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

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

#31

Post by tcbasche » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 5:14 AM UTC

PierredeFermat wrote: post #28

bjourne wrote: post #21

I can only speak for myself, but the "red flags" that you speak of [1-5] aren't very convincing to me. That there are errors in WHOs data isn't surprising, nor that it needs to make pragmatic decisions in trying to get authoritarian regimes to cooperate. That WHOs guidance sometimes is confusing is what you'd expect from a world-wide organization in large part made up of volunteers run on a relatively tiny budget. Un…

I don't think we should just give up to the fact that it's normal to have errors coming from these big Orgs operating at such a sensitive front. Look what some small errors and delays are doing. If an organisation gets too big to keep its act together, perhaps it's time to make it more decentralized and dynamic (the original proposition). I also honestly don't think working as a volunteer would really get you to unde…

> perhaps it's time to make it more decentralized and dynamic (the original proposition)

Honestly, what does that even mean? Wouldn't it be even more chaotic?

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

#32

Post by tcbasche » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 5:16 AM UTC

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…

> let's make the good ones with the best possible outcome, regardless of their nature/definition.

Is that the best possible outcome to Taiwan? or to China? Because arguably 'best' in this case is subjective

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

#33

Post by kleer001 » Wed, Apr 01, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

PierredeFermat wrote: post #25

kleer001 wrote: post #20

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.

I don't think it's an ignorant opinion. How do you imagine it being solved?

I don't have the hubris to suggest anything.

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

#34

Post by MiddTech » Sun, Apr 05, 2020, 2:17 PM UTC

PierredeFermat wrote: post #23

MiddTech wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ce…

I think you already pushed the scenario too far. The best measure to the example you gave is clearly the one we arrived at now. Complete lockdown. Worldwide. There's no discussion about its subjectivity. But the original point/motivation was to avoid getting here in the first place: identify and report potential breakouts early enough. The WHO was too late on this because of the way it's set up and that contributed t…

I agree with you on that first part , it was a contrived example to illustrate the point, but in practical terms, not so helpful.

I also agree with subjectivity as being it's own interesting topic of conversation.

Universal imperitive to prevent outbreaks having no possible subjectivity though? that's just bait.