There's a little bit more context to this in the following articles. (Well, actually, by "a little bit more" I really mean "some".Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#35ad4a25158c
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1017165.html
And at the risk of being called a pedant, I would like to point out the use of the word "primary" in the quotation provided by Muddy.
Now I think of it, I'm not sure the WHO themselves ever have said that lockdowns should be the primary source of control, have they? I thought they were rather keen on test and trace. In fact, here's the WHO Director-General on 16th March last:
We have also seen a rapid escalation in social distancing measures, like closing schools and cancelling sporting events and other gatherings.
But we have not seen an urgent enough escalation in testing, isolation and contact tracing – which is the backbone of the response.
Social distancing measures can help to reduce transmission and enable health systems to cope.
Handwashing and coughing into your elbow can reduce the risk for yourself and others.
But on their own, they are not enough to extinguish this pandemic. It’s the combination that makes the difference.
As I keep saying, all countries must take a comprehensive approach.
But the most effective way to prevent infections and save lives is breaking the chains of transmission. And to do that, you must test and isolate.
[...]
Once again, our key message is: test, test, test.
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/deta...-16-march-2020
So, it seems that they've always been keen on a combination of things rather than relying on one, but with test and trace (not lockdown) as the 'backbone of the response', and with the emphasis being on ensuring that health systems can continue to cope. So, perhaps, saying "even[my emphasis] some people at the WHO are moving away from advocating lockdowns" could perhaps be construed as constituting a slight distortion of the previous position of the WHO in this matter.
