Why does Biden want to rejoin the WHO?

He will be pressured to reverse Trumps decisions, smart or not.

Trump based a major policy decision on one factor. Very poor idea. The big picture is much more involved and complex.

The Drumpf regime never bothered to confirm a representative to the WHO, and then wondered why they had no influence.
It is also important to understand what the WHO does, and why it is able to do it.
It monitors and organises disease control, it runs education programmes on health concerns, it distributes and administers medical treatment and vaccinations.
It can do that, because it is a neutral organisation that countries will actually let into and let operate within their territories.
To suggest that the colonies can do it on their own, is false, because in addition to losing access to all the information and services that the WHO provides, the countries in which such outbreaks happen are not going to let an organisation by a country, that is known for its violent imperialism, into their country.
Sure, there are problems that need to be addressed, but it is infinitely more sensible to try to solve those problems by more closely engaging with the WHO, than to just leave.

Trump, never a fan of classic rock, thought he was withdrawing support for the English mod-rock band, The Who. When reached for comment about Trump, Pete Townsend said, “Who are you?”

Biden is simply looking to correct that mistake saying, “We won’t get fooled again.”

WHO made a mistake regarding the pandemic as did a lot of other people. That does not seem like justification for withdrawing from an agency that addresses health issues from a worldwide perspective.

Biden wants to rejoin the WHO as well as get back on board with the Paris climate accords. And the reasons are fundamental. Isolationism on climate matters is both stupid and counterproductive. We’re stuck on the same planet as everyone else, and we have responsibilities regarding the planet.

Biden wants to rejoin WHO because he supports science and rational public health policy, and knows that international cooperation is necessary for an international crisis.

Having good relationships with other scientists around the world who commit to trying to keep the people of our planet safe seems like a good idea. WHO has made mistakes sure, so has everyone. So, the point is to learn from the mistakes and not do it again. Same with the UN in general (WHO is part of the UN if you don’t know). It is harder to go to war with a country when you have gotten to know their leaders and spent time talking about your grandchildren together. It might sound ridiculous, but building rapport and familiarity matters.

@JLeslie GA. So true.

Because the WHO is an outstanding organization and have saved countless lives through their programs.

I don’t understand why anyone would think that acknowledging airborne transmission was widely accepted in December or early 2020. Your question details are inflammatory. It takes evidence to make public health claims, especially in the context of international health. So what if it took advocacy of clinicians to change their position? That’s how it goes sometimes with novel diseases – the information collection and synthesis is not uniform. The WHO has an extremely highly regarded reputation around the globe.

This thread’s premise, seems ridiculous.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans, have already died, and many millions are/will suffer from this pandemic.

Why not make every effort, to stop it?

I can’t place a dollar amount on our citizen’s lives. But. Every person saved, is worth every penny.

We need to be pouring, everything into stopping/slowing the pandemic.

All, I could point out other even more egregious actions (or more accurately lack of actions) but I have a feeling people’s minds are already made up. We should rejoin the WHO because we join all international organizations, and pay the lion’s share of their budgets.

@crazyguy Then maybe we negotiate different fees. I don’t know anything about the money.

Because it’s the humanely, scientifically responsible, intelligent thing to do.
It has nothing to do with blindly reversing trump’s policies.

BTW there is nothing in that article that hasn’t been known from the beginning.

@crazyguy—you asked the question, didn’t you? And you had over a dozen thoughtful people give you their time by answering. Why then dismiss so many of the responses as people simply having their minds “already made up” while skipping over any of the reasons those people offered to explain why they hold the position they hold?

“We should rejoin the WHO because we join all international organizations, and pay the lion’s share of their budgets.”

Of course we should pay more than others. The bedrock of the conservative ideal of American Exceptionalism is that America is that America should lead the world in social and political change. We have the most dynamic economy in the world and it should be our responsibility to help ensure that we lead the world in public health and welfare.

Or, if you’re a Trumpist, just fuck ‘em all.

@sadiesayit You are obviously new to my questions. I have the same people answering my questions again and again with no facts, no research; just off-the-cuff answers. Their answers take one-tenth the time I put in the question.

But anyways, let me try and answer them.

@KNOWITALL I agree 100%. Many of the decisions Biden makes in the early days will be based on that one overriding factor.

@canidmajor Please enlighten us as to what The Who has done that can be commended, vis-a-vis covid-19. Or anything else.

