13 ms·

The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

42 points by News-Dog 5y ago

nscalf 5y ago
An honest question, how do you feel about the WHO? I personally have severe distrust in them, at least the leadership. They have show they are heavily influenced by China, and that should be enough to remove them. They really botched early covid.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  What WHO needs to do is revisit their mistakes and acknowledge meddling with Chinese leadership, win public trust. It's not the same 80's World Health Organization that made profound impact in the health of many nations. Some of that work continues to happen, but as you said the leadership needs to come out clean or they're going to have a problem with people trusting the entire organization.
  - labster 5y ago
    One potential outcome of the treaty would be a reformation or replacement of WHO. I don’t know if there is political will to do that, or if it’s even a good idea. But something needs to be done, because when times got tough every country chose to “defect” instead of “cooperate”, even with their closest allies.
- toolz 5y ago
  I'm always surprised that people ever trusted them to be honest. When have deeply political organizations been a benefit to the medical community?
  - jimmydorry 5y ago
    On a whole, the world is better off with the FDA's and their equivalent per nation. They approve and oversee the distribution of health and food products and set out minimum guidelines that influence how said products are marketed, recalled or banned; which on balance is a positive for society in the absence of a better regulatory body. By definition, these groups are political though. Almost none of them conduct their own studies, relying almost entirely on what the manufacturers provide them. And all of them have limited practical ability and experience to actually enforce their guidelines. What are they are exceptionally good at though is reviewing submitted trials and monitoring for adverse effects. Some people get hurt when dangerous products are given pre-approval / full-approval, but this is mitigated by quick recalls / banning. So to your question, political bodies likes the FDA's are a benefit to the greater populace and by extension the medical community. Keeping the obvious scams and harmful products out of general reach from the population is a pretty clear positive.
    - garmaine 5y ago
      Anyone who lived through the AIDS epidemic can tell you that having a regulatory body is not automatically better than none at all. FDA bureaucracy and inaction has killed more Americans than WW2. Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        > Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered. Yes, so that the supplements industry can run amok on an unsuspecting public. No really, that's just what we need, especially now.
        garmaine 5y ago
        I called out the gatekeeping job of the FDA specifically. The agency does two things: (1) blacklist food products with deceptive or harmful ingredients or advertising, and (2) whitelist the medications you’re allowed to put in your body, with or without the assistance of a doctor. It’s (2) that is the problem. With informed consent, you should be allowed to put whatever you want in your body without going to jail. It’s your body.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        (2) is not a problem, it is to prevent problems. If you think (2) is a problem you are probably doing something very stupid.
        garmaine 5y ago
        History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-lesson-history https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...
        5y ago
- topspin 5y ago
  There is no evidence that anything has changed. Moon et al. figure enough time has passed that they may resume the grift. Let's look at some of the top line items: > They also point to conflicts over the lack of transparency and information sharing, particularly by China. Right. The problem is not the actual lack of transparency but rather "conflicts over the lack of transparency." And no, I do not allow that NPR writers are somehow oblivious to the distinction; they mean exactly what is written. > Some countries were accused of hoarding of medical supplies. WHO shall decide how little medical supply the US is allowed to buy or keep. > Then when vaccines were finally developed, poorer nations have complained that they weren't shared equitably. WHO shall decide how long the US is made to wait for vaccine. > A final concern, the experts say: The global response to the crisis is led by an underfunded World Health Organization that has no power to force any nation to do anything. Give WHO more money. Give WHO more power. No assurances that performance will be any less abysmal are to be expected. Should make a nice photo op when Biden signs it.
  - akira2501 5y ago
    > WHO shall decide how long the US is made to wait for vaccine. It seems to be that the intellectual property is more pertinent than the total export volume to "poorer nations."
    - topspin 5y ago
      A plain reading of the report doesn't convey this. IP law is not mentioned.
- 737min 5y ago
  Very good point. It appears to many observers that it has been subverted by the Beijing regime, so any new initiatives are naturally going to be treated with suspicion by much of the free world.
- topkai22 5y ago
  Flawed, but better than not having a WHO. IMO China’s influence is more because they did a great job at committing hard to diplomacy and working relationships at WHO at the exact same time the US pulled away. It turns out diplomacy and leadership matter. In my limited experience, the WHO, like many NGOs/multi-lateral bodies, is full of intelligent, motivated people dedicated to their mission. Those people aren’t motivated by money, but are motivated by prestige and recognition. China pulled those levers well for the last several years, the US didn’t, but i don’t know of a fundamental reason why the US can’t return to its traditional place of influence if it tries. Should the US (or China) sign a multi lateral treaty requiring it to deliver vaccines and other health resources to more vulnerable citizens of other countries ahead of some or all of its own citizens? I don’t know. Is the WHO worth having around, even in a flawed or even semi-hostile state? Yes.