Mr. Trump Cuts Off Funding to the World Health Organization in the Middle of a Pandemic

[Wandering Monk]

PBS did a pretty balanced and in depth segment on the dispute between Trump and the WHO which gets at underlying questions about the WHO.

It starts at the 10:45 mark on the video:

April 15, 2020 - PBS NewsHour full episode

 

[Notanumber]

The WHO has started advertising (propagandizing) on British TV now. It must have been something Donald said.

 

[Augustus]

What "bad advice" are you referring to, specifically?

Low risk, don't isolate China, keep on traveling, don't wear masks unless you are sick.

Multiple competing authorities operating in the same territorial space, possibly at cross purposes, don't sound like a desirable approach to handling a global pandemic, but rather a recipe for disaster.

One single authority getting all the major calls wrong seems like a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

 

[Notanumber]

Unlike the WHO, Katie tells it like it is –

 

[Tambourine]

Low risk, don't isolate China, keep on traveling, don't wear masks unless you are sick.

I can't find any article from the WHO suggesting all of these things, could you perhaps provide a source?

One single authority getting all the major calls wrong seems like a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

That doesn't adress my concerns at all.
What do you suggest to avoid several authorities working at cross purposes? Or do you not see that as a problem?

 

[Tambourine]

Unlike the WHO, Katie tells it like it is –

Did the WHO actually say any of the things she claims it did?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Much as I find Trump's boasting, grandstanding and buck-passing on such a tragic issue to be utterly contemptible, the WHO has been so abysmal on this issue that it has likely resulted in net harm.

If I were President I wouldn't be funding them either, but giving money directly to more worthy institutions.

Exactly. Why fund something/anything that doesn't even work.

Just because it has World health Organization as its title doesn't legitimize funding if it doesn't/cannot get results conducive to such a title. I'm sure Trump will be redirecting that money to an entity that does get results.

 

[Augustus]

I can't find any article from the WHO suggesting all of these things, could you perhaps provide a source?

Mainly their twitter feed and their website (masks advice video). Nothing 2nd hand via dubious 'news' sources.

Sorry, can't really be bothered to track them down, but I'm not making this up.

What do you suggest to avoid several authorities working at cross purposes? Or do you not see that as a problem?

What 'cross purposes' do you see as being problematic?

 

[Tambourine]

What 'cross purposes' do you see as being problematic?

You don't see an inherent problem when two authorities compete for the same pool of medical resources, qualified staff, and national attention?
You don't see a problem when, for example, authority A says "stay at home" and authority B says "don't worry, going out won't be a problem for now", or authority A says "always wear masks" and authority B says "masks are useless, don't bother"?

 

[Tambourine]

So far, the only country to have willfully denied funding to the WHO for several years has been the USSR, under the rule of Stalin.

 

[Augustus]

You don't see an inherent problem when two authorities compete for the same pool of medical resources, qualified staff, and national attention?

Not really, it's how science usually works.

You don't see a problem when, for example, authority A says "stay at home" and authority B says "don't worry, going out won't be a problem for now", or authority A says "always wear masks" and authority B says "masks are useless, don't bother"?

If the one major organisation had a great track record then you might have a point, but given the alternative is 1 organisation getting everything wrong, diversity would be a good thing.

Let them critique each other's ideas if they disagree. Helps to prevent groupthink to have to defend your position, and a diversity of approaches can lead to greater creativity and innovation.

Don't you think it is problematic to put all your eggs in one basket when the lone authority has been grossly incompetent when most needed?

 

[Tambourine]

Not really, it's how science usually works.



If the one major organisation had a great track record then you might have a point, but given the alternative is 1 organisation getting everything wrong, diversity would be a good thing.

This assumes that there is an authority that decides whether either organisation's track record is "good" or "bad", and a mechanism to decide which of these organisations gets first pick at scarce resources, because a single dissenting individual wouldn't have any recourse to influence either of these two in the way they go about things.

Without an outside authority to mediate, there can be no such thing as a "track record", only competing narratives propping up competing organisations, and fighting over scarce resources with the potential for escalation - and this is in fact what is going on right now with the US government fighting the WHO for who gets to dictate the narrative of US responses, and who gets to explain what's good and bad for US citizens, and escalating to the point where people's lives are now at stake.

Let them critique each other's ideas if they disagree. Helps to prevent groupthink to have to defend your position, and a diversity of approaches can lead to greater creativity and innovation.

Don't you think it is problematic to put all your eggs in one basket when the lone authority has been grossly incompetent when most needed?

Which "lone authority" are you referring to here? The WHO or the US government?

 

[Augustus]

This assumes that there is an authority that decides whether either organisation's track record is "good" or "bad", and a mechanism to decide which of these organisations gets first pick at scarce resources, because a single dissenting individual wouldn't have any recourse to influence either of these two in the way they go about things.

