Sure, the point being that without actual evidence making 1 more likely we should award it a very low probability.

my Indian — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I assumed this was a typo or autocorrect the first time, but do you somehow own an “Indian” person or something?


Also while I’m here, fuck Mitch McTurtleFace for not allowing the senate to even consider extending further aide even now that America is the global hotbed of the pandemic.

We’re going to see some pretty insane economic collapse once the eviction moratoriums and the enhanced unemployment end in a few weeks. Remember who to blame when that happens.

Sure, the point being that without actual evidence making 1 more likely we should award it a very low probability. — Benkei

And that evidence, assuming there would be that, likely isn't coming out from the Chinese authorities.

Anyway, I'd have to have the knowledge of my father, as he is a professor of virology, to make any comment of the probabilities or other issues involved here.

I assumed this was a typo or autocorrect the first time, but do you somehow own an “Indian” person or something? — Pfhorrest

Parents still use the genitive when talking about their children, I guess.

There is no circumstantial evidence, only a hypothesis which is not supported by any type of evidence. — Benkei

You're confusing evidence with proof, due to your fear that simply entertaining the hypothesis fuels Trump supporters.

Furthermore, my analysis was based on the assumption that the premises under consideration are true (I haven't bothered to check as it changes little). If the premises are true, that there is an HIV gene in coronavirus that is the key to it's success, then this is indeed evidence of genetic manipulation. It is not proof, however, which I explain in my analysis as there are other explanations for the gene being there.

Likewise, "que beuno" is evidence that the benefiting party may have been motivated to create such a benefit. If we look at the outcomes, China has indeed benefited in terms of increasing mass surveillance, shutting down Hong Kong independent governance (whatever was left of it) and also benefits from the chaos in the United States. These elements are simply true and cannot be ignored, they are evidence.

Again, I go to some lengths to explain they are not proof, as there are other explanations that account for the same pieces of evidence. Indeed, a global disruptive event will create winners and losers, so if it was completely random emergence of the virus of course someone will benefit. A property owner may benefit from the insurance money from a fire, it is not proof that it's arson, but it is evidence that there was potential motivation.

To be clear, I am not taking sides here. We know pandemics occur naturally (as they happened before genetic engineering) but we also know bio-warfare and lab accidents happen. Random emergence of the virus is completely adequate to explain what we see, even moreso in combination with Trump weakening pandemic institutional preparedness. However, we also can surmise that if the pandemic was deliberate (China being only one of many suspects) that it would be made to seem as natural as possible and numerical analysis would be used to design both the qualities of virus as well as the initial outbreak circumstances.

I see lot's of evidence that can be called on to support lot's of theories. I see no proof of any one theory, however, nor even a leading candidate.

The virus was not engineered. This possibility was explicitly debunked by the science.

That certainly leaves the possibility it might have accidentally come from the lab but lets look at the possibilities here.

1. It escaped a lab that has at least some measures in place to avoid the escape and spread of a virus.
2. It spread at one of those live markets, which have been considered a brewery for new viruses for years, which markets have exactly 0 measures in place to avoid this.
3. The PRC did it on purpose for vague and uncertain politics goals in exchange for predictable economic damage.

I'll give 1 a .9% chance, 2 a 99% chance and the last .1%. — Benkei

This is an arbitrary weighting of the system. My guess is there are other wet markets in China and the world. This one happened to have a virus lab studying coronavirus in it :chin:. I'd up the percentage on 2. I do agree that 3 is much less likely and more along the lines of the crazy conspiracy theories.

I think lab leaks happen more often than we think. It just hasn't had this bad a consequence until now, if it is the case that it escaped from a lab.

Again, it could be that the virus adapted in the lab under its own evolutionary conditions. Either way, many powers that be, may not like this scenario and would not want this to be well-known. Certainly, there is strong incentives to cover-up any association of the lab with the virus.

You're confusing evidence with proof, due to your fear that simply entertaining the hypothesis fuels Trump supporters. — boethius

Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm not going to condense months of criminal law study in a single post to explain this to you. Look it up.

The fact that lab leaks happen more often than we think is in no way shape or form evidence that it is what happened this time. The fact this lab had measures in place to avoid this and live markets don't, means the likelihood of it starting in the latter is many times higher.

All you have is a theory.