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> An honest question, how do you feel about the WHO? I personally have severe distrust in them, at least the leadership. They have show they are heavily influenced by China, and that should be enough to remove them. They really botched early covid. > Flawed, but better than not having a WHO. IMO China’s influence is more because they did a great job at committing hard to diplomacy and working relationships at WHO at the exact same time the US pulled away. It turns out diplomacy and leadership matter. Yeah, exactly. It's weird, but for things like this it seems the complainers often actually cause the things they complain about (e.g. create a void, then complain when a competitor fills that void). It's understandable because this stuff is often hard to perceive at a general-interest level, but that doesn't excuse it.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    > IMO China’s influence is more because they did a great job at committing hard to diplomacy and working relationships at WHO at the exact same time the US pulled away. It turns out diplomacy and leadership matter. This seems completely revisionist to me. You really think China’s influence was justified in January and February 2020? This is before Trump first criticized the WHO (early April 2020). The US was funding 15% of the WHO’s overall budget, more than twice as much as the next nearest country (the UK), and more than 70x what China funded. What exact levers did China pull “for the last several years” that the US didn’t? It seems to me like the US did far more to support the WHO than anyone else.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  >They really botched early covid. Except they didn't. Enough countries managed to largely contain covid pre-delta based on WHO information that was provide by PRC. Information that was timely relative to how slow many countres implemented basic epidemiologic containment strategies after the fact. Some despite having capability to implement such strategies, and many who unfortunately never had the capability but simply never had a chance considering covid spread before PRC detection. WHO didn't do perfectly, but they did enough considering circumstances. As for influence, PRC influence is commiserate relative to geopolitical power - there isn't a feasible global governance structure where PRC interests won't be accounted for. Otherwise PRC wouldn't have been incentivized to handle covid relatively responsibly compared to SARS.
  - philliphaydon 5y ago
    A lot of asia did well in the beginning by ignoring the WHO. Even NZ ignored the WHO and managed to keep it under control for a long time. If the CCP spent more time being open and honest and less time arresting people for talking about covid and documenting it this would probably have ended up better than they are now. Even now the CCP propaganda is still trying to convince Twitter and Facebook users that covid started with deer in the US.
    - dirtyid 5y ago
      Countries that did well responsibly implemented WHOs basic epidemiologic principes of test, trace, isolate to contain spread - 101 epidemiological strategy WHO recommended. Including NZ. Import statistic numbers of covid cases oringated from PRC has demosntrated it was managable because PRC never allowed it to get bad in the first place via draconian lock downs. CCP quarantined entire province of Wuhan, they did more than enough to buy time for any country with capability to execute competent containment. Which BTW was also early CCP propaganda... literally telling countries to take covid19 seriously by locking down but was instead met with lockdown skepticism. CCP, like WHO, did enough. >Even now the CCP propaganda is still trying to convince Twitter and Facebook users that covid started with deer in the US. And? Of course CCP is going to tit-for-tat origin propaganda started by US. This treaty will no doubt attempt tackle the politicization of pandemics in the future, but likely to no avail.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I share that distrust for a few reasons: 1. They blindly repeated the CCP’s claims that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t seem to exhibit human to human transmission, as late as mid-January 2020. Remember, there were widespread reports of a pneuomonia-like illness in Wuhan in December. We later learned that scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized as early as November. China’s own formal notice to WHO of the outbreak was done at the end of December. Around a week after the WHO provided broken guidance, China publicly announced that there is human to human transmission, and it still took the WHO a week past that to correct their guidance. I just don’t see how the WHO could possibly provide such broken guidance so late and for so long. 2. They allowed the CCP to escape accountability for over a year with their site visit in early 2021. I know they can’t force their way in and rely on UN member states for “power” but I feel like they were willing to happily ignore the possibility of a lab leak instead of pushing hard for a timely investigation on site (applying pressure publicly and seeking help from other nations). After their brief site visit in 2021, Tedros (head of WHO) seemed very ready to rule out a lab leak, and only a small set of brave scientists and investigative journalists have allowed this theory to return to legitimacy and receive the attention it deserves despite being shouted down by the “trust the science” crowd. 3. The WHO has not used their authority/weight as an institution in helpful ways. For example, they have pushed back against travel bans and other such measures that would at least buy countries time. At the end of January 2020, Tedros literally said there was no need for measures that “unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade”. More recently, the WHO has repeatedly claimed that countries seeking to protect their own people first are “hoarding” vaccines, which is absurd. 4. The WHO seems to be very deeply political. Whether it is about sparing the CCP from scrutiny or following “woke” protocol on how to name viruses and variants, they simply don’t feel like a neutral organization. The phrase “trust the science” is so overused that it is essentially meaningless, but the WHO is one of those very organizations that make me think that what we have come to call “science” is very prone to political corruption. They also seem to regularly put China’s interests ahead of the US, despite the US providing 15% of the WHO’s funding (China funds 0.21%). 5. There are other issues with WHO from before COVID. They were simply not as apparent since they didn’t affect Americans. Look at the 2014 Ebola outbreak and how the WHO handled it - by their own admission, they were completely incompetent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic#Criticism_of_WHO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_African_Ebola_virus_ep...).
