W.H.O. (are you), WHO WHO

[C-Mag]

January 31
The WHO telling the world, Everything's cool, keep up normal travel and trade.

The World Health Organization, which declared the outbreak a global health emergency this week, has recommended against any travel or trade restrictions in response to the outbreak. Member countries, however, do not have to comply with that guidance.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/31/as- ... ld-suffer/

Thank goodness for Experts.

That's pretty much in line with how most governments at that time also communicated. What would you expect them to have recommended instead, with the data they had available at the time?

I expect my experts in communicative diseases to be able to tell us early on the veracity of pathogens.

They clearly are not up to the task and have failed the world.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

How is anyone supposed to be an expert on a NOVEL disease?

You get the data as it becomes available.

[heydaralon]

I don't know what to say. If you think that organizations dedicated to being a platform for international diplomacy and information sharing are pointless, then there isn't anything I can say that is going to convince you otherwise.

However, saying that they are useless BECAUSE bad agents will hide their bad agency is like saying police and justice systems are pointless because criminals will always lie about their crimes.

Well, if every criminal could hide their crimes from the cops more or less without consequences, it would sort of raise questions about the purpose of having the police agency. It would leave two options:

1) Give the police more power (the police being the UN, so we are probably in agreement that's not what we want to do)
2) Disband the ineffective law enforcement agency and figure out other ways to deal with the problem.

Not all police work is punitive. Investigation is important, but often flawed, just as with the UN, but that doesn't make it useless. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Diplomatic relations are another a hallmark of the best police forces.

There are also nations who do respond to threat of sanction from international bodies.

What you gave me is one of your classic false dilemmas. But, again, if you don't see the use of a diplomatic organization then there is not much to say.

What are some of my other false dilemnas?

As far as investigative work, I will give you an example. North Korea let in UN inspectors during its famine in the 90's. It did not take them to any of the villages where people were eating grass and bark and dropping like flies. It took them to a Potemkin village. Then it kept taking them back to that village over and over again and insisting that it had shown them multiple ones. It would not let anyone from the UN who spoke Korean into the country. The famine continued and the same regime is in power today.

Israel was building nukes in the Demona plant back in the 60's and the UN wanted to visit. It would not show them certain areas. When they'd come back later the Israelis would use every excuse in the book saying, "Its a jewish holiday," or "We are fumingating that place" or whatever. Eventually Israel got nukes.

Since the UN is fundamentally toothless, they really can't compell these countries (even rogue states like NK have China as a tenuous partner which would veto action) because they always have a Security council protector. So to me, it seems like the investigative aspect of this law enforcement agency is also very questionable.

I guess you could point to Somalia as a sort of rare outlier where the UN came in. But that was a disaster. It accomplished nothing besides giving some local warlords grain to use as a means of control for the starving population. They have no real successes from what I can tell.

As far as diplomacy goes, what is stopping America from unilaterally sending diplomats to China, or Zimbabwe, or Belgium? Diplomacy has been conducted for as long as humans have had groups and for all but 70 of those years the UN didn't exist. Diplomacy wouldn't stop just because the UN ceased to exist.

[C-Mag]

How is anyone supposed to be an expert on a NOVEL disease?

You get the data as it becomes available.

No, they made it very clear to us that they are experts and we have to listen to the experts.

[DBTrek]

Perhaps in the future China will not be trusted to act in good faith when it comes to sharing public health information. Perhaps we will come up with better operations to secure the movement of goods without putting people in harms way.

Learning and problem solving are what lead to expertise, not being right all the time.

Perhaps the next global health organization will succeed where the WHO has failed?


Subsidizing failure makes sense when you expect, as you say, experts to learn from their mistakes and improve. Does the WHO strike you as an organization striving to learn from its errors, or one which perceives no errors?