The fact this lab had measures in place to avoid this and live markets don't, the likelihood of it starting in the latter is many times higher. — Benkei

So you hang your hat on that argument. It could be a coincidence that the virus started in a the wet market in the same city as a virus lab studying the virus. I agree. Or it could have been a coronavirus that leaked from the virus lab studying this virus. There are many other wet markets. But it coincidentally started from this one. Also, the first known case cannot be traced back to the wet market itself.

The coincidence makes it more than tangentially related. Your binary argument revolves around this one idea of lab leaks being less likely than wet market outbreaks.

And yes, viruses can be escaped.. Decontamination failures, logistical failures, equipment failures, human error, or any number of things. It's happened before. It just depends how deadly the virus is and how immediate the response for the consequence. It's happened enough to not rule it out.

The Chinese government also responded with extreme suppression of information. Yes, the Chinese government doesn't like any bad news. Any country wouldn't want the bad press. Obviously, the government's policy is hide misshaps, whether from nature or human. But it seems to me there would be more at stake here that would cause intentional delaying.. more than if this was a virus in a remote province wet market or other area where this might have taken place.

The missing evidence that you seem to be alluding to is some sort of strain that is closer to the pandemic strain that the lab has. This may be found out eventually.. But things can also be hidden, etc. Why aren't people allowed directly in the lab? There are certain things that one can explain away.. but if you do that enough times, you are now actively trying to discount the theory rather than weighing all possibilities.

None of this has to do with supporting a political position either. Dr. Trummpypants doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about almost all the time.. Every once in a while he'll mistakenly say something partially correct based probably on some passing briefings that where he remembered some tidbit without the full understanding of the nuance.. So I am not trying to put some weird Trump spin on this, or right-wing, or whatever. So we must look at the nuances of the possibilities and not at how it is associated with political propaganda.

So you hang your hat on that argument. It could be a coincidence that the virus started in a the wet market in the same city as a virus lab studying the virus. I agree. Or it could have been a coronavirus that leaked from the virus lab studying this virus. There are many other wet markets. But it coincidentally started from this one. Also, the first known case cannot be traced back to the wet market itself. — schopenhauer1

It's not hanging my hat anywhere, it's dealing with the available evidence. If there is no evidence the lab was involved, then all we can conclude is "coincidence".

If you track the discourse on this; it started as "it was engineered", but this had been proved already not to be the case (boethius' HIV nonsense is just a variation on that) and now the new conspiracy is "it escaped from the lab". The only reason being it happens to share locality. That's no reason or evidence for anything.

Edit: let me try with another example. Say you buy a car from a used cars salesman. You pay too much and the car shows problems. You suspect he does this on purpose and even find out other buyers paid too much for cars with obvious problems. Then you still have no evidence for intent. So you suspect he's a fraud but you're not going to argue it because you don't have the evidence. Even if you proved intent for all the other buyers this says nothing about your particular case.

Here the "evidence" doesn't even rise to that level. Even if every lab in the past had leaked a virus at some point in time then you still have exactly 0 evidence for it having happened this time.

Here the "evidence" doesn't even rise to that level. Even if every lab in the past had leaked a virus at some point in time then you still have exactly 0 evidence for it having happened this time. — Benkei

So now we are speaking a bit different languages. I am speaking in likelihoods and you are speaking of direct evidence. I am saying that there is a higher likelihood based on circumstances of the case, not that there is right now any direct evidence.

Let me be clear.. I am not saying that I definitely think it was from the lab. It could be the case that this is from crossover somewhere else. However, the right questions have to be asked and investigated. To do a fair investigation, all the evidence has to be available. I honestly don't know how much cooperation is happening, but I do no know that WHO investigators are supposed to go to China to investigate origins. Are they going to be impartial? Are they going to get as much evidence as they can for every avenue of possibility?

Here is a helpful set of questions that the WHO should probably be asking.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/who-led-mission-may-investigate-pandemic-s-origin-here-are-key-questions-ask

I am saying that there is a higher likelihood based on circumstances of the case, not that there is right now any direct evidence. — schopenhauer1

We were talking about evidence all the time since that's what I replied to (the idea of circumstantial evidence being available). If you want to talk probabilities this is a different discussion altogether. Like the example of the used car salesman, the other victims make the likelihood of intent much higher in your particular case. But it's still not evidence though.

Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm not going to condense months of criminal law study in a single post to explain this to you. Look it up. — Benkei

Dude, have you read the wikipedia entry on "evidence"?

