[magnus]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-a...who-halted

While I agree that the WHO has not performed well in this pandemic including many questionable statements, it's hard not to worry about what a loss of funds to the organization will do to the global response. 

I don't have an alternate solution,  however, for how to knock some sense into the organization.

[magnus]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-a...who-halted

While I agree that the WHO has not performed well in this pandemic including many questionable statements, it's hard not to worry about what a loss of funds to the organization will do to the global response. 

I don't have an alternate solution,  however, for how to knock some sense into the organization.

[2006alum]

In the meantime, Trump declared that the United States would undertake a 60-to-90 day investigation into why the "China-centric" WHO had caused "so much death" by "severely mismanaging and covering up" the coronavirus' spread.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220818115354923009?s=20[/tweet]
Remarks by President Trump Before Air Force One Departure | Feb. 18, 2020 | Joint Base Andrews, MD

Q    Mr. President, are you still satisfied with how President Xi is handling the coronavirus?
THE PRESIDENT:  I think President Xi is working very hard.  As you know, I spoke with him recently.  He’s working really hard.  It’s a tough problem.  I think he’s going to do — look, I’ve seen them build hospitals in a short period of time.  I really believe he wants to get that done, and he wants to get it done fast.  Yes, I think he’s doing it very professionally.
We’re also working with him and helping him, as of the last few days, as you know.
Q    Some people don’t seem to trust the data coming out of China.  Are you worried about that?
THE PRESIDENT:  Look, I know this: President Xi loves the people of China, he loves his country, and he’s doing a very good job with a very, very tough situation.

[2006alum]

In the meantime, Trump declared that the United States would undertake a 60-to-90 day investigation into why the "China-centric" WHO had caused "so much death" by "severely mismanaging and covering up" the coronavirus' spread.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220818115354923009?s=20[/tweet]
Remarks by President Trump Before Air Force One Departure | Feb. 18, 2020 | Joint Base Andrews, MD

Q    Mr. President, are you still satisfied with how President Xi is handling the coronavirus?
THE PRESIDENT:  I think President Xi is working very hard.  As you know, I spoke with him recently.  He’s working really hard.  It’s a tough problem.  I think he’s going to do — look, I’ve seen them build hospitals in a short period of time.  I really believe he wants to get that done, and he wants to get it done fast.  Yes, I think he’s doing it very professionally.
We’re also working with him and helping him, as of the last few days, as you know.
Q    Some people don’t seem to trust the data coming out of China.  Are you worried about that?
THE PRESIDENT:  Look, I know this: President Xi loves the people of China, he loves his country, and he’s doing a very good job with a very, very tough situation.

[Genuine Realist]

In the meantime, Trump declared that the United States would undertake a 60-to-90 day investigation into why the "China-centric" WHO had caused "so much death" by "severely mismanaging and covering up" the coronavirus' spread.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220818115354923009?s=20[/tweet]
Remarks by President Trump Before Air Force One Departure | Feb. 18, 2020 | Joint Base Andrews, MD

Q    Mr. President, are you still satisfied with how President Xi is handling the coronavirus?
THE PRESIDENT:  I think President Xi is working very hard.  As you know, I spoke with him recently.  He’s working really hard.  It’s a tough problem.  I think he’s going to do — look, I’ve seen them build hospitals in a short period of time.  I really believe he wants to get that done, and he wants to get it done fast.  Yes, I think he’s doing it very professionally.
We’re also working with him and helping him, as of the last few days, as you know.
Q    Some people don’t seem to trust the data coming out of China.  Are you worried about that?
THE PRESIDENT:  Look, I know this: President Xi loves the people of China, he loves his country, and he’s doing a very good job with a very, very tough situation.

I wish Congress had undertaken this, to avoid controversy. But it has to be done.

