8 ms·

I'd hazard the WHO discomfort with "wait and see" is (1) lingering institutional shame at failing to warn about SARS-CoV-2 in a timely manner, (2) unexpectedly

by ethbr0 4y ago

I'd hazard the WHO discomfort with "wait and see" is (1) lingering institutional shame at failing to warn about SARS-CoV-2 in a timely manner, (2) unexpectedly high transmissibility and geographic spread, (3) it's an orthopoxvirus, and while distant from smallpox... it's not that distant, (4) largely unvaccinated world population, and (5) history of diseases which are circulating in men-who-have-sex-with-men being ignored (read: HIV). Honestly, IMHO, this is what the WHO should be doing: looking at the potential for pandemics and making moves ahead of time. (2) & (4) should be enough to scare the crap out of anyone who accepts the possibility of mutations once it's more widely circulating. Smallpox is objectively horrific, and its eradication was one of public health's greatest modern triumphs. So anything close should be taken seriously. Not panic. But pragmatic seriousness. (WARNING: Not for the faint of heart) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

ratsmack 4y ago
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Worldwide organizations operate across national boundaries via consensus and voluntary agreement. Off the top of my head, the only forceful worldwide organization we have is the UN Security Council, which is finely calibrated. And historically predicated on ownership of nuclear arms. Consequently, the job of every other worldwide organization is to (a) build political goodwill with nations & (b) spend that political goodwill to urge them to take actions, when the situation calls for it. If those nations dig their heels in, it becomes a choice. Do you want to burn bridges because the current situation is that important? Or do you want to let things slide to maintain the relationship and preserve future goodwill? Hint: There isn't an obvious right answer. Especially when you're looking forward at a novel, uncharacterized pathogen with unknown effects.
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    > maintain the relationship and preserve future goodwill If the relationship involves lies and cover ups that caused this pandemic to get out of control leading to millions of deaths and massive global disruption, what is the value of the relationship in the future?
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Are you expecting a pandemic-less future?
      - colpabar 4y ago
        If the relationship still involves lies and cover ups that caused a future pandemic to get out of control leading to millions of deaths and massive global disruption, what is the value of the relationship?
        ethbr0 4y ago
        That it's still better than the no-worldwide coordination body alternative? An optimal but impossible-to-implement world organization isn't a useful measuring stick for organizations that need exist in reality. Nations exercise sovereignty within their borders. Nations have their own priorities. Those priorities often conflict with other nations'. Inconvenient in public health responses, but facts that must be dealt with. And in a choice between (1) no WHO, (2) a WHO that spends time playing politics and is less effective than it could be, (3) a perfectly-efficient authoritarian WHO supported by a global police state... I'll take (2).
      - vkou 4y ago
        They are expecting a lie-less, and politic-less future. :)
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > Off the top of my head, the only forceful worldwide organization we have is the UN Security Council, which is finely calibrated. It is utterly and completely locked up and has been for years because the worst threats to international security (Russia and China) have been blocking anything against them or their interests.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      It has not been "utterly and completely" locked up for years. Each member has been acting in its own interests, but even in times of poor international relationships, there is sometimes agreement by all on a particular matter. https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/volumes-resolutions https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/volumes-resolutio...
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        The key thing is, the UNSC was established to prevent nuclear war between the super powers. While it has been successful on that front, it has utterly, utterly failed however in preventing a repeat of what happened between 1933-1945 in Germany, which was the reason for why the UN was founded: - China is genociding off Tibetans and Uyghurs for many years and no one seems to be willing to put a stop on that. Not to mention Chinese fishing vessels illegally fishing as far as Africa or continuous Chinese imperialist aggression against its neighbor states. - Russia... well, the current invasion in Ukraine speaks for itself, but there has been more. Alone the land grab of the Krim 2014 should have been more than enough to warrant intervention. - Syria, where Assad (with a lot of assistance from Russia and its Wagner mercenaries) has liberally broken every red line the Western nations set. Barrel bombs against civilians, genocide, nerve gas, torture, and that's just the rough list. - the collapse of Libya and its descent into civil war and chaos - a boatload of other conflicts turning into ethnic cleansings and genocide across Africa - a lot of nations in South America falling under the effective control of drug cartels About the only horror stopped by the UNSC was the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and that was only because both Russia and China didn't want anything to fuel their local Islamist-extremist insurgent groups.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Source?
  - ratsmack 4y ago
    There is plenty of reading material[1] if you're really interested. [1] https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=the+WHO+protected+china https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=the+WHO+pr...
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      A Bing search is not a credible source, and I'm not seeing anything to support what you're saying.
2-718-281-828 4y ago
> Not panic. But pragmatic seriousness. the very nature of an "emergency" does cause panic, though. from what you are describing I don't see how that word can be justified. sounds more like "public health threat" or sth like that.
- techdragon 4y ago
  The problem is expressing the situation as urgent but not yet out of control in a clear and concise way that doesn’t leave the reader/listener with the idea that the problem is one that can be ignored because it is not out of control yet. We have lots of language to say this sort of thing, but the more words you add the easier it is to be misunderstood. On a sociolinguistic level we do sort of overuse the word “emergency” but it’s primarily because we tend to do most of our “highest priority” communication with chunks of words that fit in a sound byte, or newspaper headline, or bullet point that fits on a PowerPoint slide ,or tv news lower third.
  - 2-718-281-828 4y ago
    but what can be done now practically? with covid it was easy to come up with measurements - but monkeypox? I am already using condoms at the local swinger club
    - techdragon 4y ago
      And here’s the failure to communicate that most concerns me… this isn’t HIV, it’s got multiple routes for infection and covering one with a condom does nothing to stop you catching it via another route. Money pox can be transmitted via infected bodily fluids, via via contact with the blisters/lesions/“rash” that forms, via inhaling droplets of infected fluids (simplest example, heavy breathing + sweaty bodies very close together), and potentially any method where infected fluids from one body come into contact with the mucous membranes of another person, so that’s the eyes, nose, mouth, etc. Also it can contaminate surfaces so there’s a risk of infection via contaminated bedding. Only one of these is mitigated by a condom. Effectively the only preventative options are vaccinations and avoiding exposure via the normal ways, trying to not come into contact with anyone infected (the “avoiding high risk behaviour” option) and by wearing personal protective equipment such as disposable gowns, gloves, masks... which is basically all the sort of things medical staff do to prevent the spread of all sorts of diseases around hospitals, but its a whole list of stuff you need to do and remember to do right, to the point where medical staff need training and spot checking to ensure they do it right all the time... understandably its not something the public is very well equiped to do. Oh and it’s infectious before it’s “obvious that you have monkeypox” since the first early few days the various skin symptoms could be mistaken for a zit or pimple or other skin reaction and don’t necessarily start somewhere you regularly look at, such as behind the ear. The wikipedia article is actually pretty informative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeypox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeypox other than not having a clear idea yet what's different about the new strain spreading around, we actually know quite a bit about monkeypox since its endemic to certain African animals there has been cases to study for decades, and the fact its related to the much more deadly Smallpox virus (the Smallpox vaccine is apparently 85% effective against Monkeypox) means its been an interesting virus for researchers to study, basically since we started trying to wipe out smallpox decades ago. Edit: Missed a key point. The extra trouble is they need to "thread the needle" with their messaging to ensure what they are saying isn't misinterpreted as pointing the finger at the MSM (men who have sex with men) since they have mountains of evidence on how badly handled everything was with HIV/AIDS. They don't want the regular public assuming this is a disease only gay people can get, because its not, but the kinds of activities that are most likely to cause you to catch it are most commonly associated with gay men, which is sort of at odds with their first goal.