- philliphaydon 5y ago
  The WHO has no credibility anymore. They parroted the CCPs words. The first 6 months the WHO basically lied to everyone. https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?s=21 https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?s=21 We knew it was transmissible in December of 2019.
- ergocoder 5y ago
  WHO started recommending masks for everyone in June. Fucking June 2020. They are incompetent.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  i can't answer it because it made me ask more questions: - what is their mission? - how are they funded? - how are they staffed? - what is their scope? - what happens if you don't comply? - how do they measure success? - what meaningful actions have they taken during the pandemic and in the past that has made the world a better place than if they didn't exist at all? In general I understand the case for the "one world health" approach, but my anti-authoritarian instinct is wary of building global governing institutions that bypass democratic representation. I also want to point out to the people that complain about the Chinese influence .. it's disingenuous to ignore that the WHO was conceived as an extension of USA global influence, and has operated that way for decades. No one sounds that alarm as long as its "their guy" in charge.
  - prohobo 5y ago
    I can at least provide theoretical clarity on "what happens if you don't comply" for less powerful nations: The WHO has been working with the IMF throughout the pandemic, distributing loans to countries that follow the WHO's Covid policies. So, any nation state in economic trouble must implement the policies to receive loans/funding. This was famously made public by the Belarusian president in September: > In this news, Lukashenko did not state that the IMF offered him a bribe. He only explained that, as a condition of providing Covid-19 emergency funds, the IMF demanded the implementation of quarantine, isolation, and curfews. That quote is from a fact check trying to debunk conspiracy theories about the IMF: https://cekfakta.tempo.co/fakta/1008/fakta-atau-hoaks-benarkah-presiden-belarus-klaim-imf-tawarkan-suap-untuk-pembatasan-covid-19 https://cekfakta.tempo.co/fakta/1008/fakta-atau-hoaks-benark...
    - alexvoda 5y ago
      Wow, we reached the point where Lukashenkos word is used as an argument. I never imagined this on HN. I believe it is entirely reasonable to condition pandemic funds on taking actions against the pandemic. Also I believe there are many reasons to deny foreign funds to the Belarus of today.
      - 5y ago
nynx 5y ago
I hope this happens. The world needs more collaboration, especially in pandemic response.
- anonnyj 5y ago
  I too welcome fascism via vaccines.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Of all the problems international cooperation could tackle, pandemics seem like they should be the easiest. Either you are dealing with one, or you aren't. Pretty stark contrast. So should make countries more comfortable ceding sovereignty, knowing it's going to be only in exceptional circumstances. Coupled with the fact that SARS-CoV-2 has proven that even the most stringent border lockdowns fail in the face of highly transmissible, asymptomatic threats. Which makes this an "everyone" problem instead of a "head in the sand is okay" one. And finally, you're dealing with something that is generally agreed on: dead humans are bad and to be avoided. Godspeed to those trying to broker consensus.
  - golemotron 5y ago
    > Either you are dealing with one, or you aren't. Pretty stark contrast. So should make countries more comfortable ceding sovereignty, knowing it's going to be only in exceptional circumstances. Without a hard metric it's a slippery slope and governments will not cede emergency powers. That's been the history of nearly all emergency powers. Ask yourself how long this pandemic will last and whether anyone will agree upon criteria for its end.
    - tcmart14 5y ago
      I feel like this argument is still in bad faith. A co-worker last year was talking about how a mask mandate was the biggest violation of freedom ever in American history. So I kindly reminded my co-worker, internment camps for Japanese-americans were less of a violation? Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus during the civil war? Those are just two examples of many. These were all moves made by emergency powers that were...... given up by government when the situation ended.
coolso 5y ago
The WHO dragged their feet for weeks, even months, all so they could help the CCP not look as culpable as they are in all of this. They took China of all countries at their word - that or they knew they were lying and ran cover for them in the name of not offending certain groups of people - and as a result the world paid a greater price faster than it would've otherwise. Now we find out that the WHO skipped "Xi" in the Greek alphabet when naming COVID variants. Indeed, it's very important that we continue not to offend China, the Chinese Communist Party, or their Dear Leader. They're the victims in all of this. I find the WHO's constant attempts to regain any legitimacy they ever had an amusing, but ultimately a lost cause.
- dang 5y ago
  Could you please stop posting flamewar comments and ideological battle comments to HN? We ban accounts that keep doing that (because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for), and you've unfortunately been doing a ton of it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - coolso 5y ago
    Sure dang, I apologize and will try to frame my comments in ideological-related threads in a more positive, lighthearted discussion-fostering light in the future. When things tend to appear one-sided I do tend to go harder in the other direction to compensate and that's on me so again I apologize, and thanks for bringing it to my attention rather than banning me. (I will say I think the only flaw in this site, besides the inherent flaws in an upvoting type system, is the heavy-handedness of those who have comment-flagging powers. I have seen far more inflammatory comments not be flagged in the past than a couple that I've had flagged in the recent past.) When it comes to the upvote/reddit-style discussion sites, HN is definitely top-tier, and I've enjoyed coming here since around 2009 or so, so thank you for all you've done here to help foster that!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