[Genuine Realist]

In the meantime, Trump declared that the United States would undertake a 60-to-90 day investigation into why the "China-centric" WHO had caused "so much death" by "severely mismanaging and covering up" the coronavirus' spread.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220818115354923009?s=20[/tweet]
Remarks by President Trump Before Air Force One Departure | Feb. 18, 2020 | Joint Base Andrews, MD

Q    Mr. President, are you still satisfied with how President Xi is handling the coronavirus?
THE PRESIDENT:  I think President Xi is working very hard.  As you know, I spoke with him recently.  He’s working really hard.  It’s a tough problem.  I think he’s going to do — look, I’ve seen them build hospitals in a short period of time.  I really believe he wants to get that done, and he wants to get it done fast.  Yes, I think he’s doing it very professionally.
We’re also working with him and helping him, as of the last few days, as you know.
Q    Some people don’t seem to trust the data coming out of China.  Are you worried about that?
THE PRESIDENT:  Look, I know this: President Xi loves the people of China, he loves his country, and he’s doing a very good job with a very, very tough situation.

I wish Congress had undertaken this, to avoid controversy. But it has to be done.

[dabigv13]

Notable that during a debate Biden was pretty forceful about not trusting China and wanting to get more American observers on ground there. I don't recall his specific remarks but I was a bit struck by them because I thought that China was doing a pretty admirable job at the time fighting this while we still had our thumbs up our asses.

[dabigv13]

Notable that during a debate Biden was pretty forceful about not trusting China and wanting to get more American observers on ground there. I don't recall his specific remarks but I was a bit struck by them because I thought that China was doing a pretty admirable job at the time fighting this while we still had our thumbs up our asses.

[2006alum]

Notable that during a debate Biden was pretty forceful about not trusting China and wanting to get more American observers on ground there. I don't recall his specific remarks but I was a bit struck by them because I thought that China was doing a pretty admirable job at the time fighting this while we still had our thumbs up our asses.

Indeed:

Joe Biden: (21:29)

If I may respond. That's why I insisted, the moment this broke out, that we should insist on having our experts in China, in China to see what was happening, and make it clear to China there'd be consequences if we did not have that access. We have to lead the world. We should be the ones doing what we did during the Ebola crisis, bringing the whole world together and saying, "This is what we must do." We have to have a common plan. All nations are affected the same way by this virus depending on exposure. And so this is, we need world leadership. We need international leadership. We need someone who knows how to bring the world together and insist on fundamental change in the way in which we're approaching this.

[2006alum]

Notable that during a debate Biden was pretty forceful about not trusting China and wanting to get more American observers on ground there. I don't recall his specific remarks but I was a bit struck by them because I thought that China was doing a pretty admirable job at the time fighting this while we still had our thumbs up our asses.

Indeed:

Joe Biden: (21:29)

If I may respond. That's why I insisted, the moment this broke out, that we should insist on having our experts in China, in China to see what was happening, and make it clear to China there'd be consequences if we did not have that access. We have to lead the world. We should be the ones doing what we did during the Ebola crisis, bringing the whole world together and saying, "This is what we must do." We have to have a common plan. All nations are affected the same way by this virus depending on exposure. And so this is, we need world leadership. We need international leadership. We need someone who knows how to bring the world together and insist on fundamental change in the way in which we're approaching this.

[BostonCard]

The WHO's treatment of Taiwan is shameful, and long term I have no issue throwing our (financial) weight around to get China to stop playing politics with the WHO.

https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/03/2...ganisation

Whatever you think of China and Taiwan, not including Taiwan in the WHO due to regional politics is stupid.

That being said, making the point in the midst of a pandemic is counterproductive.  The pandemic is going to hit developing nations hard, and we live in a global world where even if we get the infection under control in the US, developing nations will continue to be sources of infection. The time to play hardball with the WHO is probably not when we need to have a coordinated global response, because as flawed as the WHO is, especially with regards to Taiwan, not having the WHO around is worse.

BC

[BostonCard]

The WHO's treatment of Taiwan is shameful, and long term I have no issue throwing our (financial) weight around to get China to stop playing politics with the WHO.

https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/03/2...ganisation

Whatever you think of China and Taiwan, not including Taiwan in the WHO due to regional politics is stupid.

That being said, making the point in the midst of a pandemic is counterproductive.  The pandemic is going to hit developing nations hard, and we live in a global world where even if we get the infection under control in the US, developing nations will continue to be sources of infection. The time to play hardball with the WHO is probably not when we need to have a coordinated global response, because as flawed as the WHO is, especially with regards to Taiwan, not having the WHO around is worse.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

Notable that during a debate Biden was pretty forceful about not trusting China and wanting to get more American observers on ground there. I don't recall his specific remarks but I was a bit struck by them because I thought that China was doing a pretty admirable job at the time fighting this while we still had our thumbs up our asses.

