4 ms·
I've always thought of the WHO as serving an audience of public health experts for the member nations. Then those nations can decide what the best response is
by vharuck 6y ago
I've always thought of the WHO as serving an audience of public health experts for the member nations. Then those nations can decide what the best response is within their borders.
When I remember back on the news about the other recent pandemic scares (ebola, swine flu, zika), I don't remember hearing any mention of the WHO. I'm sure it happened, but not nearly as much as CDC. We hear about their announcements a lot more often now, but how much is that due to being cast as antagonists by DC?
- vkou 6y agoIf the Ebola epidemic killed 200,000 people in the United States, due to a completely bungled response by the CDC, you could bet that the supporters of the administration in power at the time would be burning effigies of the WHO.
- rsynnott 6y agoThat is what the WHO used to do, certainly. It does seem to talk more directly to the press these days, and it's honestly probably not a great idea.
- vharuck 6y agoGoing by their news releases page, it doesn't seem like even 2020 has more listings than most years: https://www.who.int/news https://www.who.int/news I'm now leaning more toward my hypothesis that they haven't changed behavior much, but US reporters are citing them now because the current administration brought them into the story. In the past, reporters probably read the WHO announcements but quoted from CDC same academic experts. Again, WHO info is dry.