Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Poe]

It seems unlikely that they spread much during that time.
Basically you need to produce lots of viruses and spread them to infect others, and those spread-enhancers are also the things that produce symptoms (fever and runny nose due to virus production) - coughing for spreading.

One thing I worry about is someone who is infected, show now covid symptoms but has really bad allergies since there is a shit load of pollen in the air this time of year.

Me for example, I sneeze ALOT this time of year. I wonder if I have covid-19 and I sneeze due to pollen, am I spreading the virus ?

Insane sneezing and itchy eyes and sometimes a stocked up noes is pretty unavoidable for me for at least 2 months a year. Most allergy medications I've tried have been pretty ineffective but I've learned to just live with it.

[Acidbaron]

It seems unlikely that they spread much during that time.
Basically you need to produce lots of viruses and spread them to infect others, and those spread-enhancers are also the things that produce symptoms (fever and runny nose due to virus production) - coughing for spreading.

Correct, but keep in mind that allergy season has just started so that means a lot of sneezing and runny noses. So there are other factors that can come in play, just stating that once you're infected you can be a carrier for a long time, not just 10 days or whatever amount of days someone has been led to believe.

- - - Updated - - -

One thing I worry about is someone who is infected, show now covid symptoms but has really bad allergies since there is a shit load of pollen in the air this time of year.

Me for example, I sneeze ALOT this time of year. I wonder if I have covid-19 and I sneeze due to pollen, am I spreading the virus ?

Yes you are, that's why doctors here are recommending that you MUST take your medicine.

[Poe]

Yes you are, that's why doctors here are recommending that you MUST take your medicine.

Read the second part of my post ( I edited it) . Allergy medications never "cure" my symptoms. The expensive ones make me sneeze slightly less at best but I still sneeze a ridiculous amount.

[Thepersona]

Sorry? A carrier can spread up to 3 weeks and not show any symptoms.

Yeah. And we dont know how many asymptomatic carriers are there

[Acidbaron]

Read the second part of my post ( I edited it) . Allergy medications never "cure" my symptoms. The expensive ones make me sneeze slightly less at best but I still sneeze a ridiculous amount.

Ouch, try to always sneeze in a paper towel or tissue. Beyond getting testing there is not much you can do but you can very much spread it. But yes this allergy season is an issue as it makes it far easier for those suffering from them to spread it.

[Forogil]

I really wanted to punch the host after his opening bullshit about the snake. When was the last time he was been in a pharmacy? Or knew anything about the symbolism of said snake in medicine instead of reading about it just now?
But yes, if all of the WHO's response or lack thereof is true (Taiwan can also play games...), then truly we are fucked and too many morons are in positions of power.

Yeah, I also reacted and realized that there was a talking snake as well.

The most obvious issue at hand is that Taiwan claimed they posted something about human-to-human transmission to WHO IHR framework on December 30/31, but their posts are always deleted (since only member countries can post there and they are not a member).

That is what papers say that Taiwan claims. Assuming Taiwan was confident that human-to-human transmission was an actual thing - why did they only post it where it would be ignored - and not to friendly governments or to general newspapers. If they had posted it to newspapers we wouldn't have to add the caveat "Taiwan claims".

My guess is that Taiwan's warning was actually pretty vague - and they weren't fully confident that human-to-human transmission occurred (or occurred in significant numbers), and instead they were more concerned about gaining political points than about avoiding loss of life; unless they are complete morons and I don't find that likely.


And Taiwan only imposed fever checks on passengers and didn't stop travel from Wuhan until January 24th, and WHO on January 21st clearly indicated that human-to-human transmission do occur. Taiwan was quick - but still, if they knew the disease was this problematic - why didn't they do more until then?

[Foosha]

Read the second part of my post ( I edited it) . Allergy medications never "cure" my symptoms. The expensive ones make me sneeze slightly less at best but I still sneeze a ridiculous amount.

Sneezing as a symptom for Covid-19 is rare, as with runny nose. Also you probably have chronic rhinitis. I bet you have nasal drip and you constantly try to have a productive cough or clear your throat...am I right? Try using a netti pot with a hypertonic solution every night/morning and night. Also if you live in a dry climate, try installing a humidifier to your heating system/Air Con, or just get a stand alone humidifier for your room(s). Try different allergy meds, nasal sprays work well but you need to cycle them and they can give you bloody noses. Xyzal works really well for me, albeit its kinda expensive. In a pinch you can double up cetirizine; space them out if you want but you can take them at the same time if you want. When my allergies get really bad i use a nasal spray at night and then Xyzal/2 doses of cetirizine in the morning/afternoon

[Remilia]

Yeah, I also reacted and realized that there was a talking snake as well.

