Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is it time to start an apolitical, decentralized version of WHO?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is it time to start an apolitical, decentralized version of WHO?

#11

Post by MiddTech »

PierredeFermat wrote: post #10
krapp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be a policy. Either you deal with Taiwan though China and on China's terms, which is a political position, or you deal with Taiwan on its own terms, which is a political position, or you ignore Taiwan altogether because of the controversy around its status, which is a political position. Choosing to ignore bureacuracies and the press is a political decision. Choosing which data to post and what sources t…

In the broad definition of what makes something "political", that is definitely the case. No disagreement. However, to not drift this discussion into definitions, I'll agree on your definition of "politics", which - correct me if I'm wrong - is any activity that involves decision making. Let's assume, in that or any case, every decision and action to be political. Then the important question here becomes: how do we m…

Problem with that is that "best possible outcome" is all about perspective.

I'm not sure if there is a subjective way to quantify such a thing without first taking a stance.

Once you take a stance, the only difference between you and the existing WHO is the particular stance you have taken (assuming it's a different position)

Re: Ask HN: Is it time to start an apolitical, decentralized version of WHO?

#12

Post by PierredeFermat »

MiddTech wrote: post #9
PierredeFermat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close coordination with the Chinese government :) No, there would (almost) be no policy. That's the point. It's one planet - one health. Which country it is shouldn't matter much. If a severe case was reported by medical staff in Taiwan, North Korea or where ever it would/should instantly show as potential breakout warning signal on some webpage or dashboard, without having to travel weeks through broken bureaucracie…

Makes sense, but how would that be labelled. Any documentation or written/printed representation would need a label (preferably a consistent one). Taiwan, China or just Taiwan? What happens if you need to display a map of a contested area? any represenation you show will raise the hackles of some nation state or other. "Which country it is shouldn't matter much." is an admirable goal, but at the risk of being pessimi…

You simply report/label on a very local level (city/town level) because that's what will really matter for further action. If necessary, report coordinates.

Re: Ask HN: Is it time to start an apolitical, decentralized version of WHO?

#13

Post by PierredeFermat »

MiddTech wrote: post #11
PierredeFermat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the broad definition of what makes something "political", that is definitely the case. No disagreement. However, to not drift this discussion into definitions, I'll agree on your definition of "politics", which - correct me if I'm wrong - is any activity that involves decision making. Let's assume, in that or any case, every decision and action to be political. Then the important question here becomes: how do we m…

Problem with that is that "best possible outcome" is all about perspective. I'm not sure if there is a subjective way to quantify such a thing without first taking a stance. Once you take a stance, the only difference between you and the existing WHO is the particular stance you have taken (assuming it's a different position)

I don't see the problem with taking stances. The very act of thinking about such thing is a stance by itself.

You can simply take stances that would reduce harm, avoid collapse and (optionally) maximize benefit for everyone. The current stance of WHO doesn't seem to be in that realm and something could/should be done about it.

There's no action without a stance.

Re: Ask HN: Is it time to start an apolitical, decentralized version of WHO?

#14

Post by krapp »

PierredeFermat wrote: post #10
krapp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be a policy. Either you deal with Taiwan though China and on China's terms, which is a political position, or you deal with Taiwan on its own terms, which is a political position, or you ignore Taiwan altogether because of the controversy around its status, which is a political position. Choosing to ignore bureacuracies and the press is a political decision. Choosing which data to post and what sources t…

In the broad definition of what makes something "political", that is definitely the case. No disagreement. However, to not drift this discussion into definitions, I'll agree on your definition of "politics", which - correct me if I'm wrong - is any activity that involves decision making. Let's assume, in that or any case, every decision and action to be political. Then the important question here becomes: how do we m…

>I'll agree on your definition of "politics", which - correct me if I'm wrong - is any activity that involves decision making.

I'm actually trying to imply something more realpolitik - that China defines what's political in this case.

Because understand, anything less than fully recognizing that Taiwan is a province under the lawful control of the Chinese government and submitting to that authority means this organization would be recognized by China as extremist and any Taiwanese involved with it would be considered enemies of the state, and censored at best, or arrested at worst. And the more popular and useful this organization became, the harder China would crack down on it.

This is why I'm saying an organization like this can't be apolitical - that's not something the world recognizes or allows.

Re: Ask HN: Is it time to start an apolitical, decentralized version of WHO?