Really? It may look like that in terms of OUR knowledge at the time. In terms of what the CCP knew, or should have known, they were miles behind the curve.

They were still holding big folk festivals in mid February, at a point in time when Trump is now being criticized rightly or wrongly for not urging a shutdown. But the CCP was two months further along in the progress of the pandemic. The Party was still in denial to the world, applying cosmetics to the situation. Not good.

---

The WHO's treatment of Taiwan is shameful, and long term I have no issue throwing our (financial) weight around to get China to stop playing politics with the WHO.

https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/03/2...ganisation

Whatever you think of China and Taiwan, not including Taiwan in the WHO due to regional politics is stupid.

That being said, making the point in the midst of a pandemic is counterproductive.  The pandemic is going to hit developing nations hard, and we live in a global world where even if we get the infection under control in the US, developing nations will continue to be sources of infection. The time to play hardball with the WHO is probably not when we need to have a coordinated global response, because as flawed as the WHO is, especially with regards to Taiwan, not having the WHO around is worse.

BC

We can give direct aid to afflicted nations, which may be more efficient than using WHO.

[Genuine Realist]

Notable that during a debate Biden was pretty forceful about not trusting China and wanting to get more American observers on ground there. I don't recall his specific remarks but I was a bit struck by them because I thought that China was doing a pretty admirable job at the time fighting this while we still had our thumbs up our asses.

Really? It may look like that in terms of OUR knowledge at the time. In terms of what the CCP knew, or should have known, they were miles behind the curve.

They were still holding big folk festivals in mid February, at a point in time when Trump is now being criticized rightly or wrongly for not urging a shutdown. But the CCP was two months further along in the progress of the pandemic. The Party was still in denial to the world, applying cosmetics to the situation. Not good.

---

The WHO's treatment of Taiwan is shameful, and long term I have no issue throwing our (financial) weight around to get China to stop playing politics with the WHO.

https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/03/2...ganisation

Whatever you think of China and Taiwan, not including Taiwan in the WHO due to regional politics is stupid.

That being said, making the point in the midst of a pandemic is counterproductive.  The pandemic is going to hit developing nations hard, and we live in a global world where even if we get the infection under control in the US, developing nations will continue to be sources of infection. The time to play hardball with the WHO is probably not when we need to have a coordinated global response, because as flawed as the WHO is, especially with regards to Taiwan, not having the WHO around is worse.

BC

We can give direct aid to afflicted nations, which may be more efficient than using WHO.

[BostonCard]

We can give direct aid to afflicted nations, which may be more efficient than using WHO.

It's not a question of aid, it is a question of scientific expertise.

BC

[BostonCard]

We can give direct aid to afflicted nations, which may be more efficient than using WHO.

It's not a question of aid, it is a question of scientific expertise.

BC

[Leftcoast]

Both the optics and reality of this are horrible.  At a time when the world should be pulling together the US is going it alone, punishing the WHO (which works with the less developed world) and blaming other countries while taking no responsibility for our own faults.  There’s time enough for a Coronavirus Post-Morten once this is done. Much of the world is looking at the US, not recognizing their old level-headed ally and wondering what the heck is happening over here. Particularly if they are watching the White House press conferences.

However you define leadership this isn’t it.

“First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” - Matthew 5:7

“As it is not that time, it also not the time to reduce the resources for the operations of the World Health Organization or any other humanitarian organization in the fight against the virus. As I have said before, now is the time for unity and for the international community to work together in solidarity to stop this virus and its shattering consequences” - UN Secretary General Guterres

[Leftcoast]

Both the optics and reality of this are horrible.  At a time when the world should be pulling together the US is going it alone, punishing the WHO (which works with the less developed world) and blaming other countries while taking no responsibility for our own faults.  There’s time enough for a Coronavirus Post-Morten once this is done. Much of the world is looking at the US, not recognizing their old level-headed ally and wondering what the heck is happening over here. Particularly if they are watching the White House press conferences.