2grep 5y ago
They are probably looking at, among other things, the Nagoya Protocol, which prevents the transport of biological samples, or data derived from them, across national borders of contracting parties.
tcmart14 5y ago
The treaty would be great, if we forget and forgive some missteps of the WHO, besides this point. This is the single most important point. Who in the hell is going to actually enforce the treaty? Most of the UN security council are permanent members who all have some ideological bent against each other. Not to mention, the US doesn't really allow itself to be accountable to international courts. Why would any other country? An international treaty is only effective if it can be unilaterally enforced regardless of the offending country. Not saying the US is the only bad guy here, but I know for a fact the US doesn't abide by international courts. Chances are Russia and China might say the same.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  These are all fair points that lay bare some of the major issues the world will have to deal with sooner or later.
marchingtomars 5y ago
Stop with the globalism Nations should handle their borders-- that's the point and root of a nation: to be born in a specifically territory.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Stop with the globalism > Nations should handle their borders-- that's the point and root of a nation: to be born in a specifically territory. And obviously, there are giant classes of problems that cannot be addressed effectively (or at all) with that outlook. For instance: a nation focused solely on its own territory will be unable to prevent a pandemic disease from affecting it if its neighbor manages to cover it up long enough for it spread across the boarder. It's basically the externality problem from economics.
  - marchingtomars 5y ago
    --> My nation belongs to my Government, governed by my people. Not a non-transparent, subject-to-corruption international agency Again: nations should handle their borders. That means a strong border policy focused on border defense from illegal entry, and reduced, quarantined, and/or eliminated immigration in times of pandemic. And I disagree with your assessment especially your assertion of "unable". Sure, Some nations will have more difficulty than others-- self-sustainability being the main determining factor in terms of quarantining trade & immigrants. This idea of a country hiding the pandemic-- Yes, we've already see that with China. And, Trump was attacked for closing down the border, but of course was the rational decision. _____ Also, you present a false dichotomy: That by strictly controlling borders is mutually exlusive regardign a nationn's submission to globalistic where we give power to agencies subject to the human condition of greed, power-&-financial-corruption, and criminal financial conspiracy (look at the International Olympic Committee and FIFA). That said, I also hold the view that the United Nations and WHO should not be responsible for owning, claiming power/responsibility over, or enforcing anything upon or within my particular Nation (The United States). --> My nation belongs to my Government, governed by my people. Not a non-transparent, subject-to-corruption international agency
jacquesm 5y ago
The comments here are roughly the opposite of what a responsible group of people should agree to. Yes, the WHO isn't perfect. They made a ton of mistakes, especially in the beginning when information was scarce and the demands for information far outstripped their ability to deliver. But focusing on the mistakes and trying to play politics with the sensitive situation that they were handed after the fact certainly isn't helping, any organization that tries to deal with the initial period of outbreaks of novel diseases is going to end up making mistakes: this is a given in that situation, you, no matter how hard you would try, would not do any better. Pandemics are - by definition - a global problem and trying to solve these with local countermeasures (aka, take care of the West and forget about the rest) isn't going to work: until such a thing is under control everywhere it might as well not be under control anywhere. The current mess is there to a large degree because countries have been ignoring the WHO, not because they followed the WHO and their advice turned out to be nonsense. If anything the WHO should have been more strict in their initial reading of the situation and I'm pretty sure that they have learned their lesson, but the prevention paradox is real and if they had cried 'wolf' too early they would have been abused by the same people that now claim that they messed up because they didn't react soon enough and strong enough. From day #1 the WHO has been arguing for strong countermeasures rather than to slow-walk it to see how bad it was going to get because time lost will not be won back during a pandemic. WHO Press briefing March 13th 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqRHH6e-y6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqRHH6e-y6I The WHO did not fail us, but politicians certainly did.
- ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
  Organizations are driven by incentives. The incentives haven’t changed, therefore organizations haven’t learned their lesson. Second, nations exist to serve their populations. Think xenophobia and racism are bad now? Wait until it’s life or death and a decision is now directly attributable to the deaths of those around you. “Sorry Aunt Edna, you have to die. A factory worker in Mexico got your vaccine so they can make cars for an American company.” The WHO is politically controlled by China and that’s not going away. Any proposal to let the WHO have sovereignty over the USA in any form, this is DOA. Without USA, what’s the point? That said, maybe there are common grounds or infrastructure that can be build collectively, similar to the space station that everyone funds and benefits from in a pre agreed upon way.
marchingtomars 5y ago
Stop with the Globalism. Stop with the march towards Global Dictatorship under the "auspices" of non-transparent, prone to corruption* International Agencies (UN, WHO, Council on Foreign Relations, etc.). Stop with the march towards genocidal neomarxism. Remember the tens of millions who died in the Holodomor, Under Stalin, Under Mao, Under Kim Jong Un, and others. * = such as corruption at FIFA & International Olympic Committee.