The most obvious issue at hand is that Taiwan claimed they posted something about human-to-human transmission to WHO IHR framework on December 30/31, but their posts are always deleted (since only member countries can post there and they are not a member).

That is what papers say that Taiwan claims. Assuming Taiwan was confident that human-to-human transmission was an actual thing - why did they only post it where it would be ignored - and not to friendly governments or to general newspapers. If they had posted it to newspapers we wouldn't have to add the caveat "Taiwan claims".

My guess is that Taiwan's warning was actually pretty vague - and they weren't fully confident that human-to-human transmission occurred (or occurred in significant numbers), and instead they were more concerned about gaining political points than about avoiding loss of life; unless they are complete morons and I don't find that likely.


And Taiwan only imposed fever checks on passengers and didn't stop travel from Wuhan until January 24th, and WHO on January 21st clearly indicated that human-to-human transmission do occur. Taiwan was quick - but still, if they knew the disease was this problematic - why didn't they do more until then?

Inspections started at December 31st for flights from Wuhan. Fever check, not allowed to leave the plane if showing any symptom.
January 5th anyone with travel history to/from Wuhan was met with extra scrutiny. 26 known pathogen test, anyone showing symptom is quarantined and monitored.
January 20th they activated their Central Epidemic Command Center, something that was established because of SARS. That's when the more drastic measures started coming into play.

As for why the WHO, it's probably cause they have a bigger reach and cause no one listens to Taiwan anyways.

[Krastyn]

You linked a source, not knowing what it said, and now are incredibly defensive about conclusions I've begun looking at after reading that source. I have only referenced your CNN article, and a Washington Post article that corroborates the content, both of which say basically the same thing. If you wish to attack my conclusions from those articles, you're free to, but you've yet to actually show how the articles are wrong or what I've quoted from the articles is wrong. You've only gone on tangents and backtracked on the validity of your own source.

The initial claims by Endus, which you responded to was that the actions of the US were piracy, and that the US was stealing supplies.

I linked a CBC article which refuted this. You have yet to link ANYTHING that states otherwise. The closest thing you have is that the US offered a supplier more money, and the supplier decided to give things to them. This is a far, far, far cry from an act of war.

At best, you're arguing the US is spending more money than everyone else.

This is, again, a reading comprehension issue on your end. Never did I say no country has out bid another on resources, the fact that there was bidding at all means that there necessarily was out bidding involved. The assertion is that I have made is that what the US is doing - which is approaching companies after the bidding has concluded and then proceeds to make such high offers that even other Western nations cannot compete - is abhorrent.

So if Germany bids high enough to out bid a 3rd world country, is that abhorrent? Is only the highest bidder the one that deserves shaming?

I would also note that the article does not say they can't complete, just that they didn't. Another assumption you're making to fit your narrative, again.

The position you seem to hold is implicitly supporting the denial of resources to developing and less well-off nations, generally non-white, essentially denying them access to medical supplies. Perhaps tribalism would be a better description, but I think America's disregard for non-Americans would be more aptly described as racism.

I love the constant insinuation that I'm racist, when I've done literally nothing to assert that. I've stated what normally happens in a shortage supply situation. You're attributing things to me once again, to suit your own narrative.

I keep repeating the fact that you're saying the US is going to oversupply, but clearly isn't even close to that point. You hand wave that other nations are going to run out of supplies in the future, yet are implying that can't possibly happen to the US.

You're saying the US as the richest country in the world shouldn't use that wealth to guarantee supplies for their citizens. that's easy to do when you don't have to deal with the consequences of those actions.

[QUOTE=Magical Mudcrab;52228615]Then this is something we can agree on, I 100% think that Germany suggesting the banning of medical equipment is abhorrent too; however, they also lifted the ban less than two weeks later (Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2162SH).

And were they able to restock what they needed in those two weeks? I'll also note that they only lifted the ban within the EU, as noted in your article.

I don't know how you're having issues processing this: Yes, Germany could be wrong, and I've not discounted that possibility; however, until we know what happened, I'm going to err on the side of Germany, as it seems that the US is paying companies to renege on agreements.