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion[1], because evident things are undoubted. There are two kind of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs).

The mentioned support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. — evidence

If there is an HIV gene in coronavirus that is evidence, a "fact of the case" (and, please note, I say "assuming this is true" in my analysis), that would need to be established if one wanted to argue that the virus was genetically engineered with HIV (if other evidence came to light, such as testimony of a researcher claiming they were involved in mixing HIV and coronavirus, it would of course be necessary to establish whether HIV genes really are in coronavirus in the first place, because it's important evidence to such an argument).

I go to some lengths to explain that even if this evidence was true (HIV genes are in coronavirus), Luc Montagnier argument is unsound because there's other natural explanations for why a gene may appear both in HIV and coronavirus; viruses transfer genes all the time between each other in nature. However, if there's such a gene, it is still a fact of the case: a piece of evidence. Only much more evidence would be required to conclude that it was indeed genetically engineered.

I go to some lengths to explain why Luc Montagnier argument makes little sense. However, he does have a Nobel Prize for work on HIV, so it's difficult to to just dismiss his claims prima faci, without some analysis.

And, I would argue, it's this sort of intellectual dishonesty -- using "Nobel Prize" as a bludgeon of expertise when Nobel Prize winners support something the left supports (such as action is needed on climate change), but summarily dismissed when a Nobel winner says something "against the narrative" -- is what help fuel Trump supporters.

Luc Montagnier argument definitely sounds like "bullshit", as put it, which I agree with. However, it's still bullshit coming from a Nobel Prize winner, so can't just be ignored; simply ignoring it fuels the right wing spin machine's projection of their own intellectual dishonesty upon the left.

I also go to some lengths to explain why circumstantial evidence, such as "que bueno" or the proximity to the lab to the outbreak, as wikipedia says, "does not rule out other, contradictory assertions". It's still evidence though, just not something, in itself, that establishes any strong conclusions. I literally say:

However, as far as I know there is no hard evidence that it is lab origin, only circumstantial evidence. The problem with circumstantial evidence is that it's difficult to calculate probabilities because it's difficult to identify independent variables, dependent variables, cause and effect (without which calculations are nonsensical). — boethius

I then go on to explain that the same circumstantial evidence can be accounted for in completely different theories.

Circumstantial evidence is not strong evidence, but it is still in the category of "evidence" that can participate in the "facts of the case" (such as a insurance payout for a fire participating to establish motive for setting the fire; if there was no evidence of an insurance payout, it becomes much more difficult to argue there was motivation to achieve such thing); of course, only the circumstantial evidence of insurance payouts doesn't prove anything, much more evidence would be needed; but the basic fact of the insurance policy existing is still relevant among such a further body of evidence for insurance fraud.

The word "evidence" is literally right in the label "circumstantial evidence".

But please, prey tell, what would I learn in months of your criminal law tutoring that would illuminate me to the errors in the wikipedia entry so that I may correct it for the benefit of all mankind?

I am saying that there is a higher likelihood based on circumstances of the case, not that there is right now any direct evidence. — schopenhauer1

Though I agree with your general position vis-a-vis @Benkei, that circumstantial evidence is still evidence we need to consider (if only to guide further investigation as you point out), it is not correct to say, at this time, "there is a higher likelihood" it is a lab accident.

To arrive at such a conclusion, we'd need to build numerical models of the different scenarios. To conclude the outbreak was "suspiciously close" to the lab in the first place, we'd need a statistical model that tells us the places where a pandemic outbreak is likely (population center, close contact with viral reservoirs) and some average distance to labs that study such viruses. If labs that study viruses are closely correlated with reservoirs and population centers within which an outbreak is most likely, then we can't really conclude anything based on the location of the outbreak and the location of the lab.

People have literally gone to jail based on statistical evidence (provided by legit statisticians) that didn't bother to run the null hypothesis scenario (which goes to show how easy these mistakes are to make).

So, until running the null hypothesis of the expected distance between labs that study viruses and completely independent outbreaks of those viruses, we can't do much with simply the distance between the outbreak and the lab. We may find that the lab will be likely in the city center, as that's where people work, and the first noticeable outbreak will likely be in the city center because that's where people are densely packed together to support a really noticeable outbreak.

