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

The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

text.npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 135 posts

Re: The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

#91

Post by garmaine »

jacquesm wrote: post #87
garmaine wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I called out the gatekeeping job of the FDA specifically. The agency does two things: (1) blacklist food products with deceptive or harmful ingredients or advertising, and (2) whitelist the medications you’re allowed to put in your body, with or without the assistance of a doctor. It’s (2) that is the problem. With informed consent, you should be allowed to put whatever you want in your body without going to jail. It…

(2) is not a problem, it is to prevent problems. If you think (2) is a problem you are probably doing something very stupid.

History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...

Re: The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

#92

Post by jacquesm »

garmaine wrote: post #91
jacquesm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(2) is not a problem, it is to prevent problems. If you think (2) is a problem you are probably doing something very stupid.

History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...

Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.

Re: The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

#93

Post by garmaine »

jacquesm wrote: post #92
garmaine wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...

Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.

Then google “fda aids drugs” and pick your favorite source. This is, at this point 30 years removed, a non-political historical issue with objective facts.

Re: The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

#94

Post by dirtyid »

philliphaydon wrote: post #86
dirtyid wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries that did well responsibly implemented WHOs basic epidemiologic principes of test, trace, isolate to contain spread - 101 epidemiological strategy WHO recommended. Including NZ. Import statistic numbers of covid cases oringated from PRC has demosntrated it was managable because PRC never allowed it to get bad in the first place via draconian lock downs. CCP quarantined entire province of Wuhan, they did more…

> Countries that did well responsibly implemented WHOs basic epidemiologic principes of test, trace, isolate to contain spread - 101 epidemiological strategy WHO recommended. Including NZ. NZ and Taiwan didn't follow WHO in the early days. Going against all the recommendations of the WHO of not using masks, not closing boarders, not locking down. And both countries did super well at controlling the pandemic. > CCP qu…

>NZ and Taiwan didn't follow WHO in the early days

They followed the basic test/trace/isolate advocated by WHO seriously, mask was additional prevention layer from basic common sense that Asians including PRC already were doing. BTW PRC was also advocating mask wearing in their "propaganda". TW itself got a chance to act early due to warning by PRC doctors due to cross strait connections. Same info avail to west via backchannels. Again, import case statistics from TW/NZ demonstrated PRC exported less than a few hundred cases to these places TOTAL, which would have been completely managable with a competent isolation system. The entire time they had continous repatriation flights from PRC, as did many other countries that handled covid well directly as result of CCP handling covid well.

> The whole time lying about the number of cases, and the seriousness.

Yet you list actions of how CCP took covid MORE seriously then and now than basically anyone else. Again import case statistics from "transparent" nations demonstrated early covid numbers in Wuhan/Hubei were completely managable -TW,SK,Singapore,AU,NZ,CA all released import case stats daily, and PRC essentially stopped exporting cases a few cases after Hubei lockdown. There's a reason vast number of patient zero and import cases in most of the world came from western countries who didn't take epidemic prevention seriously. PRC did her part, include blocking outbound flight early, except repatriation flights, because you know, they can't keep foreign citizens trapped in country. And the countries that didn't take screening fucked themselves, i.e. countries that just took quarantine theatre temperature checks while letting folks go home with little followup. Their profound lack of seriousness turned a managable situation unmanagable.

> There was no propaganda started by the US.

Politicized by Tom Cotton and republican peers in early Feburary i.e. endorsed by US political establishment before PRC formally responded with Fort Detrick campaign. Doesn't matter how MSM treat it as conspiracy, it was formal propaganda position drive initiated by republicans, supported at the highest level of office, including campaigns by lying Pompeo.

Re: The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

#95

Post by ethbr0 »

jacquesm wrote: post #90
throwawaysea wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Coupled with the fact that SARS-CoV-2 has proven that even the most stringent border lockdowns fail in the face of highly transmissible, asymptomatic threats. Which makes this an "everyone" problem instead of a "head in the sand is okay" one. The “most stringent border lockdowns” didn’t happen, at least not in a timely way. The WHO is one reason why - even at the end of January 2020 they recommended against countri…

in January 2020, nobody, including you thought this was going to go as far and as fast as it did. By then, very likely the cat was already out of the bag and a worldwide travel ban would have helped but would not have prevented the pandemic outright. Was this a mistake? Yes, because that decision violates the cautionary principle when dealing with novel diseases. The WHO was concerned with being found to be 'alarmist…

It's the cancelling school (or work) for snow problem in a nutshell.

If you cancel, and there is no snow, you've caused economic damage, which has very real health consequences.

If you don't cancel, and there is heavy snow, you've caused physical damage, with very real health consequences.

