No need to listen to what the WHO says anymore, say people everywhere after review. Isn't the whole problem that if you're asymptomatic, you don't know if you're healthy? If reducing the credibility of national and international organizations of health is the goal, then our institutions have done an outstanding job. The question is, in the vacuum of trustworthy government institutions, what can we do as communities and individuals to replace them?

The WHO is a political organization, not a medical organization. If you break your leg or get sick, you can't go to the WHO. Everything that comes out of their mouthpiece should be regarded as politics, until confirmed as science.

Just like the 1880's: conspiracy theories, rumors and Alex Jones' snake oil panaceas. The world is headed to another Dark Age at this rate.

Why is the WHO ignoring the asymptomatic angel of COVID-19? Wearing a mask will reduce contagion by those that don't know they are sick. Why is that not acknowledged?

To manipulate people against their own interests to supposedly "save" PPE for HCWs, even though HCWs often get PPE from different manufacturers and distribution channels. Dishonesty and bad advice defeats the whole mission and purpose of public health organizations.

Dr. Keevil of Southhampton:

> “Cloth masks and poor quality surgical face masks will not filter fine respiratory droplets, and certainly not aerosols, which some are now claiming to be an infection risk,” he said. “The major question that needs to be addressed is: what about protecting the eyes, a known route of entry?.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

"People die while wearing seatbelts, therefore don't bother wearing one."

Even if you neglect to protect your eyes, a mask reduces your chances of infection. The eyes are in contact with the air, but do not inhale it. Moreover, let us compare surface area. The surface area of the eyes is tiny compared to that of the respiratory tract. If we include lungs, it is no contest: the internal surface area of the lungs is supposedly something like 20 to 60 m^2. A mask sets up a firewall protecting your 40 square meters of lung. If the mask reduces the probability of infection even by 50%, it's like cutting out half the square meters of exposure.

Various other kind of fallacies are circulating about masks some of which are roughly analogous to: "drivers should not wear seatbelts because seatbelts alone do not save lives. Safe driving prevents accidents and saves lives. Seatbelts create a false sense of security, encouraging unsafe driving habits like speeding. However, if you're a passenger, you may wear a seat belt as a personal preference."

From now on, I'm using seatbelt analogies to ridicule and expose the absurdity of anti-mask rhetoric.

Why this again? Why are we getting terrible guidance from the WHO and world leaders?

1. Don’t leave your home.

2. If you absolutely must leave your home, symptoms or not, wear a mask.

It’s that simple.

Wear a reliable mask, fitted properly and remove it properly.

Also, wear indirect or non-vented eye protection, or you're that gate on a road without a fence that the virus drives around.

Finally, think carefully about airborne persistent micro-droplets, fomites and personal sanitation.

Wearing a mask as a standard, non-healthcare working, citizen is about protecting everyone else.

You are right though, you should protect yourself too, as much as possible.

Dont close borders! meanwhile China closes up.

Its not airborne, dont wear masks! meanwhile China mandates masks.

Im sensing a pattern here.

Yea it's puzzling that China completely shutdown travel domestically but allowed international travel from the epicenter of the pandemic. Maybe there's some good justification, but it seems like unleashing a virus around the world and protecting home.

The behavior is consistent with the propaganda. According to China, the virus came from outside of China. So of course you protect the rest of China from something that landed in Wuhan.

Who benefits from WHO collapsing their credibility?

"Barefaced lie" gets a new definition.