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

101–110 of 135 posts

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

#101

Post by toolz »

jacquesm wrote: post #97
toolz wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think anyone was trying to do anything other than "score points off the FDA" - which is to say, you apparently agree the article is a good source for showing the FDA has had obvious failures in the past.

> ...you should have a look to see who you're arguing with.

Am I supposed to recognize you somehow? Either way, I don't really know how to react to this - is your blog or the companies you're affiliated with supposed to make you immune to political bias somehow? You'll have to forgive me as my initial impression was that you're trying to flex on the internet, but I feel like that's a very uncharitable interpretation on my part so I'll default to assuming that's the wrong interpretation.

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

#102

Post by garmaine »

jacquesm wrote: post #97
toolz wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Whatever you may think of yourself, you have demonstrated severe political bias in this thread by outright dismissing articles without reading them based on the perceived politics of the hosting organization.

FWIW I didn’t know or care the source of the article I shared. I just literally picked the first result in google that covered the history of ACT UP and the FDA, after skimming to make sure it seemed accurate.

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

#103

Post by dirtyid »

philliphaydon wrote: post #99
dirtyid wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

NZ blocked flights to China in early Feb after Wuhan was already locked down. TW was informed about unknown pneumonia directly from PRC doctors around time when WHO was notified in Dec 2019. Both responded to completely salient signals provided by PRC.

>1) they can and 2) they do

For breaking PRC laws, not epidemic prevention. At end of day, countries wanted to repatriate and PRC obliged. It's asinine to suggest PRC can with hold foreign nationals, as if that won't spark a completely different kind of outrage. Obviously said criminals who broke PRC laws weren't repatriated. TW citizens from Wuhan was repatriated via rail to Shanghai. TW CDC had up to date release of repatriation flights and positives. Up till Aprial, TW repatraitaed about ~1000 out of Wuhan with 1 testing positive on an early Feburary flight. That's it. Because Hubei lock down was that effective.

> good approach to controlling the virus

Covid-0 strategy is probably the right one for PRC. More importantly it demonstrates containing covid was absolutely a viable. But other relatively milder intervention stratgies also possible as seen in other successful countries that adhered to basic WHO guidelines who didn't resort to PRC tier interventions. They were just slightly less successful. Even TW response barely ranks well when measured against other PRC provinces. Taking pandemic response seriously is correlated to serious results should not be shocking.

> was a valid theory

About as valid as Fort Detrick at the time (and now). Point is early lab leak propaganda was just that, propaganda designed to policized for Sino-US rivalry when origin tracing hasn't even begun and hampered subsequent efforts. PRC position has always been to let science handle origin tracing which in terms of propaganda is tame. Reality apart from delays around two-sessions in Jan PRC has provided more than enough info and signals for most serious actors to contain covid19 depite virus already spreading abroad prior to two-sessions or detection of market cluster. Or that there's still zero indication covid19 originated in PRC vs PRC discovering first cluster. Lot's of valid theories out there, but what gets pushed by whom and when and for what purpose is how things get politicized and what treaty is designed to mitigate.

At the end of the day CCP + WHO did fine, because those that took them seriously (like actually seriously) did Ok. Those that didn't, burned and have been looking for escape goats to their own failure.

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

#104

Post by jacquesm »

toolz wrote: post #101
jacquesm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think anyone was trying to do anything other than "score points off the FDA" - which is to say, you apparently agree the article is a good source for showing the FDA has had obvious failures in the past. > ...you should have a look to see who you're arguing with. Am I supposed to recognize you somehow? Either way, I don't really know how to react to this - is your blog or the companies you're affiliated with…

Unlike you I'm not an anonymous coward.

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

#105

Post by jacquesm »

garmaine wrote: post #102
jacquesm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Whatever you may think of yourself, you have demonstrated severe political bias in this thread by outright dismissing articles without reading them based on the perceived politics of the hosting organization. FWIW I didn’t know or care the source of the article I shared. I just literally picked the first result in google that covered the history of ACT UP and the FDA, after skimming to make sure it seemed accurate.

> I just literally picked the first result in google that covered the history of ACT UP and the FDA, after skimming to make sure it seemed accurate.

Ah, the good old 'argument by google search'. Yes, what could possibly go wrong with that. You are now arguing in bad faith, I hope you appreciate at least that much.