@ragingloli Allow me the liberty of paraphrasing your answer into a few bullet items.

1. The WHO did what they did because the US did not have a representative.
2. The WHO is a neutral organization. That is why they are allowed into all countries, and then they can run education programs, and administer medical treatments and vaccinations.
3. The US cannot do that because it is “known for its violent imperialism” and will, therefore, not be allowed into the country.

Now let me provide responses.

1. The WHO should not need individual country representatives telling it what is right and what is wrong. Especially when its charter is so straightforward.

2. I think the US is better off spreading the word within its own borders first.

3. Any country that thinks the US is “known for its violent imperialism”, does not deserve our largesse.

@cookieman LOL

@Call_Me_Jay Yes, you are right. We have seen several good examples of “international cooperation is necessary for an international crisis.”

@JLeslie You must be an angel. Goodness pours from you like sarcasm from me!

You say: “Having good relationships with other scientists around the world who commit to trying to keep the people of our planet safe seems like a good idea.” I agree; except we don’t need a corrupt organization like WHO in that endeavor.

You also say: “WHO has made mistakes sure, so has everyone.” How can we forgive The Who’s deliberate misleading while constantly attacking the focus of our President?

You say: “It is harder to go to war with a country when you have gotten to know their leaders and spent time talking about your grandchildren together. It might sound ridiculous, but building rapport and familiarity matters.” You build rapport and familiarity with people who are not looking to stab you in the back.

@Caravanfan Prior to covid, the presence of WHO was completely unknown to me. Perhaps they did good stuff in the past. However, their actions on covid-19 would put China’s lapdogs to shame!

@crazyguy I…that’s just stunningly ignorant at best and racist at worst. The WHO has saved more lives, especially in developing countries than any other organization. They are the premier global public health agency in the world.

@Cupcake Airborne transmission gives the lie to the myth of social distancing in an air conditioned indoor space. That was the reason the WHO never wanted to admit the possibility. When did they know, or when should they have known? How about when the Guangzhou restaurant study was being conducted: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-restaurant-air-conditioning-gave-nine-people-covid-china-2020-4

@MrGrimm888 How many of the dead can be blamed directly on deliberate obfuscation by the WHO?

@sadiesayit Are you happy now?

Good grief @crazyguy How many of the dead can be blamed on Trump for down playing the seriousness of the virus?
He knew it was a bad virus long before it hit the North American shore, and the best he came to admitting that was he didn’t want to panic the public, more like he didn’t want to panic the stock market.
And he endless rhetoric it’s a democratic hoax, it will go away in warm weather, we can look into injesting bleach, and you wonder why Biden wants to rejoin W H O?

I wouldn’t say happy, exactly. I certainly feel like I understand a bit more.

“Prior to covid, the presence of WHO was completely unknown to me.” Thanks for the candor here. This statement, along with how you are responding to others, leads me to believe you’ve never understood the WHO outside of a partisan lens. Is that a fair assumption?

You might be able to see more value in what you’ve characterized as “no facts, no research, off-the-cuff” answers if you consider that you are getting condensed perspectives from people who have known about the WHO in many, many nonpartisan contexts for many, many years.

I would hope, too, that since you see people coming into a discussion with their minds “already made up” as a bad thing, that your mind is therefore not already made up. Especially if you have, as I’m understanding, only known about the WHO for a handful of months and only in reference to a single, international health issue that has become particularly partisan in the US.

Oh, @crazyguy, I have seen enough of your Qs and responses here to know that you don’t actually want discussion or any dissenting views, you would likely pass by actual enlightenment in favor of posting some tabloid link or other.

Because it’s the INTELLIGENT thing to do to help get Covid better under control!!!

There is so much cross-travel in the modern world across and among all countries, it makes a big difference if the response to a global health issue is considered at that level, along with nation/state levels etc.
Currently the WHO is the only platform that really can coordinate the communication and cooperation needed. @crazyguy do have a suggestion what organization is a superior catalyst for international solutions to health problems?

@crazyguy You can point to any one study you want. In science, knowledge doesn’t happen at some instantaneous point. It’s incremental. And new knowledge and evidence has to be disseminated. I don’t understand why that’s difficult to understand.

And congrats on linking a businessinsider article. That’s not a rigorous source the WHO would be interested in.

Scientific inquiry and dissemination of evidence is clearly not well-enough understood among many. It takes money and time.

