That’s true, thanks to Nial Ferguson.
I was worried for a moment, but it turns out we do have a fax emoji!
1 Like
Note: The first line of the following paragraph may contain sarcastic intent.
It’s that irresistable affable charm and wit. But let’s not digress from the topic. We touched on the topic of the third world poor and how the Coronavirus affects supply chains a bit, and it is clear you show concern for those affected by global poverty. Can I ask what solutions you might endorse for dealing with this?
As you haven’t quoted me I, and other posters, can only see your side of any argument. If there was one.
Solutions for global poverty? That’s a tough one. Am I a bad person if I don’t have any clear answers that can be condensed into an online post?
1 Like
Hence the deafening silence, or maybe yáll are busy with important burger bizniz.
(I love it when a cliche comes together)
Or maybe I’m not sure what you mean 
What was your point exactly? No offense, but it’s a bit hard to tell at times. It’s not my intent or desire to tell you how to speak, but as long as you’re asking me, for one, why you didn’t get a response, I think it’s worth mentioning that you could be a bit more direct.
For those interested in the actual complexities and issues at stake with WHO and its nuanced relationship with the controlling member states, this is a very in-depth read (sorry-more than 280 characters)
Particularly notable section:
"That the agency is too beholden to one of its more powerful members is not a new charge — what’s different is that the country usually accused of throwing its weight around is the U.S.
The WHO has attracted “significant criticism from many countries that it has seemed to be beholden to the United States for decades,” said Adam Kamradt-Scott, a University of Sydney specialist in the WHO and in responses to disease outbreaks. The idea that it “switched its loyalties to China is really quite comical,” he added.
It’s also not the first time that world leaders have called on the WHO to take a more aggressive stance on countries that seem to be concealing outbreaks.
Tedros’ stance on China draws frequent comparisons to that of Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former Norwegian prime minister who served as head of the WHO from 1998 to 2003.
In 2003, Brundtland publicly called China out for hiding the SARS outbreak, a major shift in the agency’s traditional approach.
The WHO “has not historically criticized governments when they do the wrong thing,” said Kamradt-Scott.
Initially, countries applauded Brundtland’s assertiveness. The initial impulse was to give the WHO more power to investigate how countries were dealing with outbreaks. (There’s a similar campaign afoot today, led by Australia, likely to be a hot topic at the WHO’s annual assembly of member countries starting May 18.)
But then it dawned on the diplomats: “Imagine if it’s you next time,” said Kamradt-Scott.
The final result was to do just the opposite, and prevent WHO directors general from unilaterally taking action against a country.
The International Health Regulation, adopted in 2005, put new limits on the WHO chief’s authority. Instead, an emergencies committee offers recommendations about whether to issue travel restrictions or declare a public health emergency.
It’s with this precedent in mind that Tedros has taken his softer approach on Beijing.
“His view is if you publicly criticize China, they’re going to become less transparent,” said Gostin.
Schwartländer, who ran the WHO’s office in China for four years before joining Tedros’ leadership team, said public statements may not reflect the tenor of private discussions. “As a principle, we are impartial and we work with everybody. You want to solve the problem, and usually it’s much more efficient and effective to solve them in a direct discussion rather than through a tweet.”
Still, he did not rule public criticism out completely: “If a country is not responding, engaging or cooperating, publicly raising the issues that there is a stalemate could of course be a resort.”"
And in the interest of full info about the WHO funding issue, there is this:
1 Like
Could be, though I’m not sure that’s incompatible with the Burger Bizniz hypothesis. I think the two (phenomena) things might (be associated)(be linked) go together like a hearse and carnage.
If prefacing an explanation of my point with “My point was” as above, doesn’'t do it, I’m not sure what will.
Plus I find when I’m direct I tend to get temped, y’know?
Maybe, instead of sticking to third grade sentences (which would frankly be too irritating, plus I have an irrational fear I might start calling petrol “gas”) I could make more use of bolding, so that readers of a Ronald Reagan persuasion (that might be a military-intelligence stylee oxymoron, come to think on’t) could cut to the chase?
Thus-wize
IF that anecdote saved Taiwan, then by extension, CCP open-ness saved Taiwan.
Nah. You still have to read it. Can’t have Youtube videos for everything.
1 Like
I feel like this exchange deserves some kind of tribute, whether it be as classic post, or well done self-parody, or just in recognition of the overwhelming “Huh?!”-ness of it all.
1 Like
And yet no likey.
Tough Crowd.
You have my like! (Someone else can provide the ax.)
ax.?
Overwhelming huh?
President Magufuli, who has consistently downplayed the effect of the virus shocked the world when he said animals, fruits and vehicle oil had been secretly tested at the laboratory. Now, take a read at some of the specific things he said had been tested. A papaya, a quail and a goat. All of them he says had been found to be positive to Covid-19.
Magufuli cast doubt on the credibility of laboratory equipment and technicians and questioned official data on the pandemic. He called for an investigation into what he suspected to be a “dirty game” in the laboratory. Where the kits had been imported from though, he would not say. So, the lab director here Nyambura Moremi has been fired. And a 10-person committee has been formed to investigate the laboratory’s operations, including its process of collecting and testing samples. Presently, that is, as of the 5th of May, Tanzania has about 480 Covid-19 cases including 16 deaths.
Yeh, well thanks, I think.
But lest the (apparently elusive) original point be lost in fluff about my rabid Anti-Americanism thinly-veiled in verbiage, I refer you back to Icons original post, which is actually important.
Then see the bit in bold above.
Hopefully that will put an end to goons paying to ride them. People should be made to watch videos of elephant calves taken from their herd/mothers, tied up and ‘broken in’ with giant hooks as they scream and defecate.
1 Like
No doubt, I read it and responded to her (great article). I thought a bit about what your point could be exactly, actually I was interested because I think we may agree on some aspects of the topic. I couldn’t quite put my finger on your meaning though.
1 Like
So naive. Playing into the CCP’s hands. Zero criticism + zero transparency = CCP wet dream.
I don’t think the WHO are corrupt or in the pocket of the CCP. They are just easily played.
No evidence of human to human infection.
3.4% mortality rate.
Turn off internet at mention of Taiwan.
1 Like
1 Like
As a side note: the WHO official who gained infamy by doing so, a Canadian named Bruce Aylward, has apparently been requested to testify before a Canadian Parliamentary committee:
Guy
4 Likes