10 ms·

Man, all the WHO bashing comments are getting downvoted pretty quickly, except: - WHO took a _long_ time to declare a pandemic when member countries were askin

Man, all the WHO bashing comments are getting downvoted pretty quickly, except: - WHO took a _long_ time to declare a pandemic when member countries were asking for it. - WHO actively discouraged international border closures for containment. - WHO took way too long to declare aerosol transmission even when countries had identified it. In a global scale event like this, there's no individual country who should have been the shepherd. It should have been the WHO, comprised of all its member inputs, really showing the lead here. Each individual country owns responsibility for their own preparedness, no doubt or question about that, but the WHO needs a re-organization big time.

sudosysgen 5y ago
The WHO absolutely did take a long time to declare a pandemic and certainly did fumble the ball on aerosol transmission. However given what we now know for sure we can safely say that border closures without an eradication policy (strict lockdowns and mass testing until the cases are undetectable followed by contact tracing) would not have changed anything. Which is what the models that WHO epidemiologists had used to give the guidance that airport closures would not be very effective used as premises and found. We know that by the time the border closures were suggested the virus was already definitely already in every country. From then on an extra five or six cases a month don't really affect the trajectory of the epidemic much at all. Unless you go for an eradication strategy. But in Western states that waited until deaths started mounting to lockdown and then opened back up mostly before they went to zero we can confidently say that airport closures would not have been a factor in avoiding the disaster.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > However given what we now know for sure we can safely say that border closures without an eradication policy (strict lockdowns and mass testing until the cases are undetectable followed by contact tracing) would not have changed anything. How do you make the conclusion that without a policy reducing travel wouldn’t have helped? That doesn’t even make sense.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    I don't know how your government handled things, but here they waited until it was clear that the healthcare system was going to implode if nothing was done to implement serious restrictions. If we had stopped travel, we would have hit that point maybe a week or two later. Travel is linear while community spread is exponential. In the end, given the incredible efficacy of lockdowns, the total amounts of deaths and infected would have been the same or thereabouts, because the point at which it was clear a lockdown was going to happen would just have come sooner. If you base your public health measures on number of infections, and if community spread is exponential, then adding a dozen cases from travel doesn't change the point at which cases start to decrease, because the cases decreasing is contingent with them reaching a certain amount to begin with.
    - rjzzleep 5y ago
      Couple of points: 1. Lockdown and travel restrictions are not the same. 2. Travel restrictions and reasonable public health safety measure are not exclusive. They only work in conjunction. I would argue that one of the most damaging things the EU did was take care of these things linearly. As an example German Pharmacies warned the Government of mask supply issues in February. Maybe even January. I know february because beginning of February they were having those supply issues. Fun fact, one of the biggest suppliers of machines that are required to make N95 mask threads is German(I think it was german, but could be central European). Yet, just like the US, Germany did not call for domestic mask production until months later. I'm not even sure they did at all seeing how a lot of masks later were cheap chinese masks sold over market value with quality control issues. Contrast that to Taiwan, where fever wards were established right away, domestic mask production and distribution was increased and regulated, combined with a coherent message and paper contact tracing(i.e. no app to start right away). And before you say "but Taiwan". Yes, Taiwan has a second wave coming that will be way worse than the first one, since the top level government seems to have let arrogance forget a couple of the things they did right early on.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        You should re-read my original comment. I said that travel restrictions would not do anything unless the pandemic strategy was eradiction. If the strategy is to "flattien the curve", then there is essentially no effect from closing borders. >1. Lockdown and travel restrictions are not the same. Yes, this is the entire point of my argument. >2. Travel restrictions and reasonable public health safety measure are not exclusive. They only work in conjunction. This is not correct. Lockdowns work even without travel restrictions. Travel restrictions don't do much without lockdowns (and other non-pharmaceutical interventions).
loopz 5y ago
WHO bears no responsibility (better word: accountability) as it is comprised of member states who define and fund it, that do. Findings, medical experts, doctors come from member state contributions. Given conflicting reports, underreporting, unknowns, denials, how this virus transmits, this could only be handled better with crisis policies. The world didn't operate in crisis mode until now.
- unishark 5y ago
  I think identifying pandemics is literally a defined responsibility of the WHO. Regarding which, the WHO-commissioned report states: "The WHO waited too long to declare a public health emergency of international concern, the panel said, after the reporting of an initial cluster of cases in December 2019."
  - loopz 5y ago
    What was reported from China, where people are fearfully in denial?
- devin 5y ago