@SQUEEKY2 I honestly fail to see the connection between Trump’s alleged mishandling of covid-19 to Biden joining the WHO. Did Trump deal better with covid when the US was a paying member of WHO?

@sadiesayit Thanks for great feedback. You made a good assumption. I have always harbored a deep suspicion of anything even remotely connected to the UN. Even when I was actually campaigning for Bernie! So I am not sure how partisan my lens is. However, I have examined each of The Who’s actions regarding COVID and cannot point to one good thing they have done.

You make a fair point about respondents to my question. However, I would expect them to share their positive experiences on this board. A perspective can be condensed only so much before it becomes incomprehensible.

You are absolutely correct. My mind should not be as closed to new ideas as I blame others for. However, my mind will not be changed by statements like: “Because it’s the INTELLIGENT thing to do to help get Covid better under control!!!” or “I have seen enough of your Qs and responses here to know that you don’t actually want discussion or any dissenting views, you would likely pass by actual enlightenment in favor of posting some tabloid link or other.”

By the way, if you are interested, I have a list of incidents and proclamations where the WHO fell woefully short.

@dabbler You make two good points.

1. There is a lot of cross-travel. No country individually can be free of the virus, until the whole world is.
2. The WHO is an international organization. I agree with this part of your second point. I think bilateral discussions along with quarantine restrictions on travelers from some countries may serve us better.

@Cupcake I do not know if you read the story on business insider. If you had you would have realized the article was not an editorial. It just happened to be one of the first links I found. Here is one that even you may find not so objectionable:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronavirus-restaurants.html

@crazyguy
The colonies have a well documented history of overthrowing governments in service of their geopolitical ambitions
You can deny your own history, but do not expect other countries to trust you enough to let you mass vaccinate their populations.
I doubt you would be thrilled about the prospect of chinese health officials coming to the colonies, and sticking vaccine needles into 300 million colonials.

@ragingloli I was just reading my last response to you just to put your post in context. I failed. Can you help?

“3. Any country that thinks the US is “known for its violent imperialism”, does not deserve our largesse.”

@ragingloli Thanks for confirming. I thought that may be somehow connected to your response.

The “largesse” I was referring to was our WHO dues of 50% of The WHO’s budget.

@crazyguy….please don’t be one of those crazy guys who makes off the wall claims, but never posts links to prove the claim.

@crazyguy Sorry you didn’t find my answer satisfactory!!! When I see an ignorant Q, I give it the respect it deserves. As for changing your mind…I do NOT want you on MY side as I’ve seen how you think. We should have NEVER left WHO to begin with & IF you’re not smart enough to figure out why, you need to stay exactly where you are!!!

@crazyguy
It is actually only 20%

This question and crazyguy’s replies seems to me a great example of why it is terrible to have a lying fool as a political leader: others repeat and believe their lies and foolishness, and the world ends up having endless conversations with people who are living in a lie-and-foolishness-based delusion and think that information to the contrary is all partisan political argument.

No. The World Health Organization is a benevolent organization that does its best and has done great work, and may be imperfect, but never deserved to be demonized or taken as a political adversary or something to blame for every tax-paying American’s personal bank balances not being as high as they theoretically would be if only the US would use them as a scapegoat and abandon them.

Well said @Zaku.

First, you will have to understand what it means for something to be airborne. After reading your article and this article, I can see why they have not fully determined it to be airborne but they are not denying that it can be airborne. They just have no solid proof that it is.
Personally, I think that if it were airborne that the numbers would be larger, but there is also the fact that viruses mutate.
In terms of the virus, this is practically a virus in its infancy.
Scientists do not have some crystal ball that automatically gives them the answers. It is a long process so many will grow weary and want to jump on this theory or the other. But there is a difference between theory and actual fact. Diseases won’t change because of some dumb theory and most scientists will start with theory, but most won’t say stuff until they have empirical evidence. If anything I think this was part of the Who problem. They felt pressure to put out some facts and leaned into what they currently saw without actually knowing the whole picture.