So again, they've already backed down from their initial comments, which prompted my response into this. Right now worst case seems to be they are guilty of offering to pay a lot of money for things.

I prefer the side of waiting to find out what actually happened.

So you simply do not know that journalists at major publications need to vet their sources, and simply because it goes counter to what you want to believe, you will openly disregard what a source says? Gotcha.

It could very well be someone who works at Homeland Security who said that. Whether they have any actual authority or knowledge on the subject, is not needed to be a "source". In the history of journalism, unnamed sources have never been wrong. You're telling me to believe a single source that can't be verified. Sorry, but I'll need some kind of verifiable evidence.

Ignoring all that, you still haven't even remotely given an idea of what "oversupply" is, and how far the US is from it.

I'm not even guessing, I'm just putting faith in what Germany said as I wait for confirmation. I've even said - multiple times, which you seem to have just overlooked - that I'm open to this being a clerical error on Germany's side.

But even in the worst case scenario, there is no way the US forced a private German company to send them something instead of to Germany. Why are you willing to absolve the company of any responsibility?

It's good that you mentioned France, and not Brazil that was unable to secure more medical supplies and will simply be out of them for weeks. Phew, that was a close one.

And you still haven't said how the supplies being doled out in an open bid system should be dealt out. It seems you're arguing for a first come, first served approach.

And, as I linked above, was lifted.

As mentioned above, still lasted two weeks, and was only lifted for the EU. Also doesn't address other countries that have restrictions. Feel free to do a simple Google.

It's not the suppliers fault, it's America's. That's the thing you're not getting. America is going behind the backs of allied nations and paying suppliers to renege on agreements, essentially cancelling orders that had already been made. This is leading to uncertainty and an inability to get access to supplies by less wealthy nations. It's incredibly telling that people seem to be skirting around this, as it's indefensible.

I don't understand your willingness to absolve the companies of all responsibility.

There have been three scenarios put forth from the articles, and initial accusations.

1) The US is stealing shipments from other people - This has been backed down.

2) The US is outbidding people in open bids - The richest is going to win in a situation like this, and no alternative way has been proposed.

3) The US is paying people to cancel orders - Still unverified, despite this being something that should be quite easy to verify.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm not willing to break out the pitchforks yet.

- - - Updated - - -

The aid the US can offer after the fact isn't helpful when countries have no medical supplies *now*, and the US is to blame for this through their predatory practices. China's aid is coming now, when it's relevant to countries need.

So you gloss over the fact that what China did contributed to the situation. You're literally saying the US is to blame for something China did a month ago. How can you not see this?

Had China not "oversupplied" there would be more supply for everyone else and aid wouldn't have been needed as those countries could have bought the supplies that China overbought. This is literally what you're accusing the US of trying to do right now, other than the fact that they aren't even close to being oversupplied yet.

[Yunru]

28 dead so far. 997 infected. Some areas were hit harder than others and some have 0 reports of virus.

Also i slaped mysef into a head when i heared a person on national TV say that Virus is alive.

[Krastyn]

I should reiterate, I don't put my complete faith in that source, the same way I don't put my complete faith in Germany's assertion of the US stealing medical supplies, but I will believe the source over a poster - who has provided no evidence of their own, really to go against any point I've made - that can't decide if they want to meme or have a conversation, and then gets mad when people dismiss him because he's memeing.

You shouldn't put faith in the bold, as they've backtracked on that.

As for evidence of my own, you haven't actually shown evidence. So far you've give:
- Hearsay that the US has somehow forced suppliers to cancel orders.
- Quotes from other governments that they got outbid on supplies. Clearly not every company bid the same, so you're just accusing the highest bidder of being predatory, without saying how else the distribution should be handled.

I don't need to provide evidence when you have yet to actually verifiable evidence to back up your own claims.

Maybe wait until there is actual evidence.

[Poe]

Also i slaped mysef into a head when i heared a person on national TV say that Virus is alive.

Well technically it's not considered a living thing but it can be "killed" technically so it's either dead or not dead.

I'd prefer the word "active but whatever helps people understand the situation I guess.

[Tuor]

Also i slaped mysef into a head when i heared a person on national TV say that Virus is alive.

That depends on the point of view, some biologists say viruses are alive, some others say they aren't. If you look at a virus you will quickly notice that viruses don't have any sort of methabolism, this means they can't have quimichal reactions able to produce stuff like proteins, that's why they have to take control of a hoaster to be able to reproduce themselves.
But if you analise the question in another perspective, they have their own coded information (ADN or ARN) wich gives them the information about how to take control of hoasters, and they can evolve so they can control diferent species, this means that if we follow Darwin perspective, the perspective of being able to evolve, they are alive.