However you define leadership this isn’t it.

“First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” - Matthew 5:7

“As it is not that time, it also not the time to reduce the resources for the operations of the World Health Organization or any other humanitarian organization in the fight against the virus. As I have said before, now is the time for unity and for the international community to work together in solidarity to stop this virus and its shattering consequences” - UN Secretary General Guterres

[burger]

I agree with those above who think suspending the payments is dumb.

But I have a more fundamental question: under what statutory authority is the president permitted to withhold funding passed by Congress?  Or is he just repeating the actions that he was already impeached for (suspending payments to Ukraine against the express will of Congress)?

[burger]

I agree with those above who think suspending the payments is dumb.

But I have a more fundamental question: under what statutory authority is the president permitted to withhold funding passed by Congress?  Or is he just repeating the actions that he was already impeached for (suspending payments to Ukraine against the express will of Congress)?

[oregontim]

Today we have 583K cases in the US, which is 4.4 times more than any other nation, and 7 times more than (the officially reported) cases in China. So we're blaming the WHO for that, are we?

What kind of idiot would knock the WHO in the middle of a raging pandemic? Could there be a worse time to cut funding?

[oregontim]

Today we have 583K cases in the US, which is 4.4 times more than any other nation, and 7 times more than (the officially reported) cases in China. So we're blaming the WHO for that, are we?

What kind of idiot would knock the WHO in the middle of a raging pandemic? Could there be a worse time to cut funding?

[Genuine Realist]

We can give direct aid to afflicted nations, which may be more efficient than using WHO.

It's not a question of aid, it is a question of scientific expertise.

BC

This puzzles me. My understanding is that the WHO is primarily useful to underdeveloped nations that do not have the medical services infrastructure of the United States and others. So I do not believe we fund WHO as a research center as such. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Genuine Realist]

We can give direct aid to afflicted nations, which may be more efficient than using WHO.

It's not a question of aid, it is a question of scientific expertise.

BC

This puzzles me. My understanding is that the WHO is primarily useful to underdeveloped nations that do not have the medical services infrastructure of the United States and others. So I do not believe we fund WHO as a research center as such. Correct me if I am wrong.

[2006alum]

I agree with those above who think suspending the payments is dumb.

But I have a more fundamental question: under what statutory authority is the president permitted to withhold funding passed by Congress?  Or is he just repeating the actions that he was already impeached for (suspending payments to Ukraine against the express will of Congress)?

I tried to investigate this because Congress allocates expenditures to the WHO. Here's what the CNBC story on this had to say:

It’s unclear exactly what mechanism Trump intends to use to withhold WHO funding, much of which is appropriated by Congress. The president typically does not have the authority to unilaterally redirect congressional funding.

One option might be for Trump to use powers granted to the president under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Under this statute, the president may propose to withhold congressional funds, but it requires congressional approval within 45 days. Absent this approval, the funds must be returned to their original, congressionally mandated purpose after 45 days.

If I had to bet, like most things with Trump, I doubt this will last. He'll extract concessions from the WHO before 45 days are up and then they'll get the funding.

[2006alum]

I agree with those above who think suspending the payments is dumb.

But I have a more fundamental question: under what statutory authority is the president permitted to withhold funding passed by Congress?  Or is he just repeating the actions that he was already impeached for (suspending payments to Ukraine against the express will of Congress)?

I tried to investigate this because Congress allocates expenditures to the WHO. Here's what the CNBC story on this had to say:

It’s unclear exactly what mechanism Trump intends to use to withhold WHO funding, much of which is appropriated by Congress. The president typically does not have the authority to unilaterally redirect congressional funding.

One option might be for Trump to use powers granted to the president under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Under this statute, the president may propose to withhold congressional funds, but it requires congressional approval within 45 days. Absent this approval, the funds must be returned to their original, congressionally mandated purpose after 45 days.

If I had to bet, like most things with Trump, I doubt this will last. He'll extract concessions from the WHO before 45 days are up and then they'll get the funding.

[Genuine Realist]

Today we have 583K cases in the US, which is 4.4 times more than any other nation, and 7 times more than (the officially reported) cases in China. So we're blaming the WHO for that, are we?