As for Biden decision, I believe it’s smarter to work with more scientists than less. Some of our best medical discoveries were accidental. Imagine if Fleming was ignored because he was a scientist from England and he discovered penicillin while trying to find a cure for the Flu. No, he did not work for the Who, but the more scientist is linked together, the better likely that all those great minds together can come up with a solution quicker than apart.
It would be like trying to build a large home. Sure it can possibly be done but years down the road vs. sooner.
We don’t have years to wait for an accidental discovery by our own scientist. So I ask you. Is it worth the lives we would lose to save a few million in tax dollars? For me, the answer is easy. No it is not. .And yes you can say my mind was made up. I have no problem admitting that. If some of my taxes can go into saving some lives, I’m more than fine with that.

The problem with the word airborne is the scientists expect the average person to understand the difference between virus traveling through the air on a droplet or traveling as an aerosolized particle floating around for an extended time, and that is a ridiculous expectation. We have argued about it even here on fluther. Both are moving through the air, and so that it is how the average person will think about it. I say it all the time, people need to speak to the understanding of their audience or communication is not going to be good.

The problem with the word airborne is the scientists expect the average person to understand the difference between virus traveling through the air on a droplet or traveling as an aerosolized particle floating around for an extended time

In the movie Outbreak the difference was explained in an instant in a neat way. (If I remember corrrectly) doctors in full space suits walk into a tent where another doctor in normal clothes is treating patients. They look shocked. He says, “It’s OK, it’s not airborne”.

We watched it in the spring, early in the pandemic. It was probably reaaaaallly popular at that time.

It is my understanding that they are “airborne” only in droplets which fall to the ground within 6 feet.
Individual virus are not floating around. If they were this 6 ft distancing would be useless.

@ragingloli I stand corrected. I really thought (I do not know why, I tried to dig but came up empty) that the US contribution was 50% of WHO expenditures. But you are correct, it was only 20%.

@Zaku The WHO has a constitution! Here it is:
https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf

One article of the constitution states that The WHO shall:
stimulate and advance work to eradicate epidemic, endemic and other diseases

One would think that eradication of an epidemic starts with its identification. Unfortunately, that is exactly where the WHO came up short. Not only did they kowtow to the Chinese authorities, but they also lied to the entire world. Instead of the buck stopping at Tedros’ desk, it was not even blocked!

You may ask how I, as a layperson, can come to a damning conclusion like that.

Please read the 1–2 page statement that the WHO released on January 5, 2020. See
https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unkown-cause-china/en/

Then ask yourself 5 questions:

1. The first line reads: “On 31 December 2019, the WHO China Country Office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology (unknown cause) detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China.” Note the report is dated Jan 5. Was this matter not urgent enough to require immediate attention?
2. The same paragraph contains a sentence that starts out with “According to media reports”...Mind you, this statement is issued FIVE DAYS after the notification.
3. The rest of the statement is based on information from “the national authorities”. We know what that means in China.
4. Here is the most damning paragraph: “According to the authorities, some patients were operating dealers or vendors in the Huanan Seafood market. Based on the preliminary information from the Chinese investigation team, no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission and no health care worker infections have been reported.” Unfortunately for the WHO, we know that the authorities reported just 27 cases to the WHO on Dec 31 – see https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2019/12/news-scan-dec-31-2019
In the first paragraph, the WHO states that “the concerned market in Wuhan was closed on 1 January 2020 for environmental sanitation and disinfection.” Would it be reasonable to explain where the new cases (17 of them in five days) came from if there was no H2H?
5. A dead giveaway: “WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the current information available on this event.”

If, after all that reading, you still think we should contribute to the WHO, please advise why.

@Pandora “Airborne transmission is infection spread through exposure to those virus-containing respiratory droplets comprised of smaller droplets and particles that can remain suspended in the air over long distances (usually greater than 6 feet) and time (typically hours)” Here is a report of a study done in Guangzhou which conclusively proved the idiocy of social distancing: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article

The interesting thing is the dinner described in the study took place in late January! The study was performed soon after, but not published by the CDC until July.

Now, you tell me if the restaurant did not have “airborne transmission”.

By the way, the WHO finally admitted that airborne transmission is ‘possible’; see https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions

However, The Who waited until they received a letter from over 200 scientists. See
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/505936-hundreds-of-scientists-write-letter-to-who-arguing-coronavirus-is-airborne

@JLeslie The myth of ‘social distancing’ is kinda shot by airborne transmission, isn’t it?

@Call_Me_Jay That movie was awesome. It seemed to be based on our pandemic, though I know it was made many years earlier.

@Dutchess_III EXACTLY!

@crazyguy I don’t know what you mean.

