Thread by @nimilamalee

@WHOSriLanka had been convening an independent expert panel--which included members attached to the WHO--to assess #COVID19 in Sri Lanka. They produced reports which were easy to understand, scientific and provided a snapshot into the prevailing situation around the time. (1)

At least two reports were published online. I am among the professional journalists (also my colleague at @TimesOnlineLK) who took extracts from the report while identifying CORRECTLY that it was an independent panel convened by @WHOSriLanka (2)

The reports did specify that lockdowns would save lives. This was the opinion of the experts in the panel. The media duly reported it, ALONG with other facts contained therein. (3)

@WHOSriLanka then issued this statement which was retweeted by @Keheliya_R. It thanks WHO for "swift action" to "stem the spread of misinformation" by "certain parties" and also refers to "fake news". (4)

First, the action was not "swift". It took days for the @WHOSriLanka to react. Why? Also, where are the examples of "fake news" and "misinformation" versus legitimate and accurate reporting of the facts contained in the reports? (5)

Third, what is "independent" about "independent" experts if they are censored? In future, will the @WHOSriLanka convene similar meetings or cave in and shelve them altogether? In that case, whose interests is @WHOSriLanka serving? (6)

Finally, what possessed @WHOSriLanka to take down the reports which they published online which had been seen and accurately digested by its audience (failing evidence to the contrary)? To delete them is to pretend they didn't exist. They are already in the public domain! (7)

If there was something objectionable in the manner the reports were referred to by "certain" parties, why didn't @WHO not clarify its position in that regard, with specific reference to what its found inaccurate?

That was (8). Here's (9): This whole incident is a bizarre and ill-advised exercise in public communication. @WHOSriLanka must be clear regarding whose interests it serves and whether future attitudes towards information will be guided by political motives.

The main question is whether the outcome would have been different if the experts had said something that aligned with Government policy, propaganda and thinking. (END)