as people who do not show symptoms for the entire course of being infected with COVID. This is in contrast with presymptomatic people who do not currently show symptoms (but will in the future) who do appear to be a significant factor in spreading the disease.

The problem is that the facts haven't changed, it's how it's being communicated and interpreted. Asymptomatic has a distinct meaning, but it's being interpreted by everyone as "asymptomatic and presymptomatic", so they're scrambling to try to communicate better.

The problem is that there's no difference experientially between an asymptomatic or a presymptomatic person. Someone presymptomatic has no symptoms, someone asymptomatic has no symptoms. So it's difficult to explain, and by using both conditionally it makes it difficult for the public to absorb. For all intents and purposes, especially public health purposes, the message should be that we should treat everyone not showing symptoms as if they are presymptomatic, even if they are asymptomatic.

I think the public, mass message should completely ignore the distinction because it will just cause confusion. Just leave it at "people without symptoms". Do they spread it? Yes. The end.

Seriously hard agree. Why does the public care if someone can get it, not show symptoms and not spread it? What use is that information to them?

So are you saying asymptomatic people aren't contagious and the WHO is probably correct, but people mix it up with pre-symptomatic, making what the WHO says irrelevant as far as wearing masks go?

Like we can't tell difference between asymptomatic and presymptomatic so it was still irresponsible for the WHO to say that.

I'm saying that I have no idea what they were trying to say and I'm pulling out my hair trying to translate them into something that we can recognize and act on.

I think you can only call it a pre-symptomatic phase once you actually become symptomatic. If you never develop symptoms you are always asymptomatic. This is assuming an infection or disease is underway in the body, in both cases. My understanding is that with SARS-CoV-2 is that there is some risk of transmitting the infection even without overt symptoms. Maybe you think it’s allergies or a late night that may make you feel a bit off for a short time. Would you think to get tested for COVID if it passes? Depending on the type of test, results can come back in an hour or a few days. False negatives vary across test types. (I’m a PhD scientist working for one of those companies). Without daily screening with 100% accuracy, any one of us could be carrying and possibly transmitting the virus. If you can’t socially distance wear a mask to reduce transmission. Please and thank you!

something that we can recognize and act on

Keep washing your hands, wearing a mask, and social distancing. It's not that hard.

Yes, but people are looking for excuses not to do that because people are dumb. If they hear that someone not showing symptoms is not contagious, they'll jump on the chance to stop doing that.

Exactly. It's a get out of jail card.

I feel like people are playing with definitions and some are defending them because of appeal to authority

Is pre-symptomatic even a widely used term? I've never heard anyone refer to HIV carries not suffering AIDS as "pre-symptomatic", they are always referred as "asymptomatic"

Pre-symptomatic refers when you are in the incubation period and you are not showing symptoms yet, but you are still potentially contagious.

It literally is no different for laymen.

I've presented what I think is a catchy way of thinking about it, but making such a distinction is a horrible public health communication choice. For people in their every day lives, they need to make decisions about how to act. And it's an impossible distinction to make and a terrible decision by the WHO to try to make this distinction because it screws with normal peoples' ability to make those decisions about how to protect themselves.

Can we hire these imbeciles a communications director?

This is human nature. I deal with this kind of issue all day long at my office (online) job. I swear half of what I do is clarifying statements by other people, and explaining things in more detail, which people don’t listen to... then I do it again.

My personal favorite is when I hear something explained to someone, only to later hear them explain it to someone else entirely incorrectly as if they hadn’t been present earlier.

The game is called "telephone."

Many people at work find me annoying because when asked a question I tend to respond with a dozen qualifying questions to try and make sure I understand exactly what they are asking me. People tend to be so lazy with their communication.

There is nothing worse than someone saying "kanst said" in a meeting and then completely misinterpreting what I said. Especially when that someone is your boss or your customer.

Oh, I work in benefits, people DO NOT READ. I send an email regarding their benefit, and they email or call back and ask: Wut is this about?? Wut does this meaaaaan?

So true. Or they read but don’t understand. Sometimes it’s honestly a poorly written communication. But more often, it’s a complex issue requiring not only reading, but comprehension... which is a bridge too far for too many of our fellow travelers. TLDR: people are dumb

Yeah it's like they need someone who is slightly below average intelligence who doesn't know anything about medicine in the staff. They just run a statement by them and ask them to explain what it meant.