Anyway, they still biological entities. Anyone is free to pick their side. As for me, i think like Darwin, if they can evolve, then they alive.

[Magical Mudcrab]

You shouldn't put faith in the bold, as they've backtracked on that.

As for evidence of my own, you haven't actually shown evidence. So far you've give:
- Hearsay that the US has somehow forced suppliers to cancel orders.
- Quotes from other governments that they got outbid on supplies. Clearly not every company bid the same, so you're just accusing the highest bidder of being predatory, without saying how else the distribution should be handled.

I don't need to provide evidence when you have yet to actually verifiable evidence to back up your own claims.

Maybe wait until there is actual evidence.

So, I should point out, the poster I'm responding to there isn't in reference to you. They entered the conversation by trying to meme, and then have since cried about ad hominem because I dismissed them offhandedly as they weren't being productive. They've also both claimed that CBC is both a garbage source and a valid source (given they say that CBC would have vetted their source's credentials) in two different responses to me.

Regarding the evidence, the problem is that just because something is hearsay doesn't mean it's not true. We have two governments both attesting to the US having interfered with the shipping of masks they've purchased; they're effectively paying companies to cancel orders. This article from The Guardian also seems to be making it out that the tarmac statement from earlier was literal:

US buyers waving wads of cash managed to wrest control of a consignment of masks as it was about to be dispatched from China to one of the worst-hit coronavirus areas of France, according to two French officials.

The masks were on a plane at Shanghai airport that was ready to take off when the US buyers turned up and offered three times what their French counterparts were paying.

Jean Rottner, a doctor and president of the GrandEst regional council, said part of the order of several million masks heading for the region, where intensive care units are inundated with Covid-19 patients, had been lost to the buyers.

“On the tarmac, they arrive, get the cash out … so we really have to fight,” he told RTL radio.

Rottner would not identify the buyers, who they were working for or which US state the cargo was flown to, but another French official also involved in procuring masks from China said the group were acting for the US government.

- Source: The Guardian

If we want to play the game where nothing can be confirmed until the supplier confirms it, which would be suicide for their business to do, then there's nothing to really discuss.

[Benggaul]

Ouch, try to always sneeze in a paper towel or tissue. Beyond getting testing there is not much you can do but you can very much spread it. But yes this allergy season is an issue as it makes it far easier for those suffering from them to spread it.

Ayep. My seasonal allergies started kicking in Wednesday at work and Thursday my supervisors asked me to stay home until my coughing/sneezing had stopped for a full 24 hours. When I DID cough at work I always did it into my shoulder/elbow (my hands are constantly occupied with my work, so tissues/towels aren't really an option), so I'm fairly confident that if I did have COVID19 I wouldn't have passed it on then, but it looks like I'm stuck at home until I can overcome the tickle in my throat. With today being so sunny and warm here, however, I'm expecting it's going to be more difficult to get things under control tomorrow before work.

[cubby]

This is the second article I've seen where COVID-19 is confirmed to jump species (the first was about a housecat catching COVID-19). @PhaelixWW - how worried should be we about species jumping and mutation?

Does it matter that it's only cats? (is it only cats - checking)

[Crissi]

apparantly cats have suiumilar receptors that the virus attaches to that humans do so I guess in that way it matters.

Now I need to be even mroe careful because Id feel like shit giving it to my kitties.

[Magical Mudcrab]

The initial claims by Endus, which you responded to was that the actions of the US were piracy, and that the US was stealing supplies.

I linked a CBC article which refuted this. You have yet to link ANYTHING that states otherwise. The closest thing you have is that the US offered a supplier more money, and the supplier decided to give things to them. This is a far, far, far cry from an act of war.

At best, you're arguing the US is spending more money than everyone else.

So, the problem is that you've taken a change in Germany's story as being a refutation. The story from Germany, in the article, did not change in regards to the complaint. The complaint is still that the US diverted medical resources that were to be shipped to Germany to America. What has changed in their story is the supplier, which seems to not be 3M. As I've said, it's possible that Germany is incorrect. If that comes out, I'll obviously retract this.

So if Germany bids high enough to out bid a 3rd world country, is that abhorrent? Is only the highest bidder the one that deserves shaming?

