4 ms·

WHO has also spoken against lockdowns recently and harshly criticised it.

throwanem 6y ago
Citation? I'm finding nothing on their site more recently than August that could even be characterized as criticism, and to call that "harsh" would be wildly overstating the case.
- vondur 6y ago
  https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/coronavirus-who-backflips-on-virus-stance-by-condemning-lockdowns/news-story/f2188f2aebff1b7b291b297731c3da74#.rgt2i https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/coronavirus...
  - throwanem 6y ago
    Yeah, the original appears to be https://www.4sd.info/covid-19-narratives/reflections-about-the-middle-path/ https://www.4sd.info/covid-19-narratives/reflections-about-t.... Notably, Navarro is explicit in that article about it not being an argument for the let-it-run-wild "herd immunity" approach.
cscurmudgeon 6y ago
Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organiza...
verst 6y ago
They criticized lockdowns as the primary means to control the virus. They didn't argue against the usefulness of lockdowns in themselves. However, lockdowns have significant impact on poor people getting poorer. WHO envoy Dr. David Nabarro: > "We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus" > "The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it." > "Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer" > "Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays" > "Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition."
- tathougies 6y ago
  Well kudos to them for finally seeing reason, but I'm not willing to give them much of a break. They pushed for lockdowns full well knowing all these consequences before hand. Everyone (including myself) who mentioned a few months ago that lockdowns will make the poor poorer and will push large portions of the population into destitution were accused of being anti-science shills who cared more about property than human life. Now the chickens have come home to roost and the WHO has once again demonstrated its lack of understanding of topics beyond the realm of health. In and of itself of course, the WHO not being competent in running a society is not a bad thing -- doctors are not politicians after all -- but what is scary is how much influence they have had making societal decisions extending well beyond medicine.
  - rrss 6y ago
    > Everyone (including myself) who mentioned a few months ago that lockdowns will make the poor poorer Everyone, including the WHO, too. Read the WHO's "COVID-19 Strategy Update" from mid-April. It's pretty clear about the cost of lockdown-esque restrictions. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/covid-strategy-update-14april2020.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/covid-s..., especially page 9.
whycombagator 6y ago
I can’t take the WHO or the CDC very seriously after everything this year. One such example is when both organizations spread fallacies that masks are either not necessary/effective or only necessary in certain settings.
rrss 6y ago
David Nabarro of the WHO said in an interview that lockdowns should not be the primary method of control and that lockdowns should only be used to buy time to develop better strategies to test, trace, and isolate clusters. He mentions Asian countries, Germany, and Canada as some countries that have done this pretty decently. I don't think this is new, controversial, or a "backflip" (as some headlines have claimed). This is pretty much what the general guidance has been since March.
brylie 6y ago
I can't find a source where WHO harshly criticises lockdowns. The recent statement by David Nabarro seems much more nuanced. "We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus ... Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer"
vannevar 6y ago
Sort of. Nabarro criticized the notion of lockdowns as the primary mechanism. His essay on the subject is here: https://www.4sd.info/covid-19-narratives/reflections-about-the-middle-path/ https://www.4sd.info/covid-19-narratives/reflections-about-t... In his first point, he notes: "People are encouraged to adopt all precautions all the time. As Tedros of WHO says: ‘Do it All’: physical distancing, proper face-masking, hand/cough/surface hygiene, self-isolating when ill and shielding those most at risk. There should be no exceptions anywhere. This is best achieved through engaging people and trusting them rather than coercion if at all possible." While he encourages voluntary measures rather than coercive ones, he is also clear: there should be no exceptions to mask-wearing and social distancing. That's politically hard to achieve in many countries. Hence, economic lockdowns instead.

Citation? I'm finding nothing on their site more recently than August that could even be characterized as criticism, and to call that "harsh" would be wildly overstating the case.

vondur 6y ago
https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/coronavirus-who-backflips-on-virus-stance-by-condemning-lockdowns/news-story/f2188f2aebff1b7b291b297731c3da74#.rgt2i https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/coronavirus...
- throwanem 6y ago
  Yeah, the original appears to be https://www.4sd.info/covid-19-narratives/reflections-about-the-middle-path/ https://www.4sd.info/covid-19-narratives/reflections-about-t.... Notably, Navarro is explicit in that article about it not being an argument for the let-it-run-wild "herd immunity" approach.

cscurmudgeon 6y ago

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organiza...

verst 6y ago

They criticized lockdowns as the primary means to control the virus. They didn't argue against the usefulness of lockdowns in themselves. However, lockdowns have significant impact on poor people getting poorer. WHO envoy Dr. David Nabarro: > "We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus" > "The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it." > "Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer" > "Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays" > "Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition."

tathougies 6y ago
Well kudos to them for finally seeing reason, but I'm not willing to give them much of a break. They pushed for lockdowns full well knowing all these consequences before hand. Everyone (including myself) who mentioned a few months ago that lockdowns will make the poor poorer and will push large portions of the population into destitution were accused of being anti-science shills who cared more about property than human life. Now the chickens have come home to roost and the WHO has once again demonstrated its lack of understanding of topics beyond the realm of health. In and of itself of course, the WHO not being competent in running a society is not a bad thing -- doctors are not politicians after all -- but what is scary is how much influence they have had making societal decisions extending well beyond medicine.
- rrss 6y ago
  > Everyone (including myself) who mentioned a few months ago that lockdowns will make the poor poorer Everyone, including the WHO, too. Read the WHO's "COVID-19 Strategy Update" from mid-April. It's pretty clear about the cost of lockdown-esque restrictions. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/covid-strategy-update-14april2020.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/covid-s..., especially page 9.

whycombagator 6y ago

I can’t take the WHO or the CDC very seriously after everything this year. One such example is when both organizations spread fallacies that masks are either not necessary/effective or only necessary in certain settings.

rrss 6y ago

David Nabarro of the WHO said in an interview that lockdowns should not be the primary method of control and that lockdowns should only be used to buy time to develop better strategies to test, trace, and isolate clusters. He mentions Asian countries, Germany, and Canada as some countries that have done this pretty decently. I don't think this is new, controversial, or a "backflip" (as some headlines have claimed). This is pretty much what the general guidance has been since March.

brylie 6y ago

I can't find a source where WHO harshly criticises lockdowns. The recent statement by David Nabarro seems much more nuanced. "We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus ... Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer"

vannevar 6y ago

Sort of. Nabarro criticized the notion of lockdowns as the primary mechanism. His essay on the subject is here: https://www.4sd.info/covid-19-narratives/reflections-about-the-middle-path/ https://www.4sd.info/covid-19-narratives/reflections-about-t... In his first point, he notes: "People are encouraged to adopt all precautions all the time. As Tedros of WHO says: ‘Do it All’: physical distancing, proper face-masking, hand/cough/surface hygiene, self-isolating when ill and shielding those most at risk. There should be no exceptions anywhere. This is best achieved through engaging people and trusting them rather than coercion if at all possible." While he encourages voluntary measures rather than coercive ones, he is also clear: there should be no exceptions to mask-wearing and social distancing. That's politically hard to achieve in many countries. Hence, economic lockdowns instead.