4 ms·

Remember that the WHO has no real power, its a coordination body at the best. Its not like the US CDC which can impose restrictions and rules in the US. The WHO

Remember that the WHO has no real power, its a coordination body at the best. Its not like the US CDC which can impose restrictions and rules in the US. The WHO can't go into a country without that country's approval. They rely on that country giving out information. So in another words, the WHO must convince the country in question that its in their best interest to cooperate with the WHO. One CBC article says it the best: The WHO doesn't have the authority to tell Xi Jingping what to do, let alone take over the fight on the ground. All it can do is engage in what is known as disease diplomacy, and try to convince China that its interests and the world's concerns are completely aligned. "In some ways the SARS outbreak taught the WHO that you have to have the country that is most affected — the epicentre of the outbreak — on its side. It can't risk alienating the Chinese," says Lee. "I'm sure they know that they're not getting full co-operation, but they're still trying to encourage that." https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/china-coronavirus-cover-up-claims-1.5471946 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/china-coronavirus-cover-up-cl...

sremani 7y ago
The No.1 contributor to WHO budget is US tax payer, and the leadership of WHO was begging countries like US not to close flight routes to China in the midst of rapidly spreading disease. For any observer casual or otherwise it is evident WHO leadership is more worried about being on the good side of China than the health of the world.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Indeed. Cutting off travel was the most effective way of stopping the spread outside of China.
- jerf 7y ago
  It's been over 100 years since the world has had a pandemic. It is frankly entirely predictable that we don't really know what to do when one happens, and that we'll collectively be generally complacent until it is on where ever our doorstep happens to be. I'm not one with a high opinion of global governance anyhow, but even if it was competent it would be incompetent, because the competent thing to do for so long has been to assume "not going to be a pandemic". There isn't really a solution to these sorts of fat-tail outcomes; you can't spend trillions planning for them all the time because even if you do, your funding will be cut, but then when the time comes, you won't be prepared.
  - blub 7y ago
    "It is frankly entirely predictable that we don't really know what to do when one happens, and that we'll collectively be generally complacent until it is on where ever our doorstep happens to be." Maybe your average Joe wouldn't know what to do, but if the leaders of the organization which is supposed to globally manage such situations don't really know what do to, then they should all be replaced. That's literally their job.
    - jerf 7y ago
      Ironically, I think that's exactly backwards. Average Joes actually have a chance of getting this right. Institutions are the ones that essentially can't, because if they treated pandemics correctly in the past several decades, they'd be defunded for wasting money on the fat tail events that could have happened, but didn't, so clearly, they don't need that money. You're thinking in terms of people; you need to think in terms of organizations, which are in some ways just people writ large, but in other very important ways, are not just people writ large. It would be completely plausible and understandable that the majority of individuals in the WHO or CDC are aware of some truly bad thing in progress even as the organization is telling everyone not to worry and just stay calm at all costs. It's hard to grok, but it's the way it is.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    There have been a few pandemics in the last 100 years... A very recent one being the 2009 flu pandemic (swine flu). HIV is an ongoing pandemic.
- bawolff 7y ago
  Or maybe closing flight routes was a bad response rooted in fear and not logic? I don't know much about pandemics, but i would need to see experts who are independent of both WHO and USA say that WHO's policy is bad, before believing that they have been unduly influenced

sremani 7y ago

The No.1 contributor to WHO budget is US tax payer, and the leadership of WHO was begging countries like US not to close flight routes to China in the midst of rapidly spreading disease. For any observer casual or otherwise it is evident WHO leadership is more worried about being on the good side of China than the health of the world.

gamblor956 7y ago
Indeed. Cutting off travel was the most effective way of stopping the spread outside of China.
jerf 7y ago
It's been over 100 years since the world has had a pandemic. It is frankly entirely predictable that we don't really know what to do when one happens, and that we'll collectively be generally complacent until it is on where ever our doorstep happens to be. I'm not one with a high opinion of global governance anyhow, but even if it was competent it would be incompetent, because the competent thing to do for so long has been to assume "not going to be a pandemic". There isn't really a solution to these sorts of fat-tail outcomes; you can't spend trillions planning for them all the time because even if you do, your funding will be cut, but then when the time comes, you won't be prepared.
- blub 7y ago
  "It is frankly entirely predictable that we don't really know what to do when one happens, and that we'll collectively be generally complacent until it is on where ever our doorstep happens to be." Maybe your average Joe wouldn't know what to do, but if the leaders of the organization which is supposed to globally manage such situations don't really know what do to, then they should all be replaced. That's literally their job.
  - jerf 7y ago
    Ironically, I think that's exactly backwards. Average Joes actually have a chance of getting this right. Institutions are the ones that essentially can't, because if they treated pandemics correctly in the past several decades, they'd be defunded for wasting money on the fat tail events that could have happened, but didn't, so clearly, they don't need that money. You're thinking in terms of people; you need to think in terms of organizations, which are in some ways just people writ large, but in other very important ways, are not just people writ large. It would be completely plausible and understandable that the majority of individuals in the WHO or CDC are aware of some truly bad thing in progress even as the organization is telling everyone not to worry and just stay calm at all costs. It's hard to grok, but it's the way it is.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  There have been a few pandemics in the last 100 years... A very recent one being the 2009 flu pandemic (swine flu). HIV is an ongoing pandemic.
bawolff 7y ago
Or maybe closing flight routes was a bad response rooted in fear and not logic? I don't know much about pandemics, but i would need to see experts who are independent of both WHO and USA say that WHO's policy is bad, before believing that they have been unduly influenced