@JLeslie The idea behind social distancing was that the virus stays in large droplets that drop to the ground within 6 feet! Obviously, if some of the virus is in an aerosol that hangs around for hours, social distancing means nothing at all. Masks may work, but if the virus droplets are as small as air molecules, masks will not help either.

@crazyguy From what I’ve read and heard, very little of it is aerosolized. Things like sneezing can create more aerosol (again what I’ve read, I’m no expert).

Our immune system can most likely fight off mini exposure to the virus.

If it was aerosolized we would have much more infection in my opinion. If masks and distancing didn’t work we would have much more infection also.

Everyone I know who knows where they likely caught the virus were not distancing, no masks, and/or were touching objects the sick person was touching, like playing cards, and drinking glasses. I do know people who were being fairly careful and they are not sure where they caught it, although everyone defines careful differently.

I was at the car dealer yesterday and I don’t feel like they were careful enough. If I got sick in the next few days I would assume I caught it there, and I consider myself careful.

If Covid 19 is dangerous in aerosol form then the whole planet should have been totally infected months ago.

“Aerosol” is a misleading term. “Spitting” would be a better term.

@SQUEEKY2 Does the whole planet get infected by the common cold or flu?

@Dutchess_III “Aerosol” is what results (eventually) from “spitting” or coughing or sneezing or talking or singing.

Talking and breathing produces droplets. That is what we have been talking about. Everything I have read, and Fauci has implied, that the virus is mostly in droplets not aerosolized.

I agree @JLeslie it’s in droplets and masks cut down the distance those droplets travel.

Talking and breathing does not cause “droplets.” Coughing and sneezing does.

I disagree @Dutchess_III I have watched people talking and droplets coming forth.

@Dutchess_III Flat out wrong. Go outside in 25 degree weather and watch the water steam out of your mouth and nose.

@crazyguy I think you need to read the link you sent. The evidence was not conclusive. There are also things they did not consider. Infected person number 1 using a rest room as some of the other family members were in the rest room. That would put them in closer proximity. Strange also is that none of the wait staff got covid but they wouldn’t know because they didn’t check asymptomatic people. So it could also be that some of the wait staff had covid but never knew.

Our study has limitations. We did not conduct an experimental study simulating the airborne transmission route. We also did not perform serologic studies of swab sample–negative asymptomatic family members and other diners to estimate risk for infection.

@JLeslie @SQUEEKY2 You two have obviously not done any research on your own. Here is a start:
https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions

In particular, pay attention to the following under “Airborne Transmission”:

The physics of exhaled air and flow physics have generated hypotheses about possible mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through aerosols.(13–16) These theories suggest that 1) a number of respiratory droplets generate microscopic aerosols (<5 µm) by evaporating, and 2) normal breathing and talking results in exhaled aerosols. Thus, a susceptible person could inhale aerosols, and could become infected if the aerosols contain the virus in sufficient quantity to cause infection within the recipient. However, the proportion of exhaled droplet nuclei or of respiratory droplets that evaporate to generate aerosols, and the infectious dose of viable SARS-CoV-2 required to cause infection in another person are not known, but it has been studied for other respiratory viruses.(17)

@crazyguy I don’t see how that information counters what I’ve said. There is some aerosolized particles, but the belief is it isn’t in quantities like say measles.

@SQUEEKY2 @JLeslie @Dutchess_III I realize I am just peeing into the wind here, but…

Here is a statement from the California Dept of Public Health Guidance (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/CDPH-Guidance-for-the-Prevention-of-COVID-19-Transmission-for-Gatherings-10-09.aspx}

“Singing, chanting, shouting, and physical exertion significantly increases the risk of COVID-19 transmission because these activities increase the release of respiratory droplets and fine aerosols into the air. ”

Notice the callout of aerosols distinct from droplets.

@crazyguy Your link didn’t work for me. Honestly, I think we are basically agreeing. It is a matter of degree maybe. I believe it is very contagious, and that is likely partly due to aerosolized particles. I also think supermarkets would be full of sick employees and sick customers if aerosolized was in as much quantity as measles. Every place I go is air conditioned, has some people without masks, so I am totally screwed if it is that contagious. I have a bunch of stories of lots of people getting sick after being near each other, so it is nothing to play with for sure. I told jellies about the group of 6, 7 and 29 where I live. My neighbor just told me about a group of 5, someone she knows was in the group, they don’t live here. All cases it’s like almost everyone who came into contact with the sick person caught it, but the people were together for a prolonged time no masks.