by ethbr0 4y ago

ratsmack 4y ago

ethbr0 4y ago
Worldwide organizations operate across national boundaries via consensus and voluntary agreement. Off the top of my head, the only forceful worldwide organization we have is the UN Security Council, which is finely calibrated. And historically predicated on ownership of nuclear arms. Consequently, the job of every other worldwide organization is to (a) build political goodwill with nations & (b) spend that political goodwill to urge them to take actions, when the situation calls for it. If those nations dig their heels in, it becomes a choice. Do you want to burn bridges because the current situation is that important? Or do you want to let things slide to maintain the relationship and preserve future goodwill? Hint: There isn't an obvious right answer. Especially when you're looking forward at a novel, uncharacterized pathogen with unknown effects.
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > maintain the relationship and preserve future goodwill If the relationship involves lies and cover ups that caused this pandemic to get out of control leading to millions of deaths and massive global disruption, what is the value of the relationship in the future?
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Are you expecting a pandemic-less future?
    - colpabar 4y ago
      If the relationship still involves lies and cover ups that caused a future pandemic to get out of control leading to millions of deaths and massive global disruption, what is the value of the relationship?
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        That it's still better than the no-worldwide coordination body alternative? An optimal but impossible-to-implement world organization isn't a useful measuring stick for organizations that need exist in reality. Nations exercise sovereignty within their borders. Nations have their own priorities. Those priorities often conflict with other nations'. Inconvenient in public health responses, but facts that must be dealt with. And in a choice between (1) no WHO, (2) a WHO that spends time playing politics and is less effective than it could be, (3) a perfectly-efficient authoritarian WHO supported by a global police state... I'll take (2).
    - vkou 4y ago
      They are expecting a lie-less, and politic-less future. :)
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > Off the top of my head, the only forceful worldwide organization we have is the UN Security Council, which is finely calibrated. It is utterly and completely locked up and has been for years because the worst threats to international security (Russia and China) have been blocking anything against them or their interests.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    It has not been "utterly and completely" locked up for years. Each member has been acting in its own interests, but even in times of poor international relationships, there is sometimes agreement by all on a particular matter. https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/volumes-resolutions https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/volumes-resolutio...
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      The key thing is, the UNSC was established to prevent nuclear war between the super powers. While it has been successful on that front, it has utterly, utterly failed however in preventing a repeat of what happened between 1933-1945 in Germany, which was the reason for why the UN was founded: - China is genociding off Tibetans and Uyghurs for many years and no one seems to be willing to put a stop on that. Not to mention Chinese fishing vessels illegally fishing as far as Africa or continuous Chinese imperialist aggression against its neighbor states. - Russia... well, the current invasion in Ukraine speaks for itself, but there has been more. Alone the land grab of the Krim 2014 should have been more than enough to warrant intervention. - Syria, where Assad (with a lot of assistance from Russia and its Wagner mercenaries) has liberally broken every red line the Western nations set. Barrel bombs against civilians, genocide, nerve gas, torture, and that's just the rough list. - the collapse of Libya and its descent into civil war and chaos - a boatload of other conflicts turning into ethnic cleansings and genocide across Africa - a lot of nations in South America falling under the effective control of drug cartels About the only horror stopped by the UNSC was the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and that was only because both Russia and China didn't want anything to fuel their local Islamist-extremist insurgent groups.
hammyhavoc 4y ago
Source?
- ratsmack 4y ago
  There is plenty of reading material[1] if you're really interested. [1] https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=the+WHO+protected+china https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=the+WHO+pr...
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    A Bing search is not a credible source, and I'm not seeing anything to support what you're saying.

