7 ms·

I don't know what the cost/benefit ratio is with WHO but as a non-expert, I found the WHO's leadership during this unprecedented times as weak, un-authoritative

I don't know what the cost/benefit ratio is with WHO but as a non-expert, I found the WHO's leadership during this unprecedented times as weak, un-authoritative and frankly misguided/misinformed. Without stirring up conspiracy theories, everyone should watch this WHO official who just hangs up when they're asked about Taiwan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM That makes me think that the whole organization has been bought out and sold off. But, that's just my knee-jerk reaction and a gut feeling. That said, what's there to pay to be a member? Why not just stay in there like everyone else?

xur17 6y ago
> That said, what's there to pay to be a member? Why not just stay in there like everyone else? I don't know how much it costs, but there's also the signaling part of being in it (we are implicitly signaling support by being part of the group). That being said, leaving in the middle of the pandemic seems like an odd choice.
- fermienrico 6y ago
  Yes, the political signaling is one thing. I am trying to objectively understand: What is the return of investment (funds?) for being a member of this organization? I presume they're doing more than just handling Coronavirus. So, I found the official data [1]. I̵n̵ ̵2̵0̵1̵9̵ ̵-̵ ̵U̵S̵ ̵p̵a̵i̵d̵ ̵$̵6̵7̵M̵ ̵o̵u̵t̵ ̵o̵f̵ ̵t̵o̵t̵a̵l̵ ̵$̵1̵0̵1̵M̵ ̵(̵6̵6̵%̵)̵ ̵i̵n̵ ̵f̵u̵n̵d̵i̵n̵g̵ ̵i̵f̵ ̵I̵ ̵a̵m̵ ̵r̵e̵a̵d̵i̵n̵g̵ ̵t̵h̵i̵s̵ ̵r̵i̵g̵h̵t̵ ̵[̵2̵]̵.̵ ̵ ̵I̵n̵ ̵2̵0̵2̵0̵ ̵-̵ ̵U̵S̵ ̵p̵a̵i̵d̵ ̵$̵9̵9̵M̵ ̵o̵u̵t̵ ̵o̵f̵ ̵t̵o̵t̵a̵l̵ ̵$̵1̵8̵2̵M̵ ̵(̵5̵4̵%̵)̵ ̵i̵n̵ ̵t̵o̵t̵a̵l̵ ̵c̵o̵n̵t̵r̵i̵b̵u̵t̵i̵o̵n̵s̵.̵ ̵[̵3̵]̵ Correct source, US (gov) contributes about 16 % of the total budget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Financing_and_partnerships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Fina... What does the US get in return? There is also soft power and other influence that US expects to gain from it besides the raw ROI. The initial assessment is impossible unless we understand the benefit of the membership. [1] https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/assessed-contributions/en/ https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/as... [2] https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/AC_Status_Report_2019.pdf https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/AC... [3] https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/2020-21_AC_Summary.pdf https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/20...
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > What does the US get in return? "The WHO has played a leading role in several public health achievements, most notably the eradication of smallpox, the near-eradication of polio, and the development of an Ebola vaccine." A tiny drop in the bucket of the US budget to keep polio from resurging in the developing world sounds like a decent investment. (Those numbers don't appear to be correct, either; the US contributes about 16%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Financing_and_partnerships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Fina...)
    - fermienrico 6y ago
      > A tiny drop in the bucket of the US budget to keep polio from resurging in the developing world sounds like a decent investment. Definitely. Can you double check the source I linked? I did and it contradicts with the wikipedia which is weird.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      They didn't develop an Ebola vaccine. Pharma companies develop vaccines. Eradication of smallpox was indeed an achievement, however, it was also many decades ago. The modern WHO is different people. In more recent times, there is a history of problematic behaviour, like changing their own definition of pandemic specifically so they could declare one for a trivial disease (Swine Flu) and then lying about having done so, although archive.org remembers all: https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html#4c6224c448e8 https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-...
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > Pharma companies develop vaccines. And the WHO helps get it where it's needed. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/18-10-2019-major-milestone-for-who-supported-ebola-vaccine https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/18-10-2019-major-milest... > A randomized trial for the vaccine began during the West Africa Ebola outbreak in 2015. When no other organization was positioned to run a trial in Guinea during the complex emergency, the government of Guinea and WHO took the unusual step to lead the trial. > A global coalition of funders and researchers provided the critical support required. Funders included the Canadian Government (through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre, Global Affairs Canada); the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through the Research Council of Norway's GLOBVAC programme); the Wellcome Trust; the UK government through the Department for International Development; and Médecins Sans Frontières. > In the current Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, more than 236,000 people have been vaccinated with rVSV ZEBOV GP donated by Merck to WHO, including more than 60,000 health and frontline workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Uganda, South Sudan, Rwanda and Burundi. As for the Forbes blog, the author doesn't have a great record on public health: https://nypost.com/2020/03/08/coronavirus-going-to-hit-its-peak-and-start-falling-sooner-than-you-think/ https://nypost.com/2020/03/08/coronavirus-going-to-hit-its-p...
hirsin 6y ago
Give or take every international organization (and most parts of the US) will have the same reaction if you pressure them to acknowledge Taiwanese independence in that fashion. Excepting the cases where they are not required to interact with PRC at all, or are explicitly setup to deal with that issue.
bacondude3 6y ago
> what's there to pay to be a member? The U.S. was paying about $400-500 million / year, not an insignificant amount of tax dollars to go to an organization that chose to help China at the U.S.' expense by lying and covering up necessary information.
jrochkind1 6y ago
They are both the best and worst world health organization we have. I think we kinda need a world health organization.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Why? The great thing about local responses is that many different things can be tried, and different cultures with different viewpoints can be respected. When one organisation 'coordinates' the whole world, everyone can be wrong in unison. There's a lot of evidence that this has been happening with the WHO, but it's not just them. Some of the most valuable evidence generated in COVID times is from comparing different countries to observe differences based on what they did (or lack of differences). The WHO is an example of what one world government would look like: not a beatific utopia ruled by neutral and dispassionate experts, but incompetence and disarray unchecked by any sort of accountability. Remember: the WHO isn't run by a doctor but rather a former Ethiopian minister of finance. It has routinely made announcements that not only contradicted other health agencies and researchers but contradicted itself, as of a few weeks earlier. For example, the WHO's report on non-pharmaceutical interventions prepared in pre-COVID times says: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789... "Pandemic: Not recommended under any circumstances: contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry/exit screening, border closure" For a mere epidemic they also don't recommend internal travel restrictions of any sort. In other words, the WHO recommends against lockdowns. When faced with a virus that spreads in exactly the same way, and which it soon became clear was of similar severity, they haven't gone back and changed their beliefs nor prior advice though.