Without an outside authority to mediate, there can be no such thing as a "track record", only competing narratives propping up competing organisations, and fighting over scarce resources with the potential for escalation - and this is in fact what is going on right now with the US government fighting the WHO for who gets to dictate the narrative of US responses, and who gets to explain what's good and bad for US citizens, and escalating to the point where people's lives are now at stake.

You judge them on whether they get big calls right. What calls do you think the WHO got right: Low risk event? No need to restrict travel? Don't wear masks unless you are ill? Better to keep China happy than benefit from the expertise of Taiwan in handling such outbreaks?

People's lives have been at stake since the beginning. WHO advice had lead to more people dying.

Which "lone authority" are you referring to here? The WHO or the US government?

The WHO.

I don't care about the US govt.

 

[Tambourine]

You judge them on whether they get big calls right. What calls do you think the WHO got right: Low risk event? No need to restrict travel? Don't wear masks unless you are ill? Better to keep China happy than benefit from the expertise of Taiwan in handling such outbreaks?

What is "right" or "wrong" is either determined by authorities, or we allow everyone to subjectively believe or disbelieve anything based on their personal bias and prejudices.

If you genuinely support the latter option, then this begs the question why we would need any authority at all.

 

[Tambourine]

You judge them on whether they get big calls right. What calls do you think the WHO got right: Low risk event? No need to restrict travel? Don't wear masks unless you are ill? Better to keep China happy than benefit from the expertise of Taiwan in handling such outbreaks?

People's lives have been at stake since the beginning. WHO advice had lead to more people dying.



The WHO.

I don't care about the US govt.

So just to clarify, you believe that this advice is incorrect:

Medical masks should be reserved for health care workers.
The use of medical masks in the community may create a
false sense of security, with neglect of other essential
measures, such as hand hygiene practices and physical
distancing, and may lead to touching the face under the masks
and under the eyes, result in unnecessary costs, and take
masks away from those in health care who need them most,
especially when masks are in short supply.

Persons with symptoms should:
• wear a medical mask, self-isolate, and seek medical
advice as soon as they start to feel unwell. Symptoms can
include fever, fatigue, cough, sore throat, and difficulty
breathing. It is important to note that early symptoms for
some people infected with COVID-19 may be very mild;
• follow instructions on how to put on, take off, and
dispose of medical masks;
• follow all additional preventive measures, in particular,
hand hygiene and maintaining physical distance from
other persons.

All persons should:
• avoid groups of people and enclosed, crowded spaces;
• maintain physical distance of at least 1 m from other
persons, in particular from those with respiratory
symptoms (e.g., coughing, sneezing);
• perform hand hygiene frequently, using an alcohol-based
hand rub if hands are not visibly dirty or soap and water
when hands are visibly dirty;
• cover their nose and mouth with a bent elbow or paper
tissue when coughing or sneezing, dispose of the tissue
immediately after use, and perform hand hygiene;
• refrain from touching their mouth, nose, and eyes.

On what evidence do you base that claim?

 

[Augustus]

What is "right" or "wrong" is either determined by authorities, or we allow everyone to subjectively believe or disbelieve anything based on their personal bias and prejudices.

If you genuinely support the latter option, then this begs the question why we would need any authority at all.

This is just an excuse to not think for yourself. Blind faith in institutions may be reassuring but history tells us the reality is that they often let us down.

Fortunately, we get to compare their actions to reality though.

For example, do you really need an 'authority' to tell you that the credit default swaps that caused the GFC were a bad idea? The 'authorities' (i.e. the credit ratings agencies) decided that packaging up a load of very high risk debts actually made them AAA ultra low risk.

Prior to the GFC, do you believe they were 'right' to do this, and the individuals who pointed out the problems were 'wrong'?

So just to clarify, you believe that this advice is incorrect:

I believe it is incorrect to tell people who are not sick to not wear masks as they have said numerous times (there's a link to a video in one of my posts if you can be bothered to search for it or you can google it).

Personally, I am of the opinion that it is good for asymptomatic carriers to be wearing masks in public. You may agree with the WHO, that such people should not be wearing masks as they are the 'authority', but that makes little sense to me.

They accept that symptomatic sick people should wear masks, but not asymptomatic sick people which is dumb.

The use of medical masks in the community may create a
false sense of security, with neglect of other essential
measures, such as hand hygiene practices and physical
distancing, and may lead to touching the face under the masks
and under the eyes, result in unnecessary costs, and take
masks away from those in health care who need them most,
especially when masks are in short supply.

It really isn't that difficult to wear a mask, keep distance, wash hands and avoid touching your face.