42 points by News-Dog 5y ago

An honest question, how do you feel about the WHO? I personally have severe distrust in them, at least the leadership. They have show they are heavily influenced by China, and that should be enough to remove them. They really botched early covid.

systemvoltage 5y ago
What WHO needs to do is revisit their mistakes and acknowledge meddling with Chinese leadership, win public trust. It's not the same 80's World Health Organization that made profound impact in the health of many nations. Some of that work continues to happen, but as you said the leadership needs to come out clean or they're going to have a problem with people trusting the entire organization.
- labster 5y ago
  One potential outcome of the treaty would be a reformation or replacement of WHO. I don’t know if there is political will to do that, or if it’s even a good idea. But something needs to be done, because when times got tough every country chose to “defect” instead of “cooperate”, even with their closest allies.
toolz 5y ago
I'm always surprised that people ever trusted them to be honest. When have deeply political organizations been a benefit to the medical community?
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  On a whole, the world is better off with the FDA's and their equivalent per nation. They approve and oversee the distribution of health and food products and set out minimum guidelines that influence how said products are marketed, recalled or banned; which on balance is a positive for society in the absence of a better regulatory body. By definition, these groups are political though. Almost none of them conduct their own studies, relying almost entirely on what the manufacturers provide them. And all of them have limited practical ability and experience to actually enforce their guidelines. What are they are exceptionally good at though is reviewing submitted trials and monitoring for adverse effects. Some people get hurt when dangerous products are given pre-approval / full-approval, but this is mitigated by quick recalls / banning. So to your question, political bodies likes the FDA's are a benefit to the greater populace and by extension the medical community. Keeping the obvious scams and harmful products out of general reach from the population is a pretty clear positive.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    Anyone who lived through the AIDS epidemic can tell you that having a regulatory body is not automatically better than none at all. FDA bureaucracy and inaction has killed more Americans than WW2. Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered. Yes, so that the supplements industry can run amok on an unsuspecting public. No really, that's just what we need, especially now.
      - garmaine 5y ago
        I called out the gatekeeping job of the FDA specifically. The agency does two things: (1) blacklist food products with deceptive or harmful ingredients or advertising, and (2) whitelist the medications you’re allowed to put in your body, with or without the assistance of a doctor. It’s (2) that is the problem. With informed consent, you should be allowed to put whatever you want in your body without going to jail. It’s your body.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        (2) is not a problem, it is to prevent problems. If you think (2) is a problem you are probably doing something very stupid.
        garmaine 5y ago
        History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-lesson-history https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...
        5y ago
topspin 5y ago
There is no evidence that anything has changed. Moon et al. figure enough time has passed that they may resume the grift. Let's look at some of the top line items: > They also point to conflicts over the lack of transparency and information sharing, particularly by China. Right. The problem is not the actual lack of transparency but rather "conflicts over the lack of transparency." And no, I do not allow that NPR writers are somehow oblivious to the distinction; they mean exactly what is written. > Some countries were accused of hoarding of medical supplies. WHO shall decide how little medical supply the US is allowed to buy or keep. > Then when vaccines were finally developed, poorer nations have complained that they weren't shared equitably. WHO shall decide how long the US is made to wait for vaccine. > A final concern, the experts say: The global response to the crisis is led by an underfunded World Health Organization that has no power to force any nation to do anything. Give WHO more money. Give WHO more power. No assurances that performance will be any less abysmal are to be expected. Should make a nice photo op when Biden signs it.
- akira2501 5y ago
  > WHO shall decide how long the US is made to wait for vaccine. It seems to be that the intellectual property is more pertinent than the total export volume to "poorer nations."
  - topspin 5y ago
    A plain reading of the report doesn't convey this. IP law is not mentioned.
737min 5y ago
Very good point. It appears to many observers that it has been subverted by the Beijing regime, so any new initiatives are naturally going to be treated with suspicion by much of the free world.
topkai22 5y ago
Flawed, but better than not having a WHO. IMO China’s influence is more because they did a great job at committing hard to diplomacy and working relationships at WHO at the exact same time the US pulled away. It turns out diplomacy and leadership matter. In my limited experience, the WHO, like many NGOs/multi-lateral bodies, is full of intelligent, motivated people dedicated to their mission. Those people aren’t motivated by money, but are motivated by prestige and recognition. China pulled those levers well for the last several years, the US didn’t, but i don’t know of a fundamental reason why the US can’t return to its traditional place of influence if it tries. Should the US (or China) sign a multi lateral treaty requiring it to deliver vaccines and other health resources to more vulnerable citizens of other countries ahead of some or all of its own citizens? I don’t know. Is the WHO worth having around, even in a flawed or even semi-hostile state? Yes.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> An honest question, how do you feel about the WHO? I personally have severe distrust in them, at least the leadership. They have show they are heavily influenced by China, and that should be enough to remove them. They really botched early covid. > Flawed, but better than not having a WHO. IMO China’s influence is more because they did a great job at committing hard to diplomacy and working relationships at WHO at the exact same time the US pulled away. It turns out diplomacy and leadership matter. Yeah, exactly. It's weird, but for things like this it seems the complainers often actually cause the things they complain about (e.g. create a void, then complain when a competitor fills that void). It's understandable because this stuff is often hard to perceive at a general-interest level, but that doesn't excuse it.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > IMO China’s influence is more because they did a great job at committing hard to diplomacy and working relationships at WHO at the exact same time the US pulled away. It turns out diplomacy and leadership matter. This seems completely revisionist to me. You really think China’s influence was justified in January and February 2020? This is before Trump first criticized the WHO (early April 2020). The US was funding 15% of the WHO’s overall budget, more than twice as much as the next nearest country (the UK), and more than 70x what China funded. What exact levers did China pull “for the last several years” that the US didn’t? It seems to me like the US did far more to support the WHO than anyone else.