So what do you want from us @crazyguy ?
The one thing you gave showed that aerosol particulates were not definitely known to carry enough virus to cause infection but it was being studied ,I think it should be taken seriously knowing this virus.
I got from past threads you and wulfie were against masks because of aerosol particulates, the mask and social distancing is still our best weapon until a safe vaccine becomes available .
So what has your fright wing mind so upset?
Oh and your link didn’t work for me as well.

Here’s a CDC link. It talks about the particles.

Seems to me I might be lucky living in a humid climate. Just thinking about it logically. Then again, Southeast Florida exploded with cases, so maybe not. Although, Southeast Florida is much more air conditioned (dryer air indoors) than my part of the state.

@JLeslie The link does not work. I posted it the same way I always do; sometimes I test the link. In this case, I obviously did not. Sorry. Try this one:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Guidance-for-the-Prevention-of-COVID-19-Transmission-for-Gatherings-November-2020.aspx

I think what happened was that California DPH took down the superseded page.

I am not anti-mask. I think a mask does reduce the amount of virus that a person takes in. My problems with masks are the following:

1. They increase hand to face contact.
2. I have not seen anybody sneeze or even cough hard into their masks. I have seen Biden move his mask aside for a tiny throat-clearing.
3. Masks encourage violating the social distancing guideline. By the way, since I believe in aerosol spread, I think social distancing without masks is useless indoors.

@SQUEEKY2 First, let me complement you on a rational post, so unlike your normal rant.

This link works:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Guidance-for-the-Prevention-of-COVID-19-Transmission-for-Gatherings-November-2020.aspx

On this thread, the point I am trying to make is that the WHO knew, or should have known, that aerosol transmission was possible back in January. However, they elected, for whatever reason, to not update their scientific brief until July.

The point that matters regarding the WHO is that it is the single functioning entity dedicated to the world wide coordination of disease control and information regarding communicable infections. If the organization is inept or ineffective, the sensible course for the United States is to apply our country’s considerable muscle toward correcting those shortcomings. The current pandemic shows us just how stupid it is to snub our noses at the only outfit existing for global disease control. As far as I’m concerned we can’t dump our noisy blockhead obstructionist would be President too soon.

@crazyguy I know you are not antimask, I know the other things too. I don’t really have an argument. The masks are imperfect, but seem to be better than nothing. I find people move to close with and without masks. People just have a hard time adjusting their habit for personal space.

It reminds me of when I am in a very full zumba class. People line up in rows. Some parts of the “dance” we are moving left to right with arms swinging in and out from our sides. If it is crowded I usually take one step forward or back to stagger the line so I don’t have to worry about hitting the person next to me. In real dance classes it is very common to stagger the lines for this reason. When I take my step forward, inevitably the people on my sides step forward also to match me. Drives me crazy. They obviously never took a dance a class, and obviously just don’t get why it is safer and more comfortable, because for them it is not more comfortable. Their comfort is lining up like little soldiers without thinking. To do what society has conditioned them to do,

I agree with that link .

@crazyguy We knew it was passing from human to human mid January.

@JLeslie I am certain you do not wear a mask during Zumba class.

The WHO confirmed H2H transmission on jan 23. However, they did not even raise the possibility of aerosolized particles until early July.

@crazyguy I did wear a mask when I did zumba with friends in the street. I don’t when I do it alone at home. My friend in SC and in CA teach zumba and wear masks, but most people don’t.

Fauci has said since early on that he believed there was very little aerosolized particles, but he didn’t say there was none.

@JLeslie I searched for when Fauci first stated that airborne transmission of coronavirus is possible. The first link I found is from July, about the same time that the WHO modified its scientific brief.

@crazyguy Ok, I might not be clear on when he said what, I just remember it as being for a long time now. July is long when dealing with covid. LOL. Thanks for searching it.

@JLeslie Back to my original question. On COVID-19, has the WHO provided any useful information in a timely manner?

@crazyguy The WHO coordinates with scientists around the world for many things. They are constantly surveying infection moving across the planet. Just because they screw up something doesn’t mean the organization is worthless. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

@JLeslie You may be right. However, collusion with our enemy (CHINA) renders them untrustworthy and therefore undeserving of our hard-earned money.