It's still circumstantial evidence (a fact of the case that there is a lab at some distance to the outbreak), but we cannot conclude this circumstantial evidence renders any scenario "more likely" without actual
statistical models and calculations (which would be a lot of work).

Where there is stronger evidence is the claim employees of the lab had a side business of selling research animals to the exotic animal market that has been identified as the likely source of the initial outbreak.

But let's first consider how @Benkei is able to show this also wouldn't count as evidence even if it was true (which I am not claiming it is true, there are propaganda efforts from state actors spinning things one way or another; so I am fairly skeptical of any given purported fact).

And to be abundantly clear, whatever the origin of the virus, Trump has been completely incompetent in managing the crisis, and the virus origin issue in the right wing spin machine is largely to deflect from this, invoking mostly unsound or preposterous theories. However, not analyzing things properly, that revealing an argument to be unsound does not establish that the conclusions are untrue (if we have no sound and valid argument to the contrary, which at the moment we don't), in my opinion helps the right wing spin machine as they can point to these flaws in reasoning.

At the moment there is simply no strong evidence for any scenario; we cannot exclude natural random emergence, we cannot exclude a lab accident, we cannot exclude deliberate design and release (researchers who claim "there's no genetic evidence the virus is engineered", such as the lancet paper on this topic, are not considering what equally, or more, skilled actors would do to try to outwit exactly such an analysis, and it's simply intellectually dishonest to not entertain such a scenario; what's possible at the cutting edge of biowarfare we civilians simply don't know, and I would wager that of such people who do have cutting edge biowarfare expertise and have formed analysis on the coronavirus origin are state secrets on every side at the moment. For instance, considering:

Dr Lentzos said the issue of the virus' origin was a "very difficult question", and added that "there have been quiet, behind-the-scene discussions... in the biosecurity expert community, questioning the seafood market origin that has come out very strongly from China". — BBC

We can note Dr Lentzos doesn't tell us the actual content of these quiet behind-the-scene discussions of the biosecurity expert community.

This lack of knowledge about the cutting edge doesn't establish anything, but it is simply intellectually honest to admit we don't know what a sophisticated actor would be able to do). In my view, if tempting right wing reality deniers to exit the right wing spin machine is possible at all, it is by demonstrating the highest standards of intellectual honesty, and foregoing the use of the jump to conclusions mat on all occasions.

There can be lot's of motivations to create a pandemic from both state and non-state actors and there are means, both known and unknown, to find or craft the "sweet spot" virus; this scenario is relevant as, if it is true, such actors may have more planned for us so it would be best to find them out if they exist and, if they don't have further nefarious undertakings, seeking justice for the crime is a noble thing in itself.

Likewise, laboratory leaks happen; this scenario is relevant because, if it is true, it is best to know how it happened and review and increase lab standards accordingly.

Pandemics can occur naturally, if this is true of this case, it is best to know this to be able to understand how to avoid or contain such naturally occurring pandemics in the future.

In all cases, the world's institutions, in particularly the US, were woefully incompetent in managing the pandemic, and the origin of the virus should not, in any case, deflect from such failure and what it says about the people in charge at the moment as well as the neoliberal ideological approach to government (not mandating private enterprise have a stockpile of PPE for a known threat because it is more profitable for them to have only just-in-time supply lines, not shutting down air travel early because it would decrease airline stock and best to err on the side of airline stock, not nationalizing and rationing essential supplies so as not to set a precedent that government can more efficiently manage resources relative a crisis as well as ensure corrupt investor interests can make bank off the crisis, bailing out corporations and not people, and in the case of the US, not having universal health-care and other social safety-net institutions that allow the population and political system to weather these sorts of crisis without massive avoidable suffering, along with all the other day-to-day reasons to have such institutions).

I am willing to analyse the origins of the virus honestly, which at the moment my honest analysis is we don't know the origins (the circumstantial evidence we currently have can fit all sorts of mutually exclusive theories fine and dandy), and in exchange I can more easily expect honest evaluation of the failures of neoliberalism as a governing ideology and the right-wing fact denying enterprise and its role in supporting neoliberal ideology along with even more extreme delusions that even centrist mainstream neoliberals want to move away from.

