5 ms·

We could have stopped it completely with total travel bans but the WHO advised against it because it could be damaging to the world economy. Why is the WHO con

We could have stopped it completely with total travel bans but the WHO advised against it because it could be damaging to the world economy. Why is the WHO concerned about the economy? Well I have no idea. And is this virus going pandemic going to be more or less economically painful than the travel bans might have been? My guess would be we will feel significantly more pain from a pandemic.

surge 7y ago
I think its pretty obvious the WHO just repeats whatever the CCP wants them to say. I trust the CDC, and the CDC is preparing for something very serious, not something akin to the flu.
- WA 7y ago
  You know what's serious? If the entire population is scared shitless and runs to the next hospital and overwhelms the system. This is a lot scarier than the actual infections. I know nothing about the CDC, but of course any health care organization prepares for "something very serious" that comes on top of the existing flu cases, because hospitals are already at close to maximum capacity.
WA 7y ago
> "Why is the WHO concerned about the economy?" Don't you see that this is always a tradeoff? If the economy tanks, people lose their jobs, which could result in a lot more social unrest than if a virus spreads around the world. I think it's tough to contain a virus like that with such a long incubation time. But the early efforts might have slowed the virus down somewhat at first, giving us more time to develop vaccines.
- raducu 7y ago
  There's no tradeoff if you never actually trade, is there? There's not actually any wise balance and other mumbo-jumbo fart-heads in the WTO like to spew out, if under no circumstance do you ban travelling or take any meaningful action. It's just words for the idiots to feel secure while all it really matters is economic growth. I'd love to be proven otherwise, but then, under what circumstances would WTO advice a full ban on travel to/from China? Perhaps never? There you have it. Just words after the fact, rationalizing inaction to two year olds -- "there's nothing to worry about", "the chinese are taking outstanding measures", "maybe there's something to worry about, but mah economy", "perhaps its too late to contain this"
- hurricanetc 7y ago
  I find that argument fundamentally flawed. Travel bans are momentarily painful and the unrest is localized. The world economy would feel the pain but most nations would be spared. Compare that to what might happen when this virus hits NYC. There will be a run on cash and groceries. People will stop commuting. Schools will close. Restaurants and shops will be empty. Now consider the same thing happening in Seoul, Berlin, London, San Francisco, etc. The economic impacts from this could be catastrophic. And the most ironic thing is that if this truly does get out of hand we will get travel bans. Nations will close their borders. People will willingly (and forcefully) stop traveling via boat or air. We'll circle back to needing travel bans and the only price we'll have paid is millions of lives and a global economic catastrophe. All so that we could avoid some minor short term economic pain.
thinkingemote 7y ago
Travel bans were also advised against for another reason: People will always break the travel ban, and they will actively avoid law enforcement especially when they get sick, meaning that infections will spread worse and be harder to control than if you let people in but keep a track of them. Restrict and monitor is better than a ban.
- hurricanetc 7y ago
  It’s pretty difficult to cross the ocean by yourself. The only way for this virus to have infected Japan or the US is via plane or boat. Both could have been prevented. What will be more damaging to Japans economy? Banning travel to and from China or dealing with widespread panic, disease, and death? You restrict and monitor if the bans fail. Which is the only thing we can do now because the incompetent WHO blasted any country or person who suggested travel bans would help.
raducu 7y ago
>Why is the WHO concerned about the economy? What do you mean why? Wasn't there recently some news about a US official threatening some UN high figure?
pbourke 7y ago
> We could have stopped it completely with total travel bans There is no such thing in the modern world. The influenza pandemics in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries couldn't be stopped, just mitigated. Just take the US - you'd need to shut every air route, every land border and every shipping port for upwards of 18 months. Untenable.

surge 7y ago

I think its pretty obvious the WHO just repeats whatever the CCP wants them to say. I trust the CDC, and the CDC is preparing for something very serious, not something akin to the flu.

WA 7y ago
You know what's serious? If the entire population is scared shitless and runs to the next hospital and overwhelms the system. This is a lot scarier than the actual infections. I know nothing about the CDC, but of course any health care organization prepares for "something very serious" that comes on top of the existing flu cases, because hospitals are already at close to maximum capacity.

WA 7y ago

> "Why is the WHO concerned about the economy?" Don't you see that this is always a tradeoff? If the economy tanks, people lose their jobs, which could result in a lot more social unrest than if a virus spreads around the world. I think it's tough to contain a virus like that with such a long incubation time. But the early efforts might have slowed the virus down somewhat at first, giving us more time to develop vaccines.

raducu 7y ago
There's no tradeoff if you never actually trade, is there? There's not actually any wise balance and other mumbo-jumbo fart-heads in the WTO like to spew out, if under no circumstance do you ban travelling or take any meaningful action. It's just words for the idiots to feel secure while all it really matters is economic growth. I'd love to be proven otherwise, but then, under what circumstances would WTO advice a full ban on travel to/from China? Perhaps never? There you have it. Just words after the fact, rationalizing inaction to two year olds -- "there's nothing to worry about", "the chinese are taking outstanding measures", "maybe there's something to worry about, but mah economy", "perhaps its too late to contain this"
hurricanetc 7y ago
I find that argument fundamentally flawed. Travel bans are momentarily painful and the unrest is localized. The world economy would feel the pain but most nations would be spared. Compare that to what might happen when this virus hits NYC. There will be a run on cash and groceries. People will stop commuting. Schools will close. Restaurants and shops will be empty. Now consider the same thing happening in Seoul, Berlin, London, San Francisco, etc. The economic impacts from this could be catastrophic. And the most ironic thing is that if this truly does get out of hand we will get travel bans. Nations will close their borders. People will willingly (and forcefully) stop traveling via boat or air. We'll circle back to needing travel bans and the only price we'll have paid is millions of lives and a global economic catastrophe. All so that we could avoid some minor short term economic pain.

thinkingemote 7y ago

Travel bans were also advised against for another reason: People will always break the travel ban, and they will actively avoid law enforcement especially when they get sick, meaning that infections will spread worse and be harder to control than if you let people in but keep a track of them. Restrict and monitor is better than a ban.

hurricanetc 7y ago
It’s pretty difficult to cross the ocean by yourself. The only way for this virus to have infected Japan or the US is via plane or boat. Both could have been prevented. What will be more damaging to Japans economy? Banning travel to and from China or dealing with widespread panic, disease, and death? You restrict and monitor if the bans fail. Which is the only thing we can do now because the incompetent WHO blasted any country or person who suggested travel bans would help.

raducu 7y ago

>Why is the WHO concerned about the economy? What do you mean why? Wasn't there recently some news about a US official threatening some UN high figure?

pbourke 7y ago

> We could have stopped it completely with total travel bans There is no such thing in the modern world. The influenza pandemics in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries couldn't be stopped, just mitigated. Just take the US - you'd need to shut every air route, every land border and every shipping port for upwards of 18 months. Untenable.