What kind of idiot would knock the WHO in the middle of a raging pandemic? Could there be a worse time to cut funding?

There are plenty of reasons to knock WHO. WHO kept reciting the CCP mantra that the disease was not transmittable between human beings well into January, ignoring the emerging clinical experience of other nations.

WHO also denounced travel restrictions, now seen as coming too late, as xenophobic, helping to accelerate the spread of the virus. WHO parrotted CCP propaganda long after it became dubious.

Whether finding should be suspended or not is a different question. But WHO's performance has been disastrous throughout. In

[Genuine Realist]

Today we have 583K cases in the US, which is 4.4 times more than any other nation, and 7 times more than (the officially reported) cases in China. So we're blaming the WHO for that, are we?

What kind of idiot would knock the WHO in the middle of a raging pandemic? Could there be a worse time to cut funding?

There are plenty of reasons to knock WHO. WHO kept reciting the CCP mantra that the disease was not transmittable between human beings well into January, ignoring the emerging clinical experience of other nations.

WHO also denounced travel restrictions, now seen as coming too late, as xenophobic, helping to accelerate the spread of the virus. WHO parrotted CCP propaganda long after it became dubious.

Whether finding should be suspended or not is a different question. But WHO's performance has been disastrous throughout. In

[BostonCard]

We can give direct aid to afflicted nations, which may be more efficient than using WHO.

It's not a question of aid, it is a question of scientific expertise.

BC

This puzzles me. My understanding is that the WHO is primarily useful to underdeveloped nations that do not have the medical services infrastructure of the United States and others. So I do not believe we fund WHO as a research center as such. Correct me if I am wrong.

That's what I mean about scientific expertise.  I don't mean it in terms of funding primary research.  But, mostly in providing advice, support and manpower to health systems that would be overwhelmed on their own.  That's not something that direct aid to affected nations can do.

BC

---

WHO also denounced travel restrictions, now seen as coming too late, as xenophobic, helping to accelerate the spread of the virus.

We were one of the first countries to impose travel restrictions.  They were useless, as we already had community spread by the time they were imposed.  Nor would earlier imposition of travel restrictions on China have done much, since most of the infections happening in the US came via Europe.  We imposed travel restrictions on Europe, but by then the horse was out of the proverbial barn. The haphazard way they were imposed probably spread more virus than it prevented.

You would have to have a complete and total shutdown of all travel into the United States going all the way back to January for travel restrictions to have had a chance to work.  And we know that is basically impossible to do.  And travel restrictions make it harder to bring medicines, PPE, etc. that we need to fight the virus.  Like export restrictions, these are measures that might seem like you are doing something positive but actually probably hurt more than they help.

BC

[BostonCard]

We can give direct aid to afflicted nations, which may be more efficient than using WHO.

It's not a question of aid, it is a question of scientific expertise.

BC

This puzzles me. My understanding is that the WHO is primarily useful to underdeveloped nations that do not have the medical services infrastructure of the United States and others. So I do not believe we fund WHO as a research center as such. Correct me if I am wrong.

That's what I mean about scientific expertise.  I don't mean it in terms of funding primary research.  But, mostly in providing advice, support and manpower to health systems that would be overwhelmed on their own.  That's not something that direct aid to affected nations can do.

BC

---

WHO also denounced travel restrictions, now seen as coming too late, as xenophobic, helping to accelerate the spread of the virus.

We were one of the first countries to impose travel restrictions.  They were useless, as we already had community spread by the time they were imposed.  Nor would earlier imposition of travel restrictions on China have done much, since most of the infections happening in the US came via Europe.  We imposed travel restrictions on Europe, but by then the horse was out of the proverbial barn. The haphazard way they were imposed probably spread more virus than it prevented.

You would have to have a complete and total shutdown of all travel into the United States going all the way back to January for travel restrictions to have had a chance to work.  And we know that is basically impossible to do.  And travel restrictions make it harder to bring medicines, PPE, etc. that we need to fight the virus.  Like export restrictions, these are measures that might seem like you are doing something positive but actually probably hurt more than they help.

BC

[oldalum]

he was already impeached for (suspending payments to Ukraine against the express will of Congress)?