We were talking about evidence all the time since that's what I replied to (the idea of circumstantial evidence being available). If you want to talk probabilities this is a different discussion altogether. Like the example of the used car salesman, the other victims make the likelihood of intent much higher in your particular case. But it's still not evidence though. — Benkei

Circumstantial evidence is not strong evidence, but it is still in the category of "evidence" that can participate in the "facts of the case" (such as a insurance payout for a fire participating to establish motive for setting the fire; if there was no evidence of an insurance payout, it becomes much more difficult to argue there was motivation to achieve such thing). — boethius

What he said. I'm just saying we can't discount it, and I also provided an article with good questions to ask, from a reputable science magazine. Here are the questions in that article, that they thought the WHO should be investigating pertaining to the lab:

What experiments with bat coronaviruses took place at WIV? This is the mother of all questions for those who suspect SARS-CoV-2 came out of the facility. Accidental releases do happen, and one even triggered a pandemic: An influenza strain that surfaced in 1977 was linked to strains in Russian labs collected 2 decades earlier. Is it possible that somebody at WIV became infected with the virus and then passed it on to others outside the lab? It’s unknown which bat viruses WIV has in its collection of samples and whether any of them infect humans. And a controversy surrounds the closest bat virus to SARS-CoV-2, which is called RaTG13. As Shi and co-workers reported, they only fully sequenced this virus after SARS-CoV-2 surfaced and they looked through their database for potential relatives. (The group often sequences only one small region of bat coronaviruses genomes that mutates infrequently, so changes indicate distinct viruses.) A great deal of speculation has circled around the naming of the partial sequence: Shi’s group earlier had reported a virus named BtCoV/4991 that exactly matches RaTG13 in that small region, but are they one and the same? Or could it be, as some assert, that BtCoV/4991 is SARS-CoV-2 itself? What other bat coronaviruses has the lab yet to fully sequence? Could any of them offer clues?

Another outstanding question is whether Shi’s team or other researchers in Wuhan manipulated bat viruses in “gain-of-function” experiments that can make a virus more transmissible between humans. In 2015, Shi co-authored a paper that made a chimeric SARS virus by combining one from bats with a strain that had been adapted to mice. But that work was done at the University of North Carolina, not in Wuhan, and in collaboration with Ralph Baric. Did Shi’s group later carry out other gain-of-function studies in Wuhan—and if so, what did they find?

Finally, diplomatic cables from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing in 2018 warned that a new, ultra-high security lab at WIV had “a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators.” Did Shi’s team ever work with coronaviruses in that lab, and, if so, why? — https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/who-led-mission-may-investigate-pandemic-s-origin-here-are-key-questions-ask

If there is an HIV gene in coronavirus that is evidence, — boethius

Have you paid attention at all these past months? Scientists have already looked into the possibility of it being engineered and it has been waylaid as has been discussed in this very thread. Jeez. https://www.newscientist.com/term/coronavirus-come-lab/

No. Evidence.

Probabilities of things having happened elsewhere - such as lab breaches, are not circumstantial evidence.

Edit: To add: you have a hypothesis and the questions you quote are the questions to ask to test this. As in any criminal case, you should ask the questions that would disprove the hypothesis. By failing to find evidence of the hypothesis being false, you'll most likely find evidence in favour of the hypothesis. However, you should try to disprove it nonetheless to avoid confirmation bias.

However, you should try to disprove it nonetheless to avoid confirmation bias. — Benkei

Agreed.. Nothing should just be taken as "proven" because there is no evidence on the other side.

Interesting article from April in The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/

Here is an interesting part to keep in mind:

The Chinese government, meanwhile, has put a total lockdown on information related to the virus origins. Beijing has yet to provide U.S. experts with samples of the novel coronavirus collected from the earliest cases. The Shanghai lab that published the novel coronavirus genome on Jan. 11 was quickly shut down by authorities for “rectification.” Several of the doctors and journalists who reported on the spread early on have disappeared.

On Feb. 14, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for a new biosecurity law to be accelerated. On Wednesday, CNN reported the Chinese government has placed severe restrictions requiring approval before any research institution publishes anything on the origin of the novel coronavirus.

The origin story is not just about blame. It’s crucial to understanding how the novel coronavirus pandemic started because that informs how to prevent the next one. The Chinese government must be transparent and answer the questions about the Wuhan labs because they are vital to our scientific understanding of the virus, said Xiao. — https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/

The UK government is so corrupt it stinks, but they are not worried because they can hide anything behind Corona and their voter base has become fundamentalist, so it doesn't matter how crazy they behave.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/15/coronavirus-contracts-government-transparency-pandemic?fbclid=IwAR0Oo3uEwgXNNGJxS7MPf6fM3DvPaC1UZ6cC4KGeqS0kv3e0GqWxB70lJIg

That there is no evidence that demonstrates the operation of Sod's law, is just an example of the operation of Sod's law.