  That is an extremely matter-of-fact reply, and I salute you. I disagree with "WHO bears no responsibility" insofar as the leadership of organizations ought to be able to be held to account. You might need to elaborate on what "crisis policies" you would find acceptable.
  - loopz 5y ago
    Of course everyone is responsible for their own efforts. It's just that WHO is no government (NGO) and thus not accountable like one, and also have no authority. Without member contributions, WHO doesn't exist. It reports medical findings from states, but the caveats are denials, misreporting, unknowns, early confusion, etc. which may be expected in an early breakout. The better the cooperation, things can improve. Otherwise, not. We should of course minimize crisis mode. Without it, expect similar response. I doubt the world will be going back, but will need to tackle more crises. This one is the perfect mirror for states. Only full lockdown will contain contagion, but many don't have that sophistication yet. Those who didn't lockdown early, got hit hard economically too.
rzz3 5y ago
Also WHO told people not to wear masks and that it could actually make it more likely to get covid (CDC echoed this as well). “But it was justified lying to protect the mask supply!”—some people already had masks, and didn’t wear them because of this. I had someone literally get mad at me and block me because I said wearing a mask was obviously a good idea, and an N95 is more likely to protect you than a cloth mask.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  This was very early in the pandemic, I doubt that many people had masks early, and the problem of people hoarding was very real and medical professionals were having a lot of difficulty acquiring PPE. I think it was a difficult situation, I don't think they handled it the best they could have, but the response (in the context of massive amounts of hoarding) was understandable. I know that this will not be a popular take here.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mxcrossb 5y ago
    Half a year into the pandemic the president of the United States was filling stadiums was maskless supporters. The WHO seems completely willing to fall on their sword over COVID, and indeed they failed in many ways. But in the long run, we’re seeing a disaster of anti intellectualism around the world, and the next pandemic may be just as bad as this one.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      > the next pandemic may be just as bad as this one. or worse. Keep the aerosol vector, but make it even more effective. Increase the effectiveness of surface transmission. Throw in greater resistant to surfactants (soap) and hand sanitizers. boom!
      - mxcrossb 5y ago
spankyspangler 5y ago
The WHO lost a lot of credibility (deserved or not). They clearly either did not have a good grasp of the science and evidence while they were issuing their proclamations, or they were attempting to steer reality away from certain problematic scenarios for certain interests that have corrupted the organization. Or both. The bigger problem was not the WHO, it's very common for such organizations to be highly dysfunctional and corrupted. It was the slavish adherence to authority (aka boot licking), and piling on, bullying and hatefully attacking anybody who dared to question this corrupt authority. Everyone was getting in on the action, from mega corporations to the average "useful idiot" internet bully. Unfortunately it's a big problem for some people who put politics above reality to cope with that idea, because WHO is on "their side", for various reasons.
- loopz 5y ago
  WHO, being an NGO, has no authority, governments do. States can either improve by cooperation, or become dysfunctional, but they are the authorities in this world.
  - spankyspangler 5y ago
    The subservient bootlickers were quite desperate to give it authority. And the WHO is already dysfunctional and corrupt.
    - loopz 5y ago
      Who and what authority was given to WHO? Please explain your rationale. WHO is just an NGO, a reflection of multiple member states cooperating through it. Not all states are faithful or trustworthy.
      - spankyspangler 5y ago
        What do you mean rationale? Entities have authority according to who and what they can influence and affect. It is false to say a state has absolute authority and the WHO has no authority. Those who listen to, act on advice from, censor and attack opposition to the WHO give it authority. This seems to be very upsetting to you for some reason.
endgame 5y ago
Reminder: 2009 "swine flu": declared pandemic at 74 infected countries ( https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_pandemic_phase6_20090611/en/ https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_pa... ) COVID-19: declared pandemic at 114 infected countries ( https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-... )
realmod 5y ago
WHO did maintain from the beginning that transmission via aerosol was highly likely and possible. Although, I do agree that tweeting the study while still openly stating it is possible sends a contradictory message. One thing to not forget is that WHO is a global cooperation organization, and its power is derived solely from its member-states acceptance and cooperation. This means that they have to play the political game and weigh the consequences of their actions versus the benefits. We have already seen multiple instances where leadership avoided testing to make the virus appear contained. Now imagine what countries would do early in the pandemic if they saw countries essentially sanctioned for trying to contain the virus. Did WHO make the right choice? I don't know, most likely not, but the world is not black and white. They should, however, rigorously go through their actions these past two years to see what they could have improved and what policies to put in place to prevent this from recurring again.
74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago
WHO is also way too understanding towards China and basically owned by Bill Gates.

