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

Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 127 posts

Re: Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

#71

Post by fulafel »

Interesting that the comments here aren't more critical of the decision.

Does the idea of improving the WHO by withholding money come from some kind of shared "starving the beast" logic or is it just a revenge kind of reflex that doesn't even have any positive expected outcome?

Eg the travel restrictions position[1], taken as an example in the article, appears to have been be defensible and a mainstream position in the field. It may turn out to be wrong or not in hindsight, like many things in this pandemic, but it's no reason to try to harm the organisation.

[1] "Evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations" in February, https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...

Re: Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

#72

Post by henearkr »

ksk wrote: post #50
conanbatt wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WHO arguably made the pandemic worse by discouraging the use of masks, propagating information that turned out to be false and dangerous saying there was no human-to-human interaction and generally sided with china in the informational flow. Easier to ignore the WHO if you don't give them any money.

If masks are so amazing, how come we don't see Fauci or any of the other experts regularly wearing masks?

In some other countries they do, especially in Europe.

Re: Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

#73

Post by nikofeyn »

IfIEverCatchYou wrote: post #66
nikofeyn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is coming from an administration that lies with nearly every word, and they aren't even constructed lies. they are lies equivalent to what you make up on the spot when you forget your proverbial homework. it really isn't surprising. this administration commits treason on a daily basis, as they repeatedly throw the entire country under the bus for their own gain. it is truly sickening.

If you haven't already, would you mind reading about HN's approach to comments and site guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

there is no deep untruth in what i said, and i said it civilly.

you should read the guidelines because i find your newly created username to be disturbing.

Re: Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

#74

Post by dragonwriter »

cjbprime wrote: post #15
_bxg1 wrote: post #14

Lots of commenters have pointed out a pattern of increasing failures and shortcoming by the WHO, which I wasn't aware of, but I still have to think: don't we need a centralized touchstone for these kinds of crises? Even if the WHO needs to be dismantled and rebuilt, isn't a dysfunctional one better than nothing at all?

It's only "better than nothing at all" if you assume that any action it could take is better than doing nothing. That doesn't seem to have been true recently to me. Was https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=19 better than nothing?

> Was https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=19 better than nothing?

It was certainly better than Trump calling the disease a hoax concocted by the his political opponents including the media, so whatever problems WHO may have on COVID-19 response, Donald Trump is in no position to criticize.

Re: Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

#75

Post by craftinator »

henearkr wrote: post #26
craftinator wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious question: what does the WHO do with all of the funding it gets? It receives funding from many nations and individuals, in no small amount. If it doesn't have labs to do testing... What exactly does it do with that funding?

After searching on WHO site, it seems that they do surveys of each countries health system, and pushing them to develop steady healthcare systems, and to adapt their practices to available medical knowledge. The pushing of WHO to develop healthcare available including to the poorest may have been what Trump disliked, after all. The WHO seems to compensate partly for the absence of universal healthcare in the poorest…

Interesting, thanks for the summary. I had no idea they did direct investment, though that seems like the only way to improve health in some parts of the world.

Re: Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

#76

Post by abjKT26nO8 »

sn41 wrote: post #4

I wish this kind of hard bargaining is postponed till the present crisis is over. A lot of poor people in the world are eager to get back to their normal lives and livelihoods. WHO has been proactive, even though late, in co-ordinating with governments to get serious with their actions.

> WHO has been proactive, even though late,

According to Merriam-Webster[1]:

«proactive» · acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proactive

Re: Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

#77

Post by henearkr »

fulafel wrote: post #71

Interesting that the comments here aren't more critical of the decision. Does the idea of improving the WHO by withholding money come from some kind of shared "starving the beast" logic or is it just a revenge kind of reflex that doesn't even have any positive expected outcome? Eg the travel restrictions position[1], taken as an example in the article, appears to have been be defensible and a mainstream position in t…

Especially that the WHO is just a sum of its participating countries, so removing its big US part will just make it weaker and that's it, nothing more.

Also, it they think the WHO was not good, the US should, as a huge contributor (which means bringing a lot of US experts and administrators to the organ), point to solutions to improve it. Deciding to cut the funds is completely illogical.

Re: Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

#78

Post by Rury »

henearkr wrote: post #70
Rury wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they did anything necessarily wrong with that tweet. Just that it wasn't substantial.

But does it justify to cut their funds? They published a status of non-knowledge, easily misinterpreted. And sometimes later they published more alarmist statuses. It is quite normal to be wrong sometimes, even in science-related establishments.

Well if you want my opinion, I don't think they're particularly at fault for others inability to interpret what they meant by that tweet. I find that tweet to be pretty clear, but also nothing noteworthy. Don't see how we're better off than had they simply not tweeted it. Again, I don't think we're necessarily worse off, just not better off.

I was just responding to the comment above mine, which asked "what did they do", and tried to show that was probably the point the poster above that was making.

As to the main topic? I mostly think this is just more petty distraction, deflection, and pointing fingers. But, I do think it's worth considering what the WHO's purpose is and whether or not it's serving that purpose sufficiently. As to how I feel about cutting funds, I'm not sure yet...

Re: Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

#79

Post by ksk »

henearkr wrote: post #72
ksk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If masks are so amazing, how come we don't see Fauci or any of the other experts regularly wearing masks?

In some other countries they do, especially in Europe.

I'm a little suspicious when the real experts don't wear masks, and the internet experts berate you over the head for not wearing one.

Re: Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization

#80

Post by henearkr »

Rury wrote: post #78
henearkr wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does it justify to cut their funds? They published a status of non-knowledge, easily misinterpreted. And sometimes later they published more alarmist statuses. It is quite normal to be wrong sometimes, even in science-related establishments.

Well if you want my opinion, I don't think they're particularly at fault for others inability to interpret what they meant by that tweet. I find that tweet to be pretty clear, but also nothing noteworthy. Don't see how we're better off than had they simply not tweeted it. Again, I don't think we're necessarily worse off, just not better off. I was just responding to the comment above mine, which asked "what did they…

In this case, the situation is that they communicate a lot and most of their communications are frankly beneficial to the world. Some of their publications are not, as we saw here. Considering the whole, it is better than nothing.
Post reply on HN