dirtyid 5y ago
>They really botched early covid. Except they didn't. Enough countries managed to largely contain covid pre-delta based on WHO information that was provide by PRC. Information that was timely relative to how slow many countres implemented basic epidemiologic containment strategies after the fact. Some despite having capability to implement such strategies, and many who unfortunately never had the capability but simply never had a chance considering covid spread before PRC detection. WHO didn't do perfectly, but they did enough considering circumstances. As for influence, PRC influence is commiserate relative to geopolitical power - there isn't a feasible global governance structure where PRC interests won't be accounted for. Otherwise PRC wouldn't have been incentivized to handle covid relatively responsibly compared to SARS.
- philliphaydon 5y ago
  A lot of asia did well in the beginning by ignoring the WHO. Even NZ ignored the WHO and managed to keep it under control for a long time. If the CCP spent more time being open and honest and less time arresting people for talking about covid and documenting it this would probably have ended up better than they are now. Even now the CCP propaganda is still trying to convince Twitter and Facebook users that covid started with deer in the US.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    Countries that did well responsibly implemented WHOs basic epidemiologic principes of test, trace, isolate to contain spread - 101 epidemiological strategy WHO recommended. Including NZ. Import statistic numbers of covid cases oringated from PRC has demosntrated it was managable because PRC never allowed it to get bad in the first place via draconian lock downs. CCP quarantined entire province of Wuhan, they did more than enough to buy time for any country with capability to execute competent containment. Which BTW was also early CCP propaganda... literally telling countries to take covid19 seriously by locking down but was instead met with lockdown skepticism. CCP, like WHO, did enough. >Even now the CCP propaganda is still trying to convince Twitter and Facebook users that covid started with deer in the US. And? Of course CCP is going to tit-for-tat origin propaganda started by US. This treaty will no doubt attempt tackle the politicization of pandemics in the future, but likely to no avail.
throwawaysea 5y ago
I share that distrust for a few reasons: 1. They blindly repeated the CCP’s claims that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t seem to exhibit human to human transmission, as late as mid-January 2020. Remember, there were widespread reports of a pneuomonia-like illness in Wuhan in December. We later learned that scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized as early as November. China’s own formal notice to WHO of the outbreak was done at the end of December. Around a week after the WHO provided broken guidance, China publicly announced that there is human to human transmission, and it still took the WHO a week past that to correct their guidance. I just don’t see how the WHO could possibly provide such broken guidance so late and for so long. 2. They allowed the CCP to escape accountability for over a year with their site visit in early 2021. I know they can’t force their way in and rely on UN member states for “power” but I feel like they were willing to happily ignore the possibility of a lab leak instead of pushing hard for a timely investigation on site (applying pressure publicly and seeking help from other nations). After their brief site visit in 2021, Tedros (head of WHO) seemed very ready to rule out a lab leak, and only a small set of brave scientists and investigative journalists have allowed this theory to return to legitimacy and receive the attention it deserves despite being shouted down by the “trust the science” crowd. 3. The WHO has not used their authority/weight as an institution in helpful ways. For example, they have pushed back against travel bans and other such measures that would at least buy countries time. At the end of January 2020, Tedros literally said there was no need for measures that “unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade”. More recently, the WHO has repeatedly claimed that countries seeking to protect their own people first are “hoarding” vaccines, which is absurd. 4. The WHO seems to be very deeply political. Whether it is about sparing the CCP from scrutiny or following “woke” protocol on how to name viruses and variants, they simply don’t feel like a neutral organization. The phrase “trust the science” is so overused that it is essentially meaningless, but the WHO is one of those very organizations that make me think that what we have come to call “science” is very prone to political corruption. They also seem to regularly put China’s interests ahead of the US, despite the US providing 15% of the WHO’s funding (China funds 0.21%). 5. There are other issues with WHO from before COVID. They were simply not as apparent since they didn’t affect Americans. Look at the 2014 Ebola outbreak and how the WHO handled it - by their own admission, they were completely incompetent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic#Criticism_of_WHO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_African_Ebola_virus_ep...).
philliphaydon 5y ago
The WHO has no credibility anymore. They parroted the CCPs words. The first 6 months the WHO basically lied to everyone. https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?s=21 https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?s=21 We knew it was transmissible in December of 2019.
ergocoder 5y ago
WHO started recommending masks for everyone in June. Fucking June 2020. They are incompetent.
disambiguation 5y ago
i can't answer it because it made me ask more questions: - what is their mission? - how are they funded? - how are they staffed? - what is their scope? - what happens if you don't comply? - how do they measure success? - what meaningful actions have they taken during the pandemic and in the past that has made the world a better place than if they didn't exist at all? In general I understand the case for the "one world health" approach, but my anti-authoritarian instinct is wary of building global governing institutions that bypass democratic representation. I also want to point out to the people that complain about the Chinese influence .. it's disingenuous to ignore that the WHO was conceived as an extension of USA global influence, and has operated that way for decades. No one sounds that alarm as long as its "their guy" in charge.
- prohobo 5y ago
  I can at least provide theoretical clarity on "what happens if you don't comply" for less powerful nations: The WHO has been working with the IMF throughout the pandemic, distributing loans to countries that follow the WHO's Covid policies. So, any nation state in economic trouble must implement the policies to receive loans/funding. This was famously made public by the Belarusian president in September: > In this news, Lukashenko did not state that the IMF offered him a bribe. He only explained that, as a condition of providing Covid-19 emergency funds, the IMF demanded the implementation of quarantine, isolation, and curfews. That quote is from a fact check trying to debunk conspiracy theories about the IMF: https://cekfakta.tempo.co/fakta/1008/fakta-atau-hoaks-benarkah-presiden-belarus-klaim-imf-tawarkan-suap-untuk-pembatasan-covid-19 https://cekfakta.tempo.co/fakta/1008/fakta-atau-hoaks-benark...
  - alexvoda 5y ago
    Wow, we reached the point where Lukashenkos word is used as an argument. I never imagined this on HN. I believe it is entirely reasonable to condition pandemic funds on taking actions against the pandemic. Also I believe there are many reasons to deny foreign funds to the Belarus of today.
    - 5y ago

