18 ms·

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 influen

by 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

by nscalf 5y ago

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