We should implement this idea. Like they have to explain it to my Uncle David before they go in front of the press.

It’s called "idiot proofing"

Did you just call my uncle an idiot? He got his GED eventually!

I think "layman’s terms" is more accurate. In this case the idiots were behind the microphone.

Your uncle might be a better president for this crisis then.

This sounds like the inverse of something I read on a "Guide to being an effective Super Villain" writing prompt. It went something like, "Always have a 5 year old present when planning something. If the 5 year old can work out a way around it, scrap the whole idea."

this is why STEM *and* humanities disciplines are important. You have to be able to *do* the science *and* communicate the results clearly.

This is why middle management will roast you over your powerpoint deck and what font it needs to be and how the key takeaways should be communicated. Because at the end of the day, you may have done amazing science and have amazing data to present, but if it cant' be quickly an clearly communicated, then it's all meaningless.

The public also need some baseline knowledge in those areas to understand what’s going on. This isn’t just on the WHO - they are a medical organization and their work is conducted in that language. They need to idiot-proof their information, but the public needs to stop being idiots too.

Their purpose is public health ie preventing disease, not just a "medical organization" the way I think you mean. The public are idiots and it's the WHO's job as well as each countries' government to communicate information to said idiots no matter what. If they're tossing out jargon to the public, they already failed. Expecting the public to stop being idiots is wishful thinking and obviously an impossible task.

I'm unemployed I'll do it

So then is Fauci wrong to say asymptomatic people are contagious? It seems like rather than clarifying the difference, he's just making an incorrect statement.

So then is Fauci wrong to say asymptomatic people are contagious? It seems like rather than clarifying the difference, he's just making an incorrect statement. /u/cantquitreddit

Asymptomatic = infected with no outward signs of infection now, nor in the future.

Presymptomatic = Asymptomatic early on, then transitions to showing outward signs of infection (cough, sneezing, runny nose, fever, respiratory distress).

If someone is infected they are contagious, whether showing outward signs of infection or not. They're contagious.

HOW contagious or how much viral load they pass on to another person is still in question.

TL;DR if a person is infected with Covid-19, they are contagious. Period. Full-stop. Doesn't matter whether the person is showing outward signs of infection or not. They're contagious.

No the WHO was wrong to conflate sub-clinical infections with people who aren't showing symptoms because they are in the early stages of the infeciton.

Subclinical infected are less infectious. Even then they are not non infectious. The WHO made a massive miscommunication.

So here is the problem, to the person infected there is no way to tell if someone is asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic.

Fauci is responding the common understanding of asymptomatic meaning "showing no symptoms", the WHO is using the technical definition of asymptomatic meaning "showing no symptoms and will never show symptoms". That second part is the key, but you can only know that after the fact if someone goes through the course of the disease without ever showing symptoms.

This. 100x this.

hey i pal, i think that your point can actually be supported by how they spread the infection right?

Like non Asymptomatic will not be coughing or sneezing therefore they will spread less particles, so in close emvironments while talking they will be contagious but not on open spaces where you should keep reasonable distance, those conditions make them almost non contagious

problem is talking even loud can produce aerosols. how many times you have seen normal people talking and droplets flying off from their mouth?

It's the same confusion created about wearing masks. They were stupid about conveying information.

Regular masks will not keep you from getting sick.

When really it should have been. N95 masks will stop you from getting sick. Other, regular masks will stop you from SPREADING the disease. The TYPE of mask is the key.

So then the public gets the mixed message about mask usage, when the media was just stupid about how they presented the information. Then no one believes what experts say because it is confusing and conflicting information.

Wear a regular mask to help stop the spread of disease. If you are worried about getting the disease, wear an N95.

Idk, the dictionary (and most people) define asymptomatic as "producing or showing no symptoms". Asymptomatic is widely considered a state of not having symptoms.

The assumption that people will understand they meant permanently asymptomatic is clearly harmful

You’re not wrong. But the way I heard the story, the WHO just said something that a reporter misunderstood and that’s how we got the stories about the WHO saying if you’re not coughing you’re good to mingle.

This. One of their doctors was asked a question and the answer was reported as a new policy position by the WHO.

This is my problem. The whole thing is a clusterfuck and has turned many into just saying "oh well, I can’t keep up so fuck it!"