Lots of people have high quality, non-medical masks they use for DIY, etc. these people should be wearing them and the WHO should be educating people to wear them properly, not saying "well they might be too dumb to use them properly so better off without".

Then there are lower quality of improvised masks that don't harm medical professionals, yet offer some degree of protection, people should be wearing these.

If you were in a supermarket and there was an asymptomatic carrier who sneezed near you, would you prefer a) them to be wearing a mask b) them not to be wearing a mask?

 

[Tambourine]

This is just an excuse to not think for yourself. Blind faith in institutions may be reassuring but history tells us the reality is that they often let us down.

Fortunately, we get to compare their actions to reality though.

You are assuming that your interpretation of reality is the objectively correct one. If you disagree with the science, it's because the science is wrong. Correct?

For example, do you really need an 'authority' to tell you that the credit default swaps that caused the GFC were a bad idea? The 'authorities' (i.e. the credit ratings agencies) decided that packaging up a load of very high risk debts actually made them AAA ultra low risk.

How did you arrive at the objective knowledge that they were "a bad idea"? Did you bring it forth ex nihilo from your brain alone, or did you derive it from sources that you selected based on your personal political views and subjective bias?

What told you that these sources were the correct ones, and their spread sufficient for your objectively correct judgement? Did the idea come to you as divine inspiration, ex nihilo spark of genius, or did you derive it from other sources which you selected based on your personal political views and subjective bias?

Prior to the GFC, do you believe they were 'right' to do this, and the individuals who pointed out the problems were 'wrong'?

Honestly? I didn't know enough about finance, risk management, or the nature of investment portfolios to form a coherent opinion, and I wasn't motivated to do so because I didn't feel that interested in the fine details of US economic policy.

I only received the opinion that it was a bad thing after the fact, from experts condemning these practices after the fact, with credentials I trusted.

Were you well versed in the fields of financial instruments or risk management at the time? Did you know this was going on before it became a problem?

I believe it is incorrect to tell people who are not sick to not wear masks as they have said numerous times (there's a link to a video in one of my posts if you can be bothered to search for it or you can google it).

As the text I have provided above suggests, they have since qualified that statement to mean "non-medical masks" instead of "no masks at all", and have revised their guidelines.

Are you saying that it was wrong by them to do so?

Personally, I am of the opinion that it is good for asymptomatic carriers to be wearing masks in public. You may agree with the WHO, that such people should not be wearing masks as they are the 'authority', but that makes little sense to me.

I agree with the WHO that asymptomatic carriers should not wear medical masks, since that would take away from essential personnel who really do need them, but should wear regular masks in order to avoid spreading the disease.

Lots of people have high quality, non-medical masks they use for DIY, etc. these people should be wearing them and the WHO should be educating people to wear them properly, not saying "well they might be too dumb to use them properly so better off without".

Then there are lower quality of improvised masks that don't harm medical professionals, yet offer some degree of protection, people should be wearing these.

Yes, that's why the WHO recommends wearing non-medical masks, as the text I provided says.
I agree with that recommendation. Do you?

 

[Notanumber]

Did the WHO actually say any of the things she claims it did?

This is a sample -

DOS and DON'TS
Below are some dos and don'ts on language when talking about the new coronavirus disease
(COVID-19):

DO - talk about the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
Don’t - attach locations or ethnicity to the disease, this is not a “Wuhan Virus”,
“Chinese Virus” or “Asian Virus”.
The official name for the disease was deliberately chosen to avoid stigmatisation - the
“co” stands for Corona, “vi” for virus and “d” for disease, 19 is because the disease
emerged in 2019.



The document is here - https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/covid19-stigma-guide.pdf

 

[Notanumber]

You don't see an inherent problem when two authorities compete for the same pool of medical resources, qualified staff, and national attention?
You don't see a problem when, for example, authority A says "stay at home" and authority B says "don't worry, going out won't be a problem for now", or authority A says "always wear masks" and authority B says "masks are useless, don't bother"?

Competition is a good thing.

 

[Tambourine]

This is a sample -

DOS and DON'TS
Below are some dos and don'ts on language when talking about the new coronavirus disease
(COVID-19):

DO - talk about the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
Don’t - attach locations or ethnicity to the disease, this is not a “Wuhan Virus”,
“Chinese Virus” or “Asian Virus”.
The official name for the disease was deliberately chosen to avoid stigmatisation - the
“co” stands for Corona, “vi” for virus and “d” for disease, 19 is because the disease
emerged in 2019.



The document is here - https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/covid19-stigma-guide.pdf

What does this have to do with anything I said? And why do you have a problem with any of this?

Competition is a good thing.

Can you explain how multiple authorities lording over the same pool of people and resources are a good thing?