[C-Mag]

I've got Monte arguing Trump didn't do enough early and Hanarchy arguing the Experts couldn't have known the veracity of COVID19.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Well, if every criminal could hide their crimes from the cops more or less without consequences, it would sort of raise questions about the purpose of having the police agency. It would leave two options:

1) Give the police more power (the police being the UN, so we are probably in agreement that's not what we want to do)
2) Disband the ineffective law enforcement agency and figure out other ways to deal with the problem.

Not all police work is punitive. Investigation is important, but often flawed, just as with the UN, but that doesn't make it useless. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Diplomatic relations are another a hallmark of the best police forces.

There are also nations who do respond to threat of sanction from international bodies.

What you gave me is one of your classic false dilemmas. But, again, if you don't see the use of a diplomatic organization then there is not much to say.

What are some of my other false dilemnas?

As far as investigative work, I will give you an example. North Korea let in UN inspectors during its famine in the 90's. It did not take them to any of the villages where people were eating grass and bark and dropping like flies. It took them to a Potemkin village. Then it kept taking them back to that village over and over again and insisting that it had shown them multiple ones. It would not let anyone from the UN who spoke Korean into the country. The famine continued and the same regime is in power today.

Israel was building nukes in the Demona plant back in the 60's and the UN wanted to visit. It would not show them certain areas. When they'd come back later the Israelis would use every excuse in the book saying, "Its a jewish holiday," or "We are fumingating that place" or whatever. Eventually Israel got nukes.

Since the UN is fundamentally toothless, they really can't compell these countries (even rogue states like NK have China as a tenuous partner which would veto action) because they always have a Security council protector. So to me, it seems like the investigative aspect of this law enforcement agency is also very questionable.

I guess you could point to Somalia as a sort of rare outlier where the UN came in. But that was a disaster. It accomplished nothing besides giving some local warlords grain to use as a means of control for the starving population. They have no real successes from what I can tell.

As far as diplomacy goes, what is stopping America from unilaterally sending diplomats to China, or Zimbabwe, or Belgium? Diplomacy has been conducted for as long as humans have had groups and for all but 70 of those years the UN didn't exist. Diplomacy wouldn't stop just because the UN ceased to exist.

I'm sorry, that was the royal "your." It was just folksy - not "your" as in you personally do it frequently.

As for the rest, global diplomacy is a constant and complicated struggle, and will be marred with failures. If you don't think a somewhat independent venue for diplomacy is a good idea, that is fine.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Perhaps in the future China will not be trusted to act in good faith when it comes to sharing public health information. Perhaps we will come up with better operations to secure the movement of goods without putting people in harms way.

Learning and problem solving are what lead to expertise, not being right all the time.

Perhaps the next global health organization will succeed where the WHO has failed?


Subsidizing failure makes sense when you expect, as you say, experts to learn from their mistakes and improve. Does the WHO strike you as an organization striving to learn from its errors, or one which perceives no errors?

I think it might be prudent to build a new global health org, or vastly restructure the current one. But, I don't think I would take on that task during an ongoing crises.

You go to war with the army you have, amirite?

[Montegriffo]

I told you to watch how Monte responds. TDS will eventually be a diagnosed psychiatric condition.

Calling someone deranged every time they point to what they see as errors, lies or deflections, sure that's how to have a grown-up conversation about world events.

I’m speaking as a doctor. You speak as a TDS sufferer.

There you go again. If you want to pick apart my arguments like DB does I can get into a discussion with you. If you are just going to call me deranged there is nowhere for me to go.
At this point you are no better than Capps.

[C-Mag]

Perhaps in the future China will not be trusted to act in good faith when it comes to sharing public health information. Perhaps we will come up with better operations to secure the movement of goods without putting people in harms way.

Learning and problem solving are what lead to expertise, not being right all the time.

Perhaps the next global health organization will succeed where the WHO has failed?


Subsidizing failure makes sense when you expect, as you say, experts to learn from their mistakes and improve. Does the WHO strike you as an organization striving to learn from its errors, or one which perceives no errors?

The WHO and CDC leadership are nothing but Sophists