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    Because since infectious diseases don't respect borders, coordination across borders is required to control them. For a pandemic, by definition global in reach, global coordination is required. The WHO has no ability to enforce any standards of practice, and I am not saying it ought to. Sure, if they are recommending against something, there's nothing stopping a local jurisdiction from doing it anyway, if they think their conditions or capacities differ, or they have access to better scientific guidance. They may be making a terrible mistake, or not, so it goes. This is how it is, and it ought not to be any different. But if you give up on coordination and cross-border mutual aid, and just say that it's every country/state/city/household for themselves to do what they personally decide best inconsistently with all their neighbors... well, how is that working out for the USA right now? Should we also eliminate the CDC, and let each state do for themselves? And eliminate state depts of health, and let each city do for themselves? I mean, heck eliminate city depts of health too, just let each household do for themselves. Now different "cultures and viewpoints can be respected", right? That DOES seem to be the USA approach at times; it's not working out very well, because of some un-changeable facts about how infectious diseases work. The OP is blaming the WHO for not supplying the right information in early January. Putting aside an argument about how (un)reasonable a mistake this was to make under the circumstances, if you're complaining that they didn't warn the world when they should have, how is it possibly an improvement to leave every country on their own to figure out the threat level from any part of the globe without coordination? How could that ever work better? If someone is complaining that the WHO didn't warn the world as early as they should, eliminating them so they dont' even exist to fill that role would obviously not produce a different outcome.
surround 6y ago
Here’s an article which further explains the situation between China, Taiwan, and the WHO. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167
paranoidrobot 6y ago
Asking these sorts of political questions to scientists puts them in a difficult position. If he answers in the affirmative, he pisses off China, and will likely see them retaliate by withdrawing from cooperation at a time when that could have severe impacts on the world's ability to deal with a pandemic. If he answers in the negative, he pisses off Taiwan, a lot of people, and a lot of countries who are also not willing to stand up to China on this issue. And what's the benefit for asking this of an epidemiologist. He's not there to give personal political opinions, he's there to be an expert on a specific subject. As for the rest of the issues - I know you're not specifically saying it, but there's a lot of folks that blame the WHO for not warning people about this, or delaying announcements. The WHO were quite early in warning that countries should be prepared for this, that there should be greater efforts put in attempting to limit it's spread. There is some truth that they didn't declare it a pandemic as early as everyone wanted, they had to wait for it to meet official definitions of being a pandemic. The WHO declaring a pandemic, however, didn't mean countries couldn't act earlier to stop it.
- ajkdhcb2 6y ago
  You can't be a 'World Health Organisation' if you refuse to talk about a crucial region of millions of people that had the best response and most important information. It's clearly rotten at the core.
  - paranoidrobot 6y ago
    They can't be a World Health Organisation if they do admit Taiwan, either. It requires governments to sort this shit out, not an organisation who is focussed on health.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  How was it a political question? Taiwan exists. You can have a political position on whether they should exist, but they do. Deal with it. And they are not currently part of China. (Or, at least, they are not currently governed by the government of the rest of China.) Again, deal with it. Different governments had different responses, which had different effects. Under the circumstances, to say "we already covered China" is pretty close to dereliction of duty. Yes, I know China is going to have a hissy fit if anyone admits that Taiwan exists as a separate entity. China needs to stop acting like a five-year-old. I would say that WHO needs to tell China where to get off, except that (in this situation) WHO really needed China's cooperation. That makes this a much more difficult question to answer. But, in fact, it is China that makes this a political question. The question itself is not inherently political.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lbeltrame 6y ago
As a scientist, some of their public statements have been weird to say the least, in particular the very controversial, poorly-worded and then retracted tweet on immunity. And then, pausing SOLIDARITY on the HCQ arm because of the flawed Lancet study (granted, they weren't the only ones to fall for it).
meowfly 6y ago
Not to mention the fact that the WHO has included TCM in the International Classification of Disease last year (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01726-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01726-1) makes the case that they aren't compromised by China more difficult. That said, Maybe someone can explain why the USA just can't continue to refuse to pay their dues until there is substantial leadership change? My sense here is that this isn't related to an actual desire for better health organizations and more a mechanism for USA leadership to deflect from their own failings.
- pinkfoot 6y ago
  Sure, but say they do, will the USA continue to pay when the EU and China later refuse to pay their dues becuase they are grumpy about something? My guess is the whinging would be operatic.
zouhair 6y ago
This is inane, this is throwing the baby with the bath water. The WHO achieved a lot throughout its history[0]. Trying to excuse leaving it out to dry is as stupid as extremely dangerous. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Operational_history_of_WHO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Oper...