You probably meant this as shorthand for what happened, but I think this needs a little more precision. He withheld $400M in military aid in the form of military equipment, the money for which had been expressly appropriated by Congress in (gasp) bilateral fashion and had to be spent by an impending fiscal deadline. It indeed did violate the law (as the GAO concluded: article). But he was not impeached specifically for violating this law, which has been violated multiple times before (including by Trump). The first charge of the impeachment was Abuse of Power, in that, in addition to withholding an Oval Office meeting, he withheld the aid for an improper purpose: pressuring Ukraine to help his re-election campaign.

[oldalum]

he was already impeached for (suspending payments to Ukraine against the express will of Congress)?

You probably meant this as shorthand for what happened, but I think this needs a little more precision. He withheld $400M in military aid in the form of military equipment, the money for which had been expressly appropriated by Congress in (gasp) bilateral fashion and had to be spent by an impending fiscal deadline. It indeed did violate the law (as the GAO concluded: article). But he was not impeached specifically for violating this law, which has been violated multiple times before (including by Trump). The first charge of the impeachment was Abuse of Power, in that, in addition to withholding an Oval Office meeting, he withheld the aid for an improper purpose: pressuring Ukraine to help his re-election campaign.

[burger]

he was already impeached for (suspending payments to Ukraine against the express will of Congress)?

You probably meant this as shorthand for what happened, but I think this needs a little more precision. He withheld $400 in military aid in the form of military equipment, the money for which had been expressly appropriated by Congress in (gasp) bilateral fashion and had to be spent by an impending fiscal deadline. It indeed did violate the law (as the GAO concluded: article). But he was not impeached specifically for violating this law, which has been violated multiple times before (including by Trump). The first charge of the impeachment was Abuse of Power, in that, in addition to withholding an Oval Office meeting, he withheld the aid for an improper purpose: pressuring Ukraine to help his re-election campaign.

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. (Any Futurama fans here?)

[burger]

he was already impeached for (suspending payments to Ukraine against the express will of Congress)?

You probably meant this as shorthand for what happened, but I think this needs a little more precision. He withheld $400 in military aid in the form of military equipment, the money for which had been expressly appropriated by Congress in (gasp) bilateral fashion and had to be spent by an impending fiscal deadline. It indeed did violate the law (as the GAO concluded: article). But he was not impeached specifically for violating this law, which has been violated multiple times before (including by Trump). The first charge of the impeachment was Abuse of Power, in that, in addition to withholding an Oval Office meeting, he withheld the aid for an improper purpose: pressuring Ukraine to help his re-election campaign.

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. (Any Futurama fans here?)

[oldalum]

he was already impeached for (suspending payments to Ukraine against the express will of Congress)?

You probably meant this as shorthand for what happened, but I think this needs a little more precision. He withheld $400 in military aid in the form of military equipment, the money for which had been expressly appropriated by Congress in (gasp) bilateral fashion and had to be spent by an impending fiscal deadline. It indeed did violate the law (as the GAO concluded: article). But he was not impeached specifically for violating this law, which has been violated multiple times before (including by Trump). The first charge of the impeachment was Abuse of Power, in that, in addition to withholding an Oval Office meeting, he withheld the aid for an improper purpose: pressuring Ukraine to help his re-election campaign.

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. (Any Futurama fans here?)

Actually I was technically incorrect, but I fixed it ($400M instead of $400!).  :)

[oldalum]

he was already impeached for (suspending payments to Ukraine against the express will of Congress)?

You probably meant this as shorthand for what happened, but I think this needs a little more precision. He withheld $400 in military aid in the form of military equipment, the money for which had been expressly appropriated by Congress in (gasp) bilateral fashion and had to be spent by an impending fiscal deadline. It indeed did violate the law (as the GAO concluded: article). But he was not impeached specifically for violating this law, which has been violated multiple times before (including by Trump). The first charge of the impeachment was Abuse of Power, in that, in addition to withholding an Oval Office meeting, he withheld the aid for an improper purpose: pressuring Ukraine to help his re-election campaign.

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. (Any Futurama fans here?)

Actually I was technically incorrect, but I fixed it ($400M instead of $400!).  :)

[Genuine Realist]

We can give direct aid to afflicted nations, which may be more efficient than using WHO.