#15

Post by PierredeFermat »

krapp wrote: post #14
PierredeFermat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the broad definition of what makes something "political", that is definitely the case. No disagreement. However, to not drift this discussion into definitions, I'll agree on your definition of "politics", which - correct me if I'm wrong - is any activity that involves decision making. Let's assume, in that or any case, every decision and action to be political. Then the important question here becomes: how do we m…

>I'll agree on your definition of "politics", which - correct me if I'm wrong - is any activity that involves decision making. I'm actually trying to imply something more realpolitik - that China defines what's political in this case. Because understand, anything less than fully recognizing that Taiwan is a province under the lawful control of the Chinese government and submitting to that authority means this organiz…

Data/reporting scope could be made anonymous and more local; on a city/town level (e.g. "Dec 22, 2019 | Severe flu case reported in X district of Wuhan (30°34'21.2"N 114°12'30.0"E) - potential for outbreak").

At high level of exposure, as you said, the Chinese gov may track down anyone behind such report, despite the anonymity. It may even block investigative entry/inquiry to the entire city. How do we solve that? I don't know but I suppose that, in the grand order of things and following this pandemic, we shouldn't be living in a world where any government is allowed to work against such public health efforts and get us into another quagmire that we could have simply avoided, which again rolls back to international relations, politics and trade and is tricky to solve but shouldn't stand in the way of trying these things out. We can't simply give up to the way the world is set up at any point in time.

Re: Ask HN: Is it time to start an apolitical, decentralized version of WHO?

#16

Post by MiddTech »

PierredeFermat wrote: post #13
MiddTech wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with that is that "best possible outcome" is all about perspective. I'm not sure if there is a subjective way to quantify such a thing without first taking a stance. Once you take a stance, the only difference between you and the existing WHO is the particular stance you have taken (assuming it's a different position)

I don't see the problem with taking stances. The very act of thinking about such thing is a stance by itself. You can simply take stances that would reduce harm, avoid collapse and (optionally) maximize benefit for everyone. The current stance of WHO doesn't seem to be in that realm and something could/should be done about it. There's no action without a stance.

I'm not arguing that taking a stance is bad per se, i'm arguing that almost anything you might want to take a stance on is subjective.

As an example: Reduce harm: depends on perspective (define harm?), timeframe, priorities. Avoid collapse of what?, current society? which one? all of them ? Maximise benefit is the same as reduce harm in its subjectiveness and "everyone" is a big ask given that some perspectives on certain points are potentially mutually exclusive.

A somewhat topical example would be:

"Let everyone get covid-19 by not imposing measures designed to stop the spread, that way the stock market takes less of a plunge because [Insert economic reasons here]" vs "Impose measures to follow the model that most analysis(from current data) agrees will minimise the loss of life, at the cost of the stock market taking a hit"

How do you maximise benefit for both parties in that case? only impose half off the measures? who decides what is the fair middle ground ?

Re: Ask HN: Is it time to start an apolitical, decentralized version of WHO?

#18

Post by dragonwriter »

PierredeFermat wrote: post #7
krapp wrote: post #5

What would this organization's apolitical policy be regarding Taiwan?

Close coordination with the Chinese government :) No, there would (almost) be no policy. That's the point. It's one planet - one health. Which country it is shouldn't matter much. If a severe case was reported by medical staff in Taiwan, North Korea or where ever it would/should instantly show as potential breakout warning signal on some webpage or dashboard, without having to travel weeks through broken bureaucracie…

> If a severe case was reported by medical staff

How do you, without any policy or political positions, determine what is or is not “medical staff”?

Re: Ask HN: Is it time to start an apolitical, decentralized version of WHO?

#19

Post by dragonwriter »

PierredeFermat wrote: post #3
aww_dang wrote: post #2

How do you propose to keep it apolitical? Even Wikipedia has a political slant. I agree with your concerns, but I don't know if what you propose can keep politics out. It is still probably worth a shot either way.

Not entirely sure yet. However, that's exactly why verified, anonymous data reporting would be a good starting point. But I assume your concerns are more about [the difficulty of] neutral funding?

> However, that's exactly why verified, anonymous data reporting would be a good starting point

Verification is probably the first place that the apolitical goal falls apart.

Re: Ask HN: Is it time to start an apolitical, decentralized version of WHO?

#20

Post by kleer001 »

Sounds great. I love it. Sadly I fear that's not really how humans work. Very motivated, intelligent, and well meaning humans have been trying for centuries to decouple function from politics. It's not going to be solved by any technology or technique we have today.

But that's only my ignorant opinion.

Post reply on HN