xur17 6y ago

> That said, what's there to pay to be a member? Why not just stay in there like everyone else? I don't know how much it costs, but there's also the signaling part of being in it (we are implicitly signaling support by being part of the group). That being said, leaving in the middle of the pandemic seems like an odd choice.

fermienrico 6y ago
Yes, the political signaling is one thing. I am trying to objectively understand: What is the return of investment (funds?) for being a member of this organization? I presume they're doing more than just handling Coronavirus. So, I found the official data [1]. I̵n̵ ̵2̵0̵1̵9̵ ̵-̵ ̵U̵S̵ ̵p̵a̵i̵d̵ ̵$̵6̵7̵M̵ ̵o̵u̵t̵ ̵o̵f̵ ̵t̵o̵t̵a̵l̵ ̵$̵1̵0̵1̵M̵ ̵(̵6̵6̵%̵)̵ ̵i̵n̵ ̵f̵u̵n̵d̵i̵n̵g̵ ̵i̵f̵ ̵I̵ ̵a̵m̵ ̵r̵e̵a̵d̵i̵n̵g̵ ̵t̵h̵i̵s̵ ̵r̵i̵g̵h̵t̵ ̵[̵2̵]̵.̵ ̵ ̵I̵n̵ ̵2̵0̵2̵0̵ ̵-̵ ̵U̵S̵ ̵p̵a̵i̵d̵ ̵$̵9̵9̵M̵ ̵o̵u̵t̵ ̵o̵f̵ ̵t̵o̵t̵a̵l̵ ̵$̵1̵8̵2̵M̵ ̵(̵5̵4̵%̵)̵ ̵i̵n̵ ̵t̵o̵t̵a̵l̵ ̵c̵o̵n̵t̵r̵i̵b̵u̵t̵i̵o̵n̵s̵.̵ ̵[̵3̵]̵ Correct source, US (gov) contributes about 16 % of the total budget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Financing_and_partnerships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Fina... What does the US get in return? There is also soft power and other influence that US expects to gain from it besides the raw ROI. The initial assessment is impossible unless we understand the benefit of the membership. [1] https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/assessed-contributions/en/ https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/as... [2] https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/AC_Status_Report_2019.pdf https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/AC... [3] https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/2020-21_AC_Summary.pdf https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/20...
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > What does the US get in return? "The WHO has played a leading role in several public health achievements, most notably the eradication of smallpox, the near-eradication of polio, and the development of an Ebola vaccine." A tiny drop in the bucket of the US budget to keep polio from resurging in the developing world sounds like a decent investment. (Those numbers don't appear to be correct, either; the US contributes about 16%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Financing_and_partnerships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Fina...)
  - fermienrico 6y ago
    > A tiny drop in the bucket of the US budget to keep polio from resurging in the developing world sounds like a decent investment. Definitely. Can you double check the source I linked? I did and it contradicts with the wikipedia which is weird.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    They didn't develop an Ebola vaccine. Pharma companies develop vaccines. Eradication of smallpox was indeed an achievement, however, it was also many decades ago. The modern WHO is different people. In more recent times, there is a history of problematic behaviour, like changing their own definition of pandemic specifically so they could declare one for a trivial disease (Swine Flu) and then lying about having done so, although archive.org remembers all: https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html#4c6224c448e8 https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-...
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > Pharma companies develop vaccines. And the WHO helps get it where it's needed. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/18-10-2019-major-milestone-for-who-supported-ebola-vaccine https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/18-10-2019-major-milest... > A randomized trial for the vaccine began during the West Africa Ebola outbreak in 2015. When no other organization was positioned to run a trial in Guinea during the complex emergency, the government of Guinea and WHO took the unusual step to lead the trial. > A global coalition of funders and researchers provided the critical support required. Funders included the Canadian Government (through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre, Global Affairs Canada); the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through the Research Council of Norway's GLOBVAC programme); the Wellcome Trust; the UK government through the Department for International Development; and Médecins Sans Frontières. > In the current Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, more than 236,000 people have been vaccinated with rVSV ZEBOV GP donated by Merck to WHO, including more than 60,000 health and frontline workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Uganda, South Sudan, Rwanda and Burundi. As for the Forbes blog, the author doesn't have a great record on public health: https://nypost.com/2020/03/08/coronavirus-going-to-hit-its-peak-and-start-falling-sooner-than-you-think/ https://nypost.com/2020/03/08/coronavirus-going-to-hit-its-p...

