Comments by "AstroGremlinAmerican" (@AstroGremlinAmerican) on "Pandemic Update, US and WHO" video.

The use of a double negative is sometimes considered a rhetorical technique called "litotes." For example, saying "not bad" instead of "good." According to Wikipedia, litotes can be used as a euphemism to diminish the harshness of an observation; "He isn't the cleanest person I know." Hardly a verbal machination appropriate to communicate disease risk to the people of the world.
7
@MrMadact I noticed that, too. The mealy mouthed verbiage of WHO helped camouflage the seriousness. Of course nothing in the world should be "unnecessarily restricted" since doing unnecessary things is . . . unnecessary. Hiding behind that obvious tautology lurked the quite necessary need to restrict travel.
3
When authorities seek to "avoid a panic," they do a disservice to the population. Give us honest, timely information. It is up to us whether or not to panic.
3
@jango1970 Shows the power of a tortured construction to elude even a very clever man. The WHO was playing word games like a deceitful lawyer.
2
@justingress6075 Good question! The answer is "not quite." One could satisfy the directive to not impose unnecessary restrictions (a rather obvious piece of advice) and still not impose necessary restrictions.
1
From the article, "Starting in early February 2020, 59 airline companies suspended or limited flights to mainland China, and several countries—including the United States, Russia, Australia, and Italy—have imposed government-issued travel restrictions (29–34). It is difficult to calculate exactly the level of traffic reduction imposed by these measures." Not only is this ungrammatical - "have" instead of "had" - but as foolish as discussing the efficacy of a partial closure of a gas leak in preventing the subsequent explosion.
1
I think we all go to Commondreams.org to get unbiased reports such as "For a Greener Future': Omar, Sanders Lead Bill to End Destructive Taxpayer Subsidies for Fossil Fuels."
1
@tdang9528 Ignorance often results from incompetence. The question is whether WHO was willfully ignorant or merely incompetent. Neither gives us reason to trust them.
1