nynx 5y ago

I hope this happens. The world needs more collaboration, especially in pandemic response.

anonnyj 5y ago
I too welcome fascism via vaccines.
ethbr0 5y ago
Of all the problems international cooperation could tackle, pandemics seem like they should be the easiest. Either you are dealing with one, or you aren't. Pretty stark contrast. So should make countries more comfortable ceding sovereignty, knowing it's going to be only in exceptional circumstances. Coupled with the fact that SARS-CoV-2 has proven that even the most stringent border lockdowns fail in the face of highly transmissible, asymptomatic threats. Which makes this an "everyone" problem instead of a "head in the sand is okay" one. And finally, you're dealing with something that is generally agreed on: dead humans are bad and to be avoided. Godspeed to those trying to broker consensus.
- golemotron 5y ago
  > Either you are dealing with one, or you aren't. Pretty stark contrast. So should make countries more comfortable ceding sovereignty, knowing it's going to be only in exceptional circumstances. Without a hard metric it's a slippery slope and governments will not cede emergency powers. That's been the history of nearly all emergency powers. Ask yourself how long this pandemic will last and whether anyone will agree upon criteria for its end.
  - tcmart14 5y ago
    I feel like this argument is still in bad faith. A co-worker last year was talking about how a mask mandate was the biggest violation of freedom ever in American history. So I kindly reminded my co-worker, internment camps for Japanese-americans were less of a violation? Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus during the civil war? Those are just two examples of many. These were all moves made by emergency powers that were...... given up by government when the situation ended.

coolso 5y ago

The WHO dragged their feet for weeks, even months, all so they could help the CCP not look as culpable as they are in all of this. They took China of all countries at their word - that or they knew they were lying and ran cover for them in the name of not offending certain groups of people - and as a result the world paid a greater price faster than it would've otherwise. Now we find out that the WHO skipped "Xi" in the Greek alphabet when naming COVID variants. Indeed, it's very important that we continue not to offend China, the Chinese Communist Party, or their Dear Leader. They're the victims in all of this. I find the WHO's constant attempts to regain any legitimacy they ever had an amusing, but ultimately a lost cause.

dang 5y ago
Could you please stop posting flamewar comments and ideological battle comments to HN? We ban accounts that keep doing that (because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for), and you've unfortunately been doing a ton of it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- coolso 5y ago
  Sure dang, I apologize and will try to frame my comments in ideological-related threads in a more positive, lighthearted discussion-fostering light in the future. When things tend to appear one-sided I do tend to go harder in the other direction to compensate and that's on me so again I apologize, and thanks for bringing it to my attention rather than banning me. (I will say I think the only flaw in this site, besides the inherent flaws in an upvoting type system, is the heavy-handedness of those who have comment-flagging powers. I have seen far more inflammatory comments not be flagged in the past than a couple that I've had flagged in the recent past.) When it comes to the upvote/reddit-style discussion sites, HN is definitely top-tier, and I've enjoyed coming here since around 2009 or so, so thank you for all you've done here to help foster that!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