sudosysgen 5y ago

The WHO absolutely did take a long time to declare a pandemic and certainly did fumble the ball on aerosol transmission. However given what we now know for sure we can safely say that border closures without an eradication policy (strict lockdowns and mass testing until the cases are undetectable followed by contact tracing) would not have changed anything. Which is what the models that WHO epidemiologists had used to give the guidance that airport closures would not be very effective used as premises and found. We know that by the time the border closures were suggested the virus was already definitely already in every country. From then on an extra five or six cases a month don't really affect the trajectory of the epidemic much at all. Unless you go for an eradication strategy. But in Western states that waited until deaths started mounting to lockdown and then opened back up mostly before they went to zero we can confidently say that airport closures would not have been a factor in avoiding the disaster.

kortilla 5y ago
> However given what we now know for sure we can safely say that border closures without an eradication policy (strict lockdowns and mass testing until the cases are undetectable followed by contact tracing) would not have changed anything. How do you make the conclusion that without a policy reducing travel wouldn’t have helped? That doesn’t even make sense.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  I don't know how your government handled things, but here they waited until it was clear that the healthcare system was going to implode if nothing was done to implement serious restrictions. If we had stopped travel, we would have hit that point maybe a week or two later. Travel is linear while community spread is exponential. In the end, given the incredible efficacy of lockdowns, the total amounts of deaths and infected would have been the same or thereabouts, because the point at which it was clear a lockdown was going to happen would just have come sooner. If you base your public health measures on number of infections, and if community spread is exponential, then adding a dozen cases from travel doesn't change the point at which cases start to decrease, because the cases decreasing is contingent with them reaching a certain amount to begin with.
  - rjzzleep 5y ago
    Couple of points: 1. Lockdown and travel restrictions are not the same. 2. Travel restrictions and reasonable public health safety measure are not exclusive. They only work in conjunction. I would argue that one of the most damaging things the EU did was take care of these things linearly. As an example German Pharmacies warned the Government of mask supply issues in February. Maybe even January. I know february because beginning of February they were having those supply issues. Fun fact, one of the biggest suppliers of machines that are required to make N95 mask threads is German(I think it was german, but could be central European). Yet, just like the US, Germany did not call for domestic mask production until months later. I'm not even sure they did at all seeing how a lot of masks later were cheap chinese masks sold over market value with quality control issues. Contrast that to Taiwan, where fever wards were established right away, domestic mask production and distribution was increased and regulated, combined with a coherent message and paper contact tracing(i.e. no app to start right away). And before you say "but Taiwan". Yes, Taiwan has a second wave coming that will be way worse than the first one, since the top level government seems to have let arrogance forget a couple of the things they did right early on.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      You should re-read my original comment. I said that travel restrictions would not do anything unless the pandemic strategy was eradiction. If the strategy is to "flattien the curve", then there is essentially no effect from closing borders. >1. Lockdown and travel restrictions are not the same. Yes, this is the entire point of my argument. >2. Travel restrictions and reasonable public health safety measure are not exclusive. They only work in conjunction. This is not correct. Lockdowns work even without travel restrictions. Travel restrictions don't do much without lockdowns (and other non-pharmaceutical interventions).

loopz 5y ago

WHO bears no responsibility (better word: accountability) as it is comprised of member states who define and fund it, that do. Findings, medical experts, doctors come from member state contributions. Given conflicting reports, underreporting, unknowns, denials, how this virus transmits, this could only be handled better with crisis policies. The world didn't operate in crisis mode until now.

