Don't Kill Bill
Full Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2006
- Messages
- 5,831
My problem? I asked you a simple question.
A few small corrections, the 8 doctors haven't been prosecuted but reprimanded by Wuhan's police, later the chinese supreme court criticized the police and exonerated the doctors. In the memo the Health director said that there were suggestions that human to human transmission was possible based on the existence of cases not directly linked to Wuhan, the next day they didn't say that human to human transmission didn't exist, they said that "the risk of sustained human to human transmission was low" which again based on how little everyone knew was a reasonable assumption, it was also a way to acknowledge their existence while not making the public lose their minds, remember that it was for the public, you don't go doom and gloom when you are not even sure about what you are dealing with. And there is nothing that puts the origin in the market, it was an early suspicion due to the fact that it was a cluster in Wuhan but many people that had no contact with the market got infected which is by the way how local doctors determined that human to human transmission was a thing.
As I said in this thread clearly China(mainly local authorities) botched things initially but nothing suggests that they knew more about it than the rest of the world, most of what we know suggests that they didn't knew a whole lot and reacted slowly, in the AP summary the chinese CDC is specifically accused of being sluggish and bureaucratic. But from the moment they had a better idea, they did things relatively well outside of not closing their external borders.
PS: The far right part is about Pompeo's comments about the lab, it's a conspiracy that mainly comes from that side of the political spectrum. You can question the chinese response to the health crisis but the conspiracies about it being man made have no substance for the moment.
Sorry but I disagree. Its not reasonable to make a statement about levels of human to human transmission at the start of an outbreak of a new and deadly virus if you don't know that statement to be factually true.
Its not reasonable at all, its is reckless and self serving and if it was done to stop a panic, then it was not a mistake but a deliberate decision and calculated gamble that risks the outbreak getting out of hand if the wishful thinking about the transmission rate turns out to be wrong.
Which it was and that in my opinion is indefensible.