2grep 5y ago

They are probably looking at, among other things, the Nagoya Protocol, which prevents the transport of biological samples, or data derived from them, across national borders of contracting parties.

tcmart14 5y ago

The treaty would be great, if we forget and forgive some missteps of the WHO, besides this point. This is the single most important point. Who in the hell is going to actually enforce the treaty? Most of the UN security council are permanent members who all have some ideological bent against each other. Not to mention, the US doesn't really allow itself to be accountable to international courts. Why would any other country? An international treaty is only effective if it can be unilaterally enforced regardless of the offending country. Not saying the US is the only bad guy here, but I know for a fact the US doesn't abide by international courts. Chances are Russia and China might say the same.

jacquesm 5y ago
These are all fair points that lay bare some of the major issues the world will have to deal with sooner or later.

marchingtomars 5y ago

Stop with the globalism Nations should handle their borders-- that's the point and root of a nation: to be born in a specifically territory.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Stop with the globalism > Nations should handle their borders-- that's the point and root of a nation: to be born in a specifically territory. And obviously, there are giant classes of problems that cannot be addressed effectively (or at all) with that outlook. For instance: a nation focused solely on its own territory will be unable to prevent a pandemic disease from affecting it if its neighbor manages to cover it up long enough for it spread across the boarder. It's basically the externality problem from economics.
- marchingtomars 5y ago
  --> My nation belongs to my Government, governed by my people. Not a non-transparent, subject-to-corruption international agency Again: nations should handle their borders. That means a strong border policy focused on border defense from illegal entry, and reduced, quarantined, and/or eliminated immigration in times of pandemic. And I disagree with your assessment especially your assertion of "unable". Sure, Some nations will have more difficulty than others-- self-sustainability being the main determining factor in terms of quarantining trade & immigrants. This idea of a country hiding the pandemic-- Yes, we've already see that with China. And, Trump was attacked for closing down the border, but of course was the rational decision. _____ Also, you present a false dichotomy: That by strictly controlling borders is mutually exlusive regardign a nationn's submission to globalistic where we give power to agencies subject to the human condition of greed, power-&-financial-corruption, and criminal financial conspiracy (look at the International Olympic Committee and FIFA). That said, I also hold the view that the United Nations and WHO should not be responsible for owning, claiming power/responsibility over, or enforcing anything upon or within my particular Nation (The United States). --> My nation belongs to my Government, governed by my people. Not a non-transparent, subject-to-corruption international agency

jacquesm 5y ago

The comments here are roughly the opposite of what a responsible group of people should agree to. Yes, the WHO isn't perfect. They made a ton of mistakes, especially in the beginning when information was scarce and the demands for information far outstripped their ability to deliver. But focusing on the mistakes and trying to play politics with the sensitive situation that they were handed after the fact certainly isn't helping, any organization that tries to deal with the initial period of outbreaks of novel diseases is going to end up making mistakes: this is a given in that situation, you, no matter how hard you would try, would not do any better. Pandemics are - by definition - a global problem and trying to solve these with local countermeasures (aka, take care of the West and forget about the rest) isn't going to work: until such a thing is under control everywhere it might as well not be under control anywhere. The current mess is there to a large degree because countries have been ignoring the WHO, not because they followed the WHO and their advice turned out to be nonsense. If anything the WHO should have been more strict in their initial reading of the situation and I'm pretty sure that they have learned their lesson, but the prevention paradox is real and if they had cried 'wolf' too early they would have been abused by the same people that now claim that they messed up because they didn't react soon enough and strong enough. From day #1 the WHO has been arguing for strong countermeasures rather than to slow-walk it to see how bad it was going to get because time lost will not be won back during a pandemic. WHO Press briefing March 13th 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqRHH6e-y6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqRHH6e-y6I The WHO did not fail us, but politicians certainly did.

ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
Organizations are driven by incentives. The incentives haven’t changed, therefore organizations haven’t learned their lesson. Second, nations exist to serve their populations. Think xenophobia and racism are bad now? Wait until it’s life or death and a decision is now directly attributable to the deaths of those around you. “Sorry Aunt Edna, you have to die. A factory worker in Mexico got your vaccine so they can make cars for an American company.” The WHO is politically controlled by China and that’s not going away. Any proposal to let the WHO have sovereignty over the USA in any form, this is DOA. Without USA, what’s the point? That said, maybe there are common grounds or infrastructure that can be build collectively, similar to the space station that everyone funds and benefits from in a pre agreed upon way.

marchingtomars 5y ago

Stop with the Globalism. Stop with the march towards Global Dictatorship under the "auspices" of non-transparent, prone to corruption* International Agencies (UN, WHO, Council on Foreign Relations, etc.). Stop with the march towards genocidal neomarxism. Remember the tens of millions who died in the Holodomor, Under Stalin, Under Mao, Under Kim Jong Un, and others. * = such as corruption at FIFA & International Olympic Committee.