This is the truth. The same day the radio hosts insisted to even said what happens when they walk this back next week (this was yesterday) to the councilman that they have on the show weekly. Even the councilman said that the back n forth is maddening and it's making everyone's job impossible.

They need to stop reporting until they have more conclusive facts. Stop the daily updates outside of numbers.

If it wasn’t for states taking action on their own in the utter vacuum left by the federal government, there would be many more dead. The states got by while literally having their medical equipment seized by federal agents, having to deal with the Fed out-bidding the states on medical supply orders...it’s insane that the fed set itself as an obstacle to the states doing what they needed to, literally hoarding desperately-needed supplies and not letting anyone use them. It’s insane, but governors have saved the day by acting when Trump and the fed just sat on their hands (best case) or actively sabotaged states’ efforts to confront the virus. Unreal.

The thing that blows my mind: where the fuck are all the idiot conspiracy theorists who wouldn't shut the fuck up for eight years about Obama usurping state authority, and "FEMA death camps."

Now that is actually happening, FEMA is literally causing people to die unnecessarily, and these people are nowhere to be found...

"Hypocrisy" doesn’t even come close to describing it. Probably the same people who a month or so ago were saying we might have to sacrifice grandma and grandpa to get the economy going again, and lockdown orders are tyrannical, who now are saying (black) people (who are protesting) need to obey curfews and lockdown orders. It’s just blatant racism: if they’re white, whatever they do is alright.

"The WHO is a bunch of liars. Defund them!"

The WHO says asymptomatic spread is rare

"Everyone listen to the WHO!!"

That's what I'm seeing. The ones celebrating that report the most are the same ones that don't believe anything the WHO says.

And the CDC lied to Americans about masks.

edit: for the doubters:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200331143006/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html

If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick

This exactly

This pandemic has been so terribly mismanaged by public health officials with poor communication and conflicting messaging from all levels (WHO, CDC, White House, State and local gov) since the start. It’s remarkable that millions more aren’t dead.

CDC could have told us to use homemade mask from the beginning. In an effort to stir us away from hospital PPE quality N95 masks, they told us not to wear mask. It was ridiculous to begin with cuz we knew from the start that were dealing with a airborne virus. Mask was one of the most important tool that we must have used from day 1.

Yup. Very, very frustrating. They should have been honest from the beginning - it wouldn't have been much of a crazy ask if they'd simply said something along the lines of "N95 masks should be reserved for those coming into contact with infected daily at high rates, such as medical personnel. However, we urge everyone to equip themselves with a cloth mask, such as [example] or similar, in order to minimize droplet transmission in public."

Your average American can be pretty stupid, but I think they could have gotten the point across in a way most people could have understood. Instead we ended up with this shitshow of a situation.

Killed all hopes of credibility with the public

Which makes no sense because presymptomatic appears to be exactly the same as asymptomatic... Until it isn't and the presymptomatic already said spread it.

Make masks mandatory

That's just what I was thinking. People kept acting like the news made a difference in how you should act, no it doesn't. We all knew presymptomatic patients were a risk, we just didn't know that asympstomatic patients were a low risk. People don't seem to understand that there is effectively no differentiating between someone who is presymptomatic or asymptomatic until after they get sick or not.This should have changed nothing, instead the president said we're open, the weather got nice, and the WHO said this and most people heard what they wanted to hear.

I also love all the people who acted like there was absolutely no reason to think that cases were going up after lifting restrictions, but now we see that a lot of states are having serious trouble after doing so. It was obviously going to happen. The virus did not disappear, it didn't decide to magically go away because it got warm or because the white house said to go back outside. The virus is still here, its levels actually remained relatively constant except it spread around the country so instead of the virus being almost entirely in NJ and NY, the virus spread. Now the majority of the US is likely in many ways in more danger than a couple months ago, but until the data proving it came in people acted like you were catastrophizing if you tried to make that argument. Hell, I'm sure some still will make that argument.

Well said.

So many people don't seem to care about the death count now. Just a number. And that even if you get it and survive... you may be setting yourself up for a weaker heart, lungs and/or liver for the rest of your life.

Just like the "masks don't work" BS... the WHO needs to not be taken seriously by any of us in the scientific community; same sadly with many so-called "experts" who've all been revealed as unscientific mouth pieces for which ever fringe side of politics they stem from.