Discuss, making sure to lay to one side the sods, so they can be replaced over the graves, or wherever the bad news is being buried.

Gaia is angry, and so am I.

their voter base has become fundamentalist, so it doesn't matter how crazy they behave. — Punshhh

You mean those who formerly voted labour that didn't get excited about Jeremy Corbyn last time? :snicker:

At least you aren't in the same category of lock-down bunglers as the Americans. (So whopee.)

You mean those who formerly voted labour that didn't get excited about Jeremy Corbyn last time?

No not them, they only "lent their vote", I mean the true Tory voter. I heard a group of them being interviewed on the BBC lastnight. They are very happy with Boris, he's doing a "great job" and he'll get Brexit done too. You can tell them all about the reality and it will just wash over them, they won't change their view come hell, or high water.

Those ex-Labour voters you mention will soon be gnashing their teeth, because they are in the areas where the infection rate is rising and the economies will be hit hardest.

Poll: Who always wears a mask in public—and who doesn't?
National Geographic; July 10, 2020

This is the US only.

Seems the most pronounced differences correlate with political sentiments.
The Community part could be explained by "density" of people.

As an aside, my personal take is that it's respectful/considerate to wear such head gear in public to protect others (well, depending on the situation I suppose). After all, people have preventably suffered and died; it's not like it's difficult or detrimental to do or anything. Actually, it's moral.

It’s a shame the issue has become so political because the science isn’t exactly there at the moment.

According to the WHO’s most recent mask guidelines, “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

Of course there are “potential benefits”:

reduced potential exposure risk from infected persons before they develop symptoms;

• reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;(70)

• making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus;

• reminding people to be compliant with other measures (e.g., hand hygiene, not touching nose and mouth). However, this can also have the reverse effect (see below);

• potential social and economic benefits. Amidst the global shortage of surgical masks and PPE, encouraging the public to create their own fabric masks may promote individual enterprise and community integration. Moreover, the production of non-medical masks may offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities. Fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general. The safe re-use of fabric masks will also reduce costs and waste and contribute to sustainability.

But these need to be weighed against the potential harms:

• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands;(48, 49)

• potential self-contamination that can occur if non- medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify;

• potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used;

• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours;(50)

• difficulty with communicating clearly;
• potential discomfort;(41, 51)

• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene;

• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children;

• waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places, risk of contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;

• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on lip reading;

• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot and humid environments.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak

From the very document you cited:

However, taking into account the available studies evaluating pre- and asymptomatic transmission, a growing compendium of observational evidence on the use of masks by the general public in several countries, individual values and preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Table 2).

My bolding.

Then,

Risk of exposure to the COVID-19 virus... due to epidemiology and intensity of transmission in
the population: if there is community transmission and there is limited or no capacity to implement other containment measures such as contact tracing, ability to carry out testing and isolate and care for suspected and confirmed cases.[/quote]

and

settings where individuals are unable to keep a physical distance
of at least 1 metre (3.3 feet) (e.g. public transportation).

Stop being such a fuckwit.

(y)

The CDC (US) concurs.

About Cloth Face Coverings
CDC; June 28, 2020

When it comes to decision making under uncertainty, is the W.H.O. (..C.D.C etc) useful when it matters? Or merely after the fact if we aren't all dead due to incompetence? It seems to me that the ones who were on the money early about precautionary measures were the folk in the complexity science camp or countries that understood the dangerous of getting it wrong from experience (e.g. Taiwan).

Actually, it's moral. — jorndoe

Very much so.

Good summation.

Here's a question for people here:

Assume the pandemic will continue as it is now for let's say eleven months.

If Joe Biden wins, will the media forget the pandemic after January 20th 2021?

Just saying while remembering how the "War on Terror" suddenly disappeared as a topic of criticism in the media after Obama came into power (and continued the Bush policies quite actively).

Absurdly parochial, @ssu. The pandemic is not an issue only for 'mercans. It's just that they have been, tragically, the least able to deal with it.