It's not a question of aid, it is a question of scientific expertise.

BC

This puzzles me. My understanding is that the WHO is primarily useful to underdeveloped nations that do not have the medical services infrastructure of the United States and others. So I do not believe we fund WHO as a research center as such. Correct me if I am wrong.

That's what I mean about scientific expertise.  I don't mean it in terms of funding primary research.  But, mostly in providing advice, support and manpower to health systems that would be overwhelmed on their own.  That's not something that direct aid to affected nations can do.

BC

---

WHO also denounced travel restrictions, now seen as coming too late, as xenophobic, helping to accelerate the spread of the virus.

We were one of the first countries to impose travel restrictions.  They were useless, as we already had community spread by the time they were imposed.  Nor would earlier imposition of travel restrictions on China have done much, since most of the infections happening in the US came via Europe.  We imposed travel restrictions on Europe, but by then the horse was out of the proverbial barn. The haphazard way they were imposed probably spread more virus than it prevented.

You would have to have a complete and total shutdown of all travel into the United States going all the way back to January for travel restrictions to have had a chance to work.  And we know that is basically impossible to do.  And travel restrictions make it harder to bring medicines, PPE, etc. that we need to fight the virus.  Like export restrictions, these are measures that might seem like you are doing something positive but actually probably hurt more than they help.

BC

There's no question that the horses were long gone from the barn by January 31st. But there's also no question that WHO's acquiescence to the CCP spin on the virus did enormous damage.

Whether that justifies abandonment of the organization, I don't know. But it seems to have failed near completely here, much worse than our own CDC.

[Genuine Realist]

We can give direct aid to afflicted nations, which may be more efficient than using WHO.

It's not a question of aid, it is a question of scientific expertise.

BC

This puzzles me. My understanding is that the WHO is primarily useful to underdeveloped nations that do not have the medical services infrastructure of the United States and others. So I do not believe we fund WHO as a research center as such. Correct me if I am wrong.

That's what I mean about scientific expertise.  I don't mean it in terms of funding primary research.  But, mostly in providing advice, support and manpower to health systems that would be overwhelmed on their own.  That's not something that direct aid to affected nations can do.

BC

---

WHO also denounced travel restrictions, now seen as coming too late, as xenophobic, helping to accelerate the spread of the virus.

We were one of the first countries to impose travel restrictions.  They were useless, as we already had community spread by the time they were imposed.  Nor would earlier imposition of travel restrictions on China have done much, since most of the infections happening in the US came via Europe.  We imposed travel restrictions on Europe, but by then the horse was out of the proverbial barn. The haphazard way they were imposed probably spread more virus than it prevented.

You would have to have a complete and total shutdown of all travel into the United States going all the way back to January for travel restrictions to have had a chance to work.  And we know that is basically impossible to do.  And travel restrictions make it harder to bring medicines, PPE, etc. that we need to fight the virus.  Like export restrictions, these are measures that might seem like you are doing something positive but actually probably hurt more than they help.

BC

There's no question that the horses were long gone from the barn by January 31st. But there's also no question that WHO's acquiescence to the CCP spin on the virus did enormous damage.

Whether that justifies abandonment of the organization, I don't know. But it seems to have failed near completely here, much worse than our own CDC.

[2006alum]

Whether that justifies abandonment of the organization, I don't know. But it seems to have failed near completely here, much worse than our own CDC.

Hmm. Even folks on the right -- Reason, the WSJ, and the National Review -- seem to think the CDC's response has been a "failure of historic proportions":
[tweet]https://twitter.com/EdwardAlamo1/status/1249523087462338561?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/jpalfrey/status/1240444627158695938?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1242212396753727488?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

Whether that justifies abandonment of the organization, I don't know. But it seems to have failed near completely here, much worse than our own CDC.

Hmm. Even folks on the right -- Reason, the WSJ, and the National Review -- seem to think the CDC's response has been a "failure of historic proportions":
[tweet]https://twitter.com/EdwardAlamo1/status/1249523087462338561?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/jpalfrey/status/1240444627158695938?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1242212396753727488?s=20[/tweet]