I have seen a lot of non-evidenced based or poorly evidenced articles come from the WHO during this crisis, while I don’t support Trumps stance, I do believe new guidance at the WHO and more stringent vetting of information is needed.

EDIT: The WHO website lists their publications under "articles." So if your only comment is on the use of that word as opposed to "publications" then I find your comment lacking substance in the discussion surrounding them putting out poorly vetted, poorly substantiated, and poorly evidenced documents during a time of global crisis .

https://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/articles/en/

It's almost like the WHO has botched nearly everything related to Corona.

I’m feeling like Michael Scott after a couple vasectomies right about now

Edit: Thanks for the gold fellow Dunder Mifflinite

SNIP SNAP SNIP SNAP SNIP SNAP! You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person!

Just the snip snap part gets me

My friend Dizrey got new specs. Disrespect!

My friend Innapro drives a prius with his behind neighbor.

WHO fucked this up so bad. I am so resentful. That subtle distinction between "asymptomatic" and "presymptomatic" - they had to know that distinction would be lost on the public. It’s not the first time they’ve ever done a fucking press conference surely. But they charged ahead anyways - even knowing how fractured and stupid the response has been in the US as it is. I don’t understand it - either it’s purposeful or the officials are so out of touch with the reality of communicating about a public health emergency that they really shouldn’t be leading

Edit: For those who say the WHO shouldn’t bear responsibility - that it’s the media and the undiscerning public’s fault - well, I’m not a scientist, I’m a lawyer. My job is parsing through regulations so dense that few people, even other lawyers, understand them. But the most important part of my job is not understanding those regulations, it’s communicating them in a simple, clear, concise way for my clients so I can give them actionable advice. If my client was in a current state of emergency, extremely unsophisticated, and was about to experience catastrophic loss, if I knew that the client had completely misunderstood nuances multiple times in the past with huge (and ongoing) consequences, it would be a horrendous failure of my job to continue to indulge in legalese and rely on definitional distinctions that are legally accurate but practically lead to nothing (or worse, actual harm). It doesn’t matter if my client has a poor translator or tends to only read the headings on my legal memoranda. It still doesn’t change the fact that I’ve failed at my job. The WHO is not an ivory tower research institution communicating with other scientists. It has not done its job here.

subtle distinction between "asymptomatic" and "presymptomatic" - they had to know that distinction would be lost on the public

In my experience (including direct involvement in a couple of highly technical professions), professionals are really bad at looking outside of their bubbles to understand how their words will be understood by those who don't have expertise.

and media is very poor at reporting those distinctions

nuance and extensive discussion don't sell papers or generate clicks

and arguably that is their job more than the scientists >_>

Still the scientists job, Im in IT and just like the lawyers comment its my job to communicate in terms that people understand

Why do you think some reporter at CNN should know how to communicate science terms better than the science people?!??!?!?!!

The media is far more to blame for pretty much all lack of nuance in science reporting.

This is why I have a ton of engineering courses on communication and impact.

Not all professionals are like this. Those who can't communicate to the public shouldn't be on TV and communicate to the public.

Every health organization dropped the ball here. WHO, CDC, even the surgeon general straight up said masks were no use up into March. This is how people become cynical and jaded.

To be fair, it isn't until recently that I've seen any good studies on mask usefulness, comparing mask, to no mask, and materials and layers etc.

I don't know exactly what the WHO has said in the past, but if it's anything like the usual, a "there is no significant evidence that masks are any use" is not an incorrect statement at the time. The same with human to human transmission, at the time it was not clearly the case.

EDIT: For those interested, this was the first well reviewed and accepted one that I came across.

The fact that the sciences as a discipline are subject to change based on evidence, and collecting this evidence takes time, is a strength that is far too often misinterpreted as a weakness.

There have been plenty of studies before. It could be arguable that statements like we don't have evidence showing masks that work or there is no statistical significance in showing that masks reduce transmission, but again, this is the disconnect between scientific statements and public advice. The public takes this to mean masks don't work and then outright reject masks.

If the evidence on masks isn't clear, then don't tell people to do or not to do something and tell them that the research is unclear and more data is being collected before making an official recommendation.

But look, it goes beyond what we've said this time. The same messaging about masks was used during Ebola and H1N1. The media and lots of doctors and health institutions went out to urge people not to go crazy about masks in each one of these crises. The reason the US is so anti-mask isn't just a one time deal with COVID. It's a general mindset here. Most countries in Asia just threw on masks and went about their normal lives.