I would also note that the article does not say they can't complete, just that they didn't. Another assumption you're making to fit your narrative, again.

What's abhorrent isn't the bidding, as I've said numerous times now. What's abhorrent is the predatory practice of waiting until the bidding process is done, and then after-the-fact interfering with the actual consignment; they interrupt delivery and offer the companies many times the current price. They wait for the process to be complete, for there to be a commitment made, and then offer so much money that the suppliers are willing to renege on the agreements made. This leads to uncertainty, especially in countries like Brazil, about when they will be able to get medical supplies.

I love the constant insinuation that I'm racist, when I've done literally nothing to assert that. I've stated what normally happens in a shortage supply situation. You're attributing things to me once again, to suit your own narrative.

Racism doesn't need to be overt to be racism. The idea that America's tactics are OK simply because they can do it, with a wild disregard of how it affects non Americans, esp. developing counties, is - at best - an indifference towards foreigners dying, at worst racial indifference.

I keep repeating the fact that you're saying the US is going to oversupply, but clearly isn't even close to that point. You hand wave that other nations are going to run out of supplies in the future, yet are implying that can't possibly happen to the US.

You're saying the US as the richest country in the world shouldn't use that wealth to guarantee supplies for their citizens. that's easy to do when you don't have to deal with the consequences of those actions.

No, you can purchase supplies. Again, as I've said 5 or 6 times now, the problem is the method by which they procure supplies, and how this is causing counties to simply have none. This sort of ties in to the racism aspect. I can understand peoples indifferent to Brazilians dying because you're not Brazilian, but that doesn't make it OK. Brazilians dying is the direct consequence of the breaks in supply chains the US is causing for medical supplies.

And were they able to restock what they needed in those two weeks? I'll also note that they only lifted the ban within the EU, as noted in your article.

It's a good question. I don't have an answer for that, but I would be interested in knowing the impact of what Germany did. It's obviously unacceptable, and this is going to lead to problems in the EU, let alone their relations internationally if it's caused major supply line disruption. If people want to discuss this, I'm open to it.

So again, they've already backed down from their initial comments, which prompted my response into this. Right now worst case seems to be they are guilty of offering to pay a lot of money for things.

I prefer the side of waiting to find out what actually happened.

In the article, they didn't back down, they said it wasn't 3M that they had ordered with. The core of the issue was the same.
Also, how you're describing what the US is doing is incredibly reductive. It would be better described as the US intentionally denying supply of medical goods to other nations.

It could very well be someone who works at Homeland Security who said that. Whether they have any actual authority or knowledge on the subject, is not needed to be a "source". In the history of journalism, unnamed sources have never been wrong. You're telling me to believe a single source that can't be verified. Sorry, but I'll need some kind of verifiable evidence.

Ignoring all that, you still haven't even remotely given an idea of what "oversupply" is, and how far the US is from it.

Here's the problem, you're asking inane questions for the sake of asking inane questions. We can't possibly know what the numbers are, we don't even have accurate reporting of COVID cases in the US; how would they quantify supply requirements? The only thing we can tell from the source, combined with their current malicious practices, is that the US intends to purchase medical supplies at the expense of denying other nations access to supplies.

But even in the worst case scenario, there is no way the US forced a private German company to send them something instead of to Germany. Why are you willing to absolve the company of any responsibility?

Because a private company is not expected to act in the public interest, but governments should. This is especially so with governments that have been big receivers of humanitarian and military aid in the past.

And you still haven't said how the supplies being doled out in an open bid system should be dealt out. It seems you're arguing for a first come, first served approach.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think you read the articles, because they're very clear. The US is interfering with the process after bidding, when agreements have been made between the government and the supplier; they're offering the suppliers enough money to renege on the agreement.

As mentioned above, still lasted two weeks, and was only lifted for the EU. Also doesn't address other countries that have restrictions. Feel free to do a simple Google.

Which is great, but the once instance you gave was incorrect as it was no longer relevant. The two weeks are unacceptable, but they were lifted. I'm fairly sure that any other examples would end up being the same. Saying to "Google it" is great, if a little silly, but it's not on me do the legwork for you. If you give references, I'll look at them.

I don't understand your willingness to absolve the companies of all responsibility.

There have been three scenarios put forth from the articles, and initial accusations.

1) The US is stealing shipments from other people - This has been backed down.

2) The US is outbidding people in open bids - The richest is going to win in a situation like this, and no alternative way has been proposed.