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

#106

Post by garmaine »

jacquesm wrote: post #105
garmaine wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever you may think of yourself, you have demonstrated severe political bias in this thread by outright dismissing articles without reading them based on the perceived politics of the hosting organization. FWIW I didn’t know or care the source of the article I shared. I just literally picked the first result in google that covered the history of ACT UP and the FDA, after skimming to make sure it seemed accurate.

> I just literally picked the first result in google that covered the history of ACT UP and the FDA, after skimming to make sure it seemed accurate. Ah, the good old 'argument by google search'. Yes, what could possibly go wrong with that. You are now arguing in bad faith, I hope you appreciate at least that much.

How am I arguing in bad faith?

I’m deeply familiar with the actions of the FDA during the AIDS crisis, having studied it in college, read books, watched documentaries, etc. But I can’t convey that info through a HN comment, so I sought out an internet article which I first skimmed to make sure it got the facts straight before linking to. Did I violate some convention of discourse on HN in doing so?

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

#107

Post by golemotron »

ethbr0 wrote: post #79
golemotron wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emergency powers from the Patriot Act are still in effect. The problem this pandemic (and pandemics in general) is that there is no defined end and no one seems to be willing to create one. It is either a certain number of deaths per million or zero (eradication), which would put us in smallpox territory - about two centuries.

"The fact that humans are the only reservoir for smallpox infection and that carriers did not exist, played a significant role in the eradication of smallpox." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication SARS-CoV-2 eradication is probably impossible.

Yup. And that's why I would not want to see a treaty. Better to have nations acting independently of each other at the policy level, learning from each other's experiences. It's like a market where nations can explore different tradeoffs in how they declare an end or live with it.

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

#108

Post by golemotron »

tcmart14 wrote: post #80
golemotron wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emergency powers from the Patriot Act are still in effect. The problem this pandemic (and pandemics in general) is that there is no defined end and no one seems to be willing to create one. It is either a certain number of deaths per million or zero (eradication), which would put us in smallpox territory - about two centuries.

I do think the patriot act is a good counter example. However I think this is probably because of the point you made in the second paragraph. "There is no defined end." This is true, with COVID and the patriot act. Unfortunately, I think a reason why is because if someone defines and end point, it comes and various things are repealed and something happens, it is a career ender. Taking the Patriot Act as an example b…

I agree, and it is largely unfixable. An additional problem comes in when people profit from the emergency powers being in place. Someone always will. Profit isn't only monetary.

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

#109

Post by toolz »

garmaine wrote: post #106
jacquesm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just literally picked the first result in google that covered the history of ACT UP and the FDA, after skimming to make sure it seemed accurate. Ah, the good old 'argument by google search'. Yes, what could possibly go wrong with that. You are now arguing in bad faith, I hope you appreciate at least that much.

How am I arguing in bad faith? I’m deeply familiar with the actions of the FDA during the AIDS crisis, having studied it in college, read books, watched documentaries, etc. But I can’t convey that info through a HN comment, so I sought out an internet article which I first skimmed to make sure it got the facts straight before linking to. Did I violate some convention of discourse on HN in doing so?

You're not arguing in bad faith. You're being gaslit by someone who has already devolved to name calling in this thread.

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

#110

Post by philliphaydon »

dirtyid wrote: post #103
philliphaydon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

NZ blocked flights to China in early Feb after Wuhan was already locked down. TW was informed about unknown pneumonia directly from PRC doctors around time when WHO was notified in Dec 2019. Both responded to completely salient signals provided by PRC. >1) they can and 2) they do For breaking PRC laws, not epidemic prevention. At end of day, countries wanted to repatriate and PRC obliged. It's asinine to suggest PRC…

> TW was informed about unknown pneumonia directly from PRC doctors around time when WHO was notified in Dec 2019.

I'm gonna stop here because I'm pretty convinced now you're just a CCP sympathizer.

TW was NOT told directly by PRC doctors.

> His colleagues in the media monitoring unit had detected social media posts about a pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan. The original posts in China were quickly removed, but screenshots had been reposted on PTT, a popular online forum in Taiwan. Some commenters feared a resurgence of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which had killed 774 people in 2002 and 2003, mostly in Asia.

Stop spreading lies and false information about COVID and trying to cover up for the WHO and CCP.

Post reply on HN