hirsin 6y ago

Give or take every international organization (and most parts of the US) will have the same reaction if you pressure them to acknowledge Taiwanese independence in that fashion. Excepting the cases where they are not required to interact with PRC at all, or are explicitly setup to deal with that issue.

bacondude3 6y ago

> what's there to pay to be a member? The U.S. was paying about $400-500 million / year, not an insignificant amount of tax dollars to go to an organization that chose to help China at the U.S.' expense by lying and covering up necessary information.

jrochkind1 6y ago

They are both the best and worst world health organization we have. I think we kinda need a world health organization.

thu2111 6y ago
Why? The great thing about local responses is that many different things can be tried, and different cultures with different viewpoints can be respected. When one organisation 'coordinates' the whole world, everyone can be wrong in unison. There's a lot of evidence that this has been happening with the WHO, but it's not just them. Some of the most valuable evidence generated in COVID times is from comparing different countries to observe differences based on what they did (or lack of differences). The WHO is an example of what one world government would look like: not a beatific utopia ruled by neutral and dispassionate experts, but incompetence and disarray unchecked by any sort of accountability. Remember: the WHO isn't run by a doctor but rather a former Ethiopian minister of finance. It has routinely made announcements that not only contradicted other health agencies and researchers but contradicted itself, as of a few weeks earlier. For example, the WHO's report on non-pharmaceutical interventions prepared in pre-COVID times says: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789... "Pandemic: Not recommended under any circumstances: contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry/exit screening, border closure" For a mere epidemic they also don't recommend internal travel restrictions of any sort. In other words, the WHO recommends against lockdowns. When faced with a virus that spreads in exactly the same way, and which it soon became clear was of similar severity, they haven't gone back and changed their beliefs nor prior advice though.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  Because since infectious diseases don't respect borders, coordination across borders is required to control them. For a pandemic, by definition global in reach, global coordination is required. The WHO has no ability to enforce any standards of practice, and I am not saying it ought to. Sure, if they are recommending against something, there's nothing stopping a local jurisdiction from doing it anyway, if they think their conditions or capacities differ, or they have access to better scientific guidance. They may be making a terrible mistake, or not, so it goes. This is how it is, and it ought not to be any different. But if you give up on coordination and cross-border mutual aid, and just say that it's every country/state/city/household for themselves to do what they personally decide best inconsistently with all their neighbors... well, how is that working out for the USA right now? Should we also eliminate the CDC, and let each state do for themselves? And eliminate state depts of health, and let each city do for themselves? I mean, heck eliminate city depts of health too, just let each household do for themselves. Now different "cultures and viewpoints can be respected", right? That DOES seem to be the USA approach at times; it's not working out very well, because of some un-changeable facts about how infectious diseases work. The OP is blaming the WHO for not supplying the right information in early January. Putting aside an argument about how (un)reasonable a mistake this was to make under the circumstances, if you're complaining that they didn't warn the world when they should have, how is it possibly an improvement to leave every country on their own to figure out the threat level from any part of the globe without coordination? How could that ever work better? If someone is complaining that the WHO didn't warn the world as early as they should, eliminating them so they dont' even exist to fill that role would obviously not produce a different outcome.