3) The US is paying people to cancel orders - Still unverified, despite this being something that should be quite easy to verify.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm not willing to break out the pitchforks yet.

A private company and a government, a world power at that, should not be held to the same standard. This is a false equivalence.
1) Germany has not backed down on their claim that the US has taken the shipment, only that it was another company, not 3M.
2) The US is interfering with the consignment process, after the bidding has taken place, causing countries to be blindsided and left without medical supplies.
3) You dismiss any evidence that is not a direct quote from the company confirming, which would be suicide for their business, and dismiss the claims of multiple governments. This is demented.

You're not willing to condemn the US because you're blind, not because you're well reasoned.

So you gloss over the fact that what China did contributed to the situation. You're literally saying the US is to blame for something China did a month ago. How can you not see this?

Had China not "oversupplied" there would be more supply for everyone else and aid wouldn't have been needed as those countries could have bought the supplies that China overbought. This is literally what you're accusing the US of trying to do right now, other than the fact that they aren't even close to being oversupplied yet.

China caused the situation. They're not absolved for their role, but we're not at the point where were can look at these events from an abstract point of view and make enemies with people that are - now - trying to help. What's more is that China's situation occurred before the shortages; they ate into the stockpile, but they're not the ones denying poor countries access to medical supplies.

[PACOX]

Countries are using drones to combat the virus, meanwhile the US is stuck in the 1600s.

[Krastyn]

So, I should point out, the poster I'm responding to there isn't in reference to you. They entered the conversation by trying to meme, and then have since cried about ad hominem because I dismissed them offhandedly as they weren't being productive. They've also both claimed that CBC is both a garbage source and a valid source (given they say that CBC would have vetted their source's credentials) in two different responses to me.

It's because you aren't actually comprehending what they were saying.

CBC will vet a source to ensure that they are in fact who they say they are, and report the information that they said. That is the extent that needs to be "vetted". What is not however, is whether the content of what they said is actually accurate. They're reporting what the source has said.

They specifically did not mention anything about the persons role, level of authority, or knowledge on the subject. Literally the only quote they use from them is that they are going to be buying a bunch of stuff. That's about as vague as you can possibly get. Also of note, the same source mentioned that US companies were also paying above market price. Are the companies also to blame?

Regarding the evidence, the problem is that just because something is hearsay doesn't mean it's not true. We have two governments both attesting to the US having interfered with the shipping of masks they've purchased; they're effectively paying companies to cancel orders. This article from The Guardian also seems to be making it out that the tarmac statement from earlier was literal:

But again, if all you have his hearsay, it's meaningless. Name the company you bought them from. Show the emailed response as to why the order was cancelled. Maybe have your legal team put cancellation language into the order, like most companies do.

The other problem with hearsay is that a lot of this is not even first hand. It's highly likely Jean Rottner was not on the tarmac in Shanghai. It's also likely that the purchaser (who is probably not Rottner) was not on the tarmac either. So at best this is something that the supplier would have had to tell the purchaser who then would have told Rottner. Every step of communication allows for more inaccuracies.

Bear in mind that the first story from France was already backtracked on, from Renaud Muselier, accusing the US of the same thing. Rottner made their statements after, parroting the same thing Muselier said.

Furthermore, if you read this website from France, it states that there were 5 million masks ordred for the Grand Est region (where Rottner is from).

If you check Rottner's twitter here, Those 5 million masks arrived on March 31st.

So you have these officials saying things, one backing down, and the other posting about how they got their delivery the same time as the story is out. It couldn't possibly be that people are just repeating the same story, and hoping if enough people do, people will believe it?

The story also blames disorganization at the airport, and the fact that many of these orders are placed through brokers, not through the suppliers themselves. Which means the order process goes something like:
1. Company/Country asks broker if they have X masks
2. Broker checks with supplier, quotes the coompany/country
3. Company/Country then needs to cut a purchase order to the broker
4. Broker needs to cut a PO to the supplier
5. Supplier accepts the order

Any point after 2 and before the end of 5, you can lose an order. That's part of the problem of going through a broker. The broker can say "hey, we got all this product sitting on a plane, ready to go, just send me a PO". Most governments (or even companies for that matteR), need time to actually create, and release a PO. While that's going on, it's very feasible that the US showed up with cash direct to the supplier and said "we'll take it". Goods are sold, and by the time the other company/country sends their order in, "their" goods are gone.