The pandemic's real reveal is how incompetent WHO and that many national health agencies were not much better.

Which is in part because of lack of funding. When times are great, governments want to cut their spending on "frivolous" agencies and research. Then when everything falls apart, and those agencies fail to rise to the challenge, governments blame the agencies and decide to cut their funding even more to make them the scapegoat.

To be fair, I’m sure after the pandemic there will be a decent surge in pandemic funding, which will be then be cut in about 5 years or so once everyone forgot that our response was more disastrous than the virus itself.

Lack of funding? I don't think lack of funding is why they recommended heavily against masks for a fucking respiratory disease. Or their latest fuck up there.

They're led by either incompetent or corrupt people.

Also what I don't understand, is how people are still willing to get a disease even if it doesn't show symptoms. We still don't know what it does long term. how it affects the brain. What mutations will occur. Et cetera.

About a third of people who had SARS ended up with chronic fatigue syndrome, I've heard a lot of anecdotes from those who have recovered mentioning how they still feel drained

1/3? WTF

Chronic fatigue syndrome is a horrible disease. I didn't know it was an effect of SARS

SARS was also way more deadly than COVID

Yes, I'd assume that the numbers wouldn't be the same. However, given that they are two closely-related viruses that have a similar method of infection, I don't think it would be too far-fetched to propose the possibility of permanent damage arising from the more severe cases.

Because nobody is worried about the future

Did you actually watch the briefing or just read the poor news reports. Because Maria van Kerkhove made the distinction and elaborated on the full scope of the evidence for about 5 minutes. The news report clipped a few sentences and phrases and made an even worse headline. When she tried to clarify, because the reporting was so bad, they labelled it as "walking back" her statements.

Stop getting your information from shitty news reporting. Go to the source.

Pre-symptomatic spread: Common

Asymptomatic spread: Rare

Unfortunately, we use these terms interchangeably

When do we get Legendary or Exotic spreading?

Gotta buy some loot boxes first.

You mean surprise mechanics, right?

Well of course! They're meant to instill a sense of pride and accomplishment!

That's because they are in practice indistinguishable. You're only presymptomatic if you develop symptoms LATER. We can't predict the future.

This isnt true.

A WHO representative was explaining that individuals who are not symptomatic are still contagious, but because they are not coughing and sneezing, may be less likely to spread the virus.

There was never an "asymptomatic individuals are less comtagious" statement, and theres no data to support that.

The woman made a clarification on twitter that she was talking about asymptomatic spread, not presymptomatic

Unless you've tested someone those 2 might as well be the same when it comes to choosing guidelines. You have to treat them both as common.

So the question of what percentage of those infected never show symptoms becomes crucial. And that will require widespread and accurate antibody testing.

They re-re-defined a term. If the media fucked it up and defined it wrong the first time, NOW is not the time to correct them.

I see, another game of who's on first, what's on second?

Who's on third?

No, hes on first!

Well, what's on third?

No, what’s on second.

"It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual," Van Kerkhove said Monday.

This makes sense if the viral load is so low that you have no symptoms you likely cannot spread the disease.

However if you are pre-symptomatic and the virus is replicating quickly you may still be contagious. This also makes sense as the viral load would be higher here.

The question is how to determine pre-symptomatic versus asymptomatic.

my two cents

This is exactly what she meant. It's not even hard to understand this if you watch the full 3 minute clip of her explaining this. She literally goes out of her way to explain the difference between presymptomatic and asymptomatic before her statement about transmission from asymptomatic individuals being seemingly rare based on the reported contact tracing data so far. It's sad that such a simple distinction is lost on 90% of the people who follow this story.

And this is exactly why it shouldn't have been done in a press conference. Distribute this information to medical journals. Putting information in the hands of the public should be handled carefully.

I do agree that she should have known better than to leave it to scientifically illiterate journalists to deliver a clearly explained, nuanced message.

However, to be fair, just look at what happens when they do release information in an official release. After this whole fiasco, I looked at some old reporting done during this pandemic vs. the official WHO documents, like the WHO's early guidelines on wearing masks, human-to-human transmission, etc. The headlines ALWAYS end up as twisted and misleading versions of the original statement. I think the problem lies 95% with the journalists and 5% with the WHO for underestimating the incompentency of said "journalists."