surround 6y ago

Here’s an article which further explains the situation between China, Taiwan, and the WHO. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167

paranoidrobot 6y ago

Asking these sorts of political questions to scientists puts them in a difficult position. If he answers in the affirmative, he pisses off China, and will likely see them retaliate by withdrawing from cooperation at a time when that could have severe impacts on the world's ability to deal with a pandemic. If he answers in the negative, he pisses off Taiwan, a lot of people, and a lot of countries who are also not willing to stand up to China on this issue. And what's the benefit for asking this of an epidemiologist. He's not there to give personal political opinions, he's there to be an expert on a specific subject. As for the rest of the issues - I know you're not specifically saying it, but there's a lot of folks that blame the WHO for not warning people about this, or delaying announcements. The WHO were quite early in warning that countries should be prepared for this, that there should be greater efforts put in attempting to limit it's spread. There is some truth that they didn't declare it a pandemic as early as everyone wanted, they had to wait for it to meet official definitions of being a pandemic. The WHO declaring a pandemic, however, didn't mean countries couldn't act earlier to stop it.

ajkdhcb2 6y ago
You can't be a 'World Health Organisation' if you refuse to talk about a crucial region of millions of people that had the best response and most important information. It's clearly rotten at the core.
- paranoidrobot 6y ago
  They can't be a World Health Organisation if they do admit Taiwan, either. It requires governments to sort this shit out, not an organisation who is focussed on health.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
How was it a political question? Taiwan exists. You can have a political position on whether they should exist, but they do. Deal with it. And they are not currently part of China. (Or, at least, they are not currently governed by the government of the rest of China.) Again, deal with it. Different governments had different responses, which had different effects. Under the circumstances, to say "we already covered China" is pretty close to dereliction of duty. Yes, I know China is going to have a hissy fit if anyone admits that Taiwan exists as a separate entity. China needs to stop acting like a five-year-old. I would say that WHO needs to tell China where to get off, except that (in this situation) WHO really needed China's cooperation. That makes this a much more difficult question to answer. But, in fact, it is China that makes this a political question. The question itself is not inherently political.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lbeltrame 6y ago

As a scientist, some of their public statements have been weird to say the least, in particular the very controversial, poorly-worded and then retracted tweet on immunity. And then, pausing SOLIDARITY on the HCQ arm because of the flawed Lancet study (granted, they weren't the only ones to fall for it).

meowfly 6y ago

Not to mention the fact that the WHO has included TCM in the International Classification of Disease last year (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01726-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01726-1) makes the case that they aren't compromised by China more difficult. That said, Maybe someone can explain why the USA just can't continue to refuse to pay their dues until there is substantial leadership change? My sense here is that this isn't related to an actual desire for better health organizations and more a mechanism for USA leadership to deflect from their own failings.

pinkfoot 6y ago
Sure, but say they do, will the USA continue to pay when the EU and China later refuse to pay their dues becuase they are grumpy about something? My guess is the whinging would be operatic.

zouhair 6y ago

This is inane, this is throwing the baby with the bath water. The WHO achieved a lot throughout its history[0]. Trying to excuse leaving it out to dry is as stupid as extremely dangerous. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Operational_history_of_WHO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Oper...