Implementing full international pandemic prevention protocols in a timely manner was probably realistically impossible, given it's never been done in the 21st century.

But beyond that, it's questionable whether making the decision at the time, knowing what was known about SARS-CoV-2, was even a justifiable call. For the reasons you mentioned.

And not just because of the alarmist factor, but because of very real (and sometimes lethal) consequences of implementing them. And I don't think there was a case for preemptively being that aggressive, given MERS and SARS-CoV-1 were both regionally contained.

Re: The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

#96

Post by toolz »

jacquesm wrote: post #92
garmaine wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...

Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.

It really is disheartening to see such willful political bias. The article in question spends much of its time talking about the "ACT UP" movement, which was a movement headed by LGBQT political activists marching against the FDA, yet here you are brushing it off as if this is some partisan issue because it's an article written by someone with different political bias than yourself.

Re: The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

#97

Post by jacquesm »

toolz wrote: post #96
jacquesm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.

It really is disheartening to see such willful political bias. The article in question spends much of its time talking about the "ACT UP" movement, which was a movement headed by LGBQT political activists marching against the FDA, yet here you are brushing it off as if this is some partisan issue because it's an article written by someone with different political bias than yourself.

You're quite literally hilarious. Before you accuse me of political bias maybe you should have a look to see who you're arguing with.

The fact that the article has nicely picked a subject where they can score points off the FDA doesn't mean that all of the FDA, nor its mission of attempting to stop people from harming themselves is wrong per se, just that they got it wrong in that particular instance.

To try to twist that into saying that drug regulation is a bad thing and that consenting adults should be able to put whatever they want into their bodies is precisely the kind of idiocy that the CATO institute is very good at.

And just this once you're not going to get away with accusing the other side of your argument from having a political bias.

Re: The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

#98

Post by jacquesm »

garmaine wrote: post #93
jacquesm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.

Then google “fda aids drugs” and pick your favorite source. This is, at this point 30 years removed, a non-political historical issue with objective facts.

No, there is simply many years of progressive insight. The FDA, like any institution isn't perfect, they got stuff wrong in the past, they'll get stuff wrong in the future. But overall they are a very large net positive, and to argue the opposite is usually accompanied by a mindset that would love a world without all those pesky rules and regulations.

Re: The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

#99

Post by philliphaydon »

dirtyid wrote: post #94
philliphaydon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Countries that did well responsibly implemented WHOs basic epidemiologic principes of test, trace, isolate to contain spread - 101 epidemiological strategy WHO recommended. Including NZ. NZ and Taiwan didn't follow WHO in the early days. Going against all the recommendations of the WHO of not using masks, not closing boarders, not locking down. And both countries did super well at controlling the pandemic. > CCP qu…

>NZ and Taiwan didn't follow WHO in the early days They followed the basic test/trace/isolate advocated by WHO seriously, mask was additional prevention layer from basic common sense that Asians including PRC already were doing. BTW PRC was also advocating mask wearing in their "propaganda". TW itself got a chance to act early due to warning by PRC doctors due to cross strait connections. Same info avail to west via…

> They followed the basic test/trace/isolate advocated by WHO seriously

No. TW started inspecting flights from Wuhan before the WHO even did anything. NZ blocked inbound flights while the WHO was figuring out what to do.

> TW itself got a chance to act early due to warning by PRC doctors due to cross strait connections.

No. Taiwan heard whispers of SARS/Unknown pneumonia and reacted accordingly.

> Again, import case statistics from TW/NZ demonstrated PRC exported less than a few hundred cases to these places TOTAL

No. NZ closed its border to China in Feb. TW closed its border for flights from Wuhan. China stopped domestic flights from Wuhan but continued to allow flights out of Wuhan. This has nothing to do with "they can't keep foreign citizens trapped in country", because 1) they can and 2) they do.

> Yet you list actions of how CCP took covid MORE seriously then and now than basically anyone else.

So you agree that welding people into their apartments is a good approach to controlling the virus?

> Politicized by Tom Cotton and republican peers in early Feburary

It was a valid theory, and still is. Was never a conspiracy theory to anyone but the left. While nothing from the PRC has been anything other than propaganda conspiracy theory. The lab leak theory should have been taken seriously in the beginning when it was theorized at the beginning of Jan.

Re: The WHO is seeking a new treaty on handling future pandemics

#100

Post by ergocoder »

nscalf wrote: post #12

An honest question, how do you feel about the WHO? I personally have severe distrust in them, at least the leadership. They have show they are heavily influenced by China, and that should be enough to remove them. They really botched early covid.

WHO started recommending masks for everyone in June. Fucking June 2020.

They are incompetent.

Post reply on HN