2-718-281-828 4y ago

> Not panic. But pragmatic seriousness. the very nature of an "emergency" does cause panic, though. from what you are describing I don't see how that word can be justified. sounds more like "public health threat" or sth like that.

techdragon 4y ago
The problem is expressing the situation as urgent but not yet out of control in a clear and concise way that doesn’t leave the reader/listener with the idea that the problem is one that can be ignored because it is not out of control yet. We have lots of language to say this sort of thing, but the more words you add the easier it is to be misunderstood. On a sociolinguistic level we do sort of overuse the word “emergency” but it’s primarily because we tend to do most of our “highest priority” communication with chunks of words that fit in a sound byte, or newspaper headline, or bullet point that fits on a PowerPoint slide ,or tv news lower third.
- 2-718-281-828 4y ago
  but what can be done now practically? with covid it was easy to come up with measurements - but monkeypox? I am already using condoms at the local swinger club
  - techdragon 4y ago
    And here’s the failure to communicate that most concerns me… this isn’t HIV, it’s got multiple routes for infection and covering one with a condom does nothing to stop you catching it via another route. Money pox can be transmitted via infected bodily fluids, via via contact with the blisters/lesions/“rash” that forms, via inhaling droplets of infected fluids (simplest example, heavy breathing + sweaty bodies very close together), and potentially any method where infected fluids from one body come into contact with the mucous membranes of another person, so that’s the eyes, nose, mouth, etc. Also it can contaminate surfaces so there’s a risk of infection via contaminated bedding. Only one of these is mitigated by a condom. Effectively the only preventative options are vaccinations and avoiding exposure via the normal ways, trying to not come into contact with anyone infected (the “avoiding high risk behaviour” option) and by wearing personal protective equipment such as disposable gowns, gloves, masks... which is basically all the sort of things medical staff do to prevent the spread of all sorts of diseases around hospitals, but its a whole list of stuff you need to do and remember to do right, to the point where medical staff need training and spot checking to ensure they do it right all the time... understandably its not something the public is very well equiped to do. Oh and it’s infectious before it’s “obvious that you have monkeypox” since the first early few days the various skin symptoms could be mistaken for a zit or pimple or other skin reaction and don’t necessarily start somewhere you regularly look at, such as behind the ear. The wikipedia article is actually pretty informative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeypox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeypox other than not having a clear idea yet what's different about the new strain spreading around, we actually know quite a bit about monkeypox since its endemic to certain African animals there has been cases to study for decades, and the fact its related to the much more deadly Smallpox virus (the Smallpox vaccine is apparently 85% effective against Monkeypox) means its been an interesting virus for researchers to study, basically since we started trying to wipe out smallpox decades ago. Edit: Missed a key point. The extra trouble is they need to "thread the needle" with their messaging to ensure what they are saying isn't misinterpreted as pointing the finger at the MSM (men who have sex with men) since they have mountains of evidence on how badly handled everything was with HIV/AIDS. They don't want the regular public assuming this is a disease only gay people can get, because its not, but the kinds of activities that are most likely to cause you to catch it are most commonly associated with gay men, which is sort of at odds with their first goal.