Sorry but I entirely disagree. Hiding knowledge is dumb. Hiding knowledge because people are too stupid is even worse. People need to stop being coddled because they are too stupid to bother to pay attention.

The question is how to determine pre-symptomatic versus asymptomatic.

Follow ups. That's all. Anyone who tests positive but shows no symptoms at the time of test, ask them again one/two/three/four/whatever weeks later what symptoms they developed, if any.

Here is the actual written language from WHO: https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1279750/retrieve

If you actually read the document, it is clear that WHO uses three classifications:

• Symptomatic: Infected with COVID-19 and displaying symptoms

• Pre-symptomatic: Infected with COVID-19, not currently displaying symptoms but end up doing so

• Asymptomatic: Infected with COVID-19 and never display symptoms

What WHO said, or try to say, is that the transmission of asymptomatic individuals, using this definition, is rare. See for example, this section from the document:

Furthermore, among two studies which carefully investigated secondary transmission from cases to contacts, one found no secondary transmission among 91 contacts of 9 asymptomatic cases, while the other reported that 6.4% of cases were attributable to pre-symptomatic transmission.

Fauci and the media, however, have not made this distinction between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic, hence the confusion. And I think Fauci understands it, but is trying to address the American public at a basic level of comprehension.

Fauci is right though, is better to make sure everyone treats A and Pre the same or else people aren't going to care and will think A and Pre are both rare.

The only way you know the difference between a and pre is after the fact!!

I'm so confused by this headline. The second sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the first. Whether people have it has nothing to do with their likelihood to spread it.

Agreed. I trust Fauci a lot when it comes to this stuff - probably more than WHO - but I hate that I cant trust how either of them are represented / reported in media.

These two statements are not contradictory. Percentage of asymptomatic carriers says nothing about their ability to spread.

I was very confused by the title. It’s conflating asymptomatic spread risk with asymptomatic carrier %. It’s 2 separate dynamics/issues.

So WHO is responsible for this disinformation?

The headline says so, WHO.

WHO?

Yes

Yes, WHO

The org in the headline.

But WHO is the organization? WHO did this?

When China pays off the organization, WHO gets the money.

Yes. WHO is on first. WHAT is on second.

Mike Jones!

Nope. WHO was correct. Media got the terms confused.

I don't think that second sentence disproves the first?

Right. 25-40% of infected people have no symptoms. The question is of those infected people without symptoms, how many can spread disease. The two are very different. All this nuance is totally lost on the public. Terrible communications for local, state, national, and international public health agencies has lead to justifiable distrust. No wonder people want to just get back to normal, they think it’s all bullshit and I can’t blame them (and I’m a doctor myself).

Yes. The WHO and US authorities have all been terrible at communicating about this, and have also failed to add common sense precautions to anything, like „even though we don’t know how long immunity lasts, most viruses lead to 12+ month immunity at the very least", or „even though we don’t know how big of a role asymptomatic people play in transmission, most other diseases are primarily spread by symptomatic individuals" etc.

Right? What did this clear up?

Yeah, this whole quote is a mess. Beyond the fact that the second sentence has nothing to do with the first, there is evidence of asymptomatic spread being rare, at least in small studies. Dr. Van Kerkhove on Monday explained how she came to this conclusion, as well, so for Fauci to say there's "no evidence" is just false.

We've been operating under the assumption that asymptomatic carriers could spread the virus, because that fits modeling well, but what if our models are wrong? Certainly this seems like a relevant issue with conflicting scientific studies. Maybe we should invest into figuring out the answer?

Those are NOT the same thing. I'm not saying that the virus doesn't spread asymptomatically, but it can simultaneously be the case that a virus very rarely spreads asymptomatically and 25 - 45% of infected people are asymptomatic. They could all have gotten it from people exhibiting symptoms, such as one person coughing in a crowd.

The headline cleared absolutely nothing up.

If headlines cleared things up we wouldn't need articles.

This is true, but plenty of people look at headlines without going into the body of an article. So it's extremely important to write comprehensive, factual headlines. This headline is a mess

i looked into this and what I found was asymptomatic is different than presymptomatic. Asymptomatic will never develop symptoms while pre symptomatic will. Presymptomatic spreads easier than asymptomatic.