unishark 5y ago
I think identifying pandemics is literally a defined responsibility of the WHO. Regarding which, the WHO-commissioned report states: "The WHO waited too long to declare a public health emergency of international concern, the panel said, after the reporting of an initial cluster of cases in December 2019."
- loopz 5y ago
  What was reported from China, where people are fearfully in denial?
devin 5y ago
That is an extremely matter-of-fact reply, and I salute you. I disagree with "WHO bears no responsibility" insofar as the leadership of organizations ought to be able to be held to account. You might need to elaborate on what "crisis policies" you would find acceptable.
- loopz 5y ago
  Of course everyone is responsible for their own efforts. It's just that WHO is no government (NGO) and thus not accountable like one, and also have no authority. Without member contributions, WHO doesn't exist. It reports medical findings from states, but the caveats are denials, misreporting, unknowns, early confusion, etc. which may be expected in an early breakout. The better the cooperation, things can improve. Otherwise, not. We should of course minimize crisis mode. Without it, expect similar response. I doubt the world will be going back, but will need to tackle more crises. This one is the perfect mirror for states. Only full lockdown will contain contagion, but many don't have that sophistication yet. Those who didn't lockdown early, got hit hard economically too.

rzz3 5y ago

Also WHO told people not to wear masks and that it could actually make it more likely to get covid (CDC echoed this as well). “But it was justified lying to protect the mask supply!”—some people already had masks, and didn’t wear them because of this. I had someone literally get mad at me and block me because I said wearing a mask was obviously a good idea, and an N95 is more likely to protect you than a cloth mask.

whimsicalism 5y ago
This was very early in the pandemic, I doubt that many people had masks early, and the problem of people hoarding was very real and medical professionals were having a lot of difficulty acquiring PPE. I think it was a difficult situation, I don't think they handled it the best they could have, but the response (in the context of massive amounts of hoarding) was understandable. I know that this will not be a popular take here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mxcrossb 5y ago
  Half a year into the pandemic the president of the United States was filling stadiums was maskless supporters. The WHO seems completely willing to fall on their sword over COVID, and indeed they failed in many ways. But in the long run, we’re seeing a disaster of anti intellectualism around the world, and the next pandemic may be just as bad as this one.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > the next pandemic may be just as bad as this one. or worse. Keep the aerosol vector, but make it even more effective. Increase the effectiveness of surface transmission. Throw in greater resistant to surfactants (soap) and hand sanitizers. boom!
    - mxcrossb 5y ago

spankyspangler 5y ago

The WHO lost a lot of credibility (deserved or not). They clearly either did not have a good grasp of the science and evidence while they were issuing their proclamations, or they were attempting to steer reality away from certain problematic scenarios for certain interests that have corrupted the organization. Or both. The bigger problem was not the WHO, it's very common for such organizations to be highly dysfunctional and corrupted. It was the slavish adherence to authority (aka boot licking), and piling on, bullying and hatefully attacking anybody who dared to question this corrupt authority. Everyone was getting in on the action, from mega corporations to the average "useful idiot" internet bully. Unfortunately it's a big problem for some people who put politics above reality to cope with that idea, because WHO is on "their side", for various reasons.

loopz 5y ago
WHO, being an NGO, has no authority, governments do. States can either improve by cooperation, or become dysfunctional, but they are the authorities in this world.
- spankyspangler 5y ago
  The subservient bootlickers were quite desperate to give it authority. And the WHO is already dysfunctional and corrupt.
  - loopz 5y ago
    Who and what authority was given to WHO? Please explain your rationale. WHO is just an NGO, a reflection of multiple member states cooperating through it. Not all states are faithful or trustworthy.
    - spankyspangler 5y ago
      What do you mean rationale? Entities have authority according to who and what they can influence and affect. It is false to say a state has absolute authority and the WHO has no authority. Those who listen to, act on advice from, censor and attack opposition to the WHO give it authority. This seems to be very upsetting to you for some reason.

endgame 5y ago

Reminder: 2009 "swine flu": declared pandemic at 74 infected countries ( https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_pandemic_phase6_20090611/en/ https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_pa... ) COVID-19: declared pandemic at 114 infected countries ( https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-... )

realmod 5y ago

WHO did maintain from the beginning that transmission via aerosol was highly likely and possible. Although, I do agree that tweeting the study while still openly stating it is possible sends a contradictory message. One thing to not forget is that WHO is a global cooperation organization, and its power is derived solely from its member-states acceptance and cooperation. This means that they have to play the political game and weigh the consequences of their actions versus the benefits. We have already seen multiple instances where leadership avoided testing to make the virus appear contained. Now imagine what countries would do early in the pandemic if they saw countries essentially sanctioned for trying to contain the virus. Did WHO make the right choice? I don't know, most likely not, but the world is not black and white. They should, however, rigorously go through their actions these past two years to see what they could have improved and what policies to put in place to prevent this from recurring again.

74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago

WHO is also way too understanding towards China and basically owned by Bill Gates.