-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
WHO official pretends not to hear, ends call, when asked about Taiwan by journalist
- Thread starter Deleted member 431
- Start date
The cruisers are a very specific example that affects a tiny amount of people, relatively speaking. Not only that, travel bans and restrictions don't necessarily mean you just leave people on cruises to their fate.
You say that the restrictions are put in place too late (true), but say it's the go to policy. If it's the go to policy, then surely it's the first thing countries would do, ergo, the problem would be slowness to react and not travel bans specifically.
I'm not sure how you think quarantine and social distancing can be kept if people are travelling for non essential purposes. Banning or restricting travel is merely a part of social isolation.
Even the study you posted shows its importance:
The WHO study posted earlier also mentions this:
Yes, the sooner these measures are taken the better, but that applies to ANY measure. No one is advocating travel restrictions as the only measure, or saying they were applied correctly or on time, but to fight a pandemic you need to take several measures that work in tandem with each other. There isn't a single scenario or study that indicates that restricting travel doesn't have a positive effect in fighting a pandemic.
The WHO tries it best to be non political, but that mean it needs to work with the existing power structures, even in problematic countries. That just not how this body operates. They don't always make the right decisions, but they do amazingly important and dangerous work. Those lose people in pretty much every one of those pandemics.
You can't expect them to solve those types of issues.
And for real, where do you think this whole shit talking about the WHO leads?
I can tell you where I think it leads to, and that for the US to pull funding from the WHO, something that republicans have been trying to do for years because they're crazy people who think that the UN will put us in FEMA camps or some shit.
That's a good outcome for you?
It's pretty wild to see of all this played out in the open.
No, a good outcome is for the UN to do an audit into the WHO and possibly appoint a new director. I don't know why you're jumping to these bizarre outcomes and tying it back to republicans. Let me reiterate that there is more to the world than the GOP
So its good that China didnt listen to you.
"In the moderate transmissibility reduction scenarios (r = 0.75) the epidemic peak is delayed to late June 2020 and the total number of international case importations by 1 March 2020 are 26 and 5 detected cases per day for the 40% and 90% travel restrictions scenarios, respectively. Even larger travel limitations (>90%) will extend the period of time during which the importation of cases is greatly reduced."
The WHO will not solve Taiwan's status in the UN, that's a mess which is 70 years in the making. It's not a personnel issue, it's about the capabilities and maybe more importantly, the mission of that body.
And for real, you think now is that time to replace leadership at the WHO?
In the middle of all of that crap?
We are undermining and critical organization in a middle of a pandemic.
We're going to go in circles here. The issue with slowness is that unless you have immediate testing and can recognize an outbreak is happening, you will miss that window of opportunity. There will always be a lag.
From the studies, conversely, the vast majority "I won't say all" will say the effect is limited. If you want to emphasize those weeks of delay go ahead. I'm going to point to the sentences that say the effect is limited:
You can promote social distancing without travel restrictions. Telling people they should stay at home is not the same as telling people they can't travel. That's what the stay at home orders in the US are right now.
The WHO was a shitshow from the start of this.
---
And fuck off with the "but the US" whataboutism, not everyone here is from the US.
Did you just pull a model result without context? Notice the "moderate transmissibility reduction scenarios," i.e. social distancing and other community transmision prevention measures are put in place.
You seem confused. No one is advocating that prevention measures dont take place. Literally, no one. It isnt either/or.
This is my argument. Travel restrictions are not effective. I point to studies that say travel restrictions have limited effect. You point to a model where other interventions are also put in place and go "aha you're wrong."
If you want to see the results of the model that looks at just the travel restriction I've copied below:
I chose the quotes that said there was an impact resulting in a 2-3 weeks delay, because you said it was a best case scenario. It's not a best case scenario, it's the conclusion of the study you posted. A 2-3 weeks delay is not nothing. For crying out loud, you just quoted a 3-4 week delay!
No one argued that the impact wasn't limited, but that impact is still positive, even with late implementation. All measures that can help must be taken, because they work in tandem to flatten the curve?
How can people stay home if they're travelling? Why should non-essential travel be permitted? Is it somehow bad to delay the spread of the disease?
You keep making these bizarre assumptions and freaking out about them. I didn't say they should do the replacement right now. Obviously it should be done when the time is right and not jeopardize the situation. But an audit can still be done.
I'd argue that providing fair care to the whole world is the mission of a worldwide health organization and playing favorites jeopardizes that. You're basically saying Taiwan, a region historically oppressed by China, doesn't deserve care because China's feelings would be hurt. Now is not a time to be playing politics.
Also, WHO's treatment of Taiwan here has been markedly worse than the generic treatment of Taiwan by other entities who love to fall in line for China's oppression of them like you are here. The normal line is to call them Chinese Taipei, treat them as a special territory and not go into their sovereignty. WHO have been outright ignoring them at worst, and treating them like a subprovince of China's at best.
If you're going to restate one result from one model without understanding the context, there's no point. Just the read the conclusion and discussion. I'm not going to copy it.
Maybe you should re-read it. They arent disgareeing with themselves obviously.
Yep, By Jan 14 (which is almost two months since the very first case in Wuhan now dating back to Nov 17,2019), China definitely knows that it can be transmitted from person to person.
Actually the person above you is arguing that effect is "greatly." Regardless, I'll concede if you think these few weeks of delay are that important, i'm not going to convince you otherwise. And yes can potentially use that time to prepare.
Love all the "experts" here, WHO is an independent organization, its member states meet once a year (usually in May) at the World Health Assembly to discuss health related issues and make decisions about WHO's work. Its director general is elected for 5 years by the member states. It also has an external auditor appointed from one of its member states in addition to the Programme, budget and administration committee consisting of Member States which deals with financial oversight.
So are you going to argue that the synergistic effect outweighs the individual effects of interventions to reduce disease transmissibility?
Taiwan is handling this virus probably better than any other country in the world, for real, what problem are you trying to solve?
Is this about making a statement?
Can that shit wait until after we handle this virus because we need global coordination to fight this virus and the WHO is a very important part of it.
And the WHO "treatment of Taiwan" is part of a bigger issue which is Taiwan's status in the UN.
This mess is 70 years in he making and I think it's unreasonable to expect the WHO to solve this issue, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
They will not pick political fights for you, they specifically try to avoid it, they need to play nice with countries because they literally have no way to force cooperation. This is exactly the same reason why they praised Trump.
I generally think people here pay way too much attention to those type of statements which is not the important part of what the WHO is doing.
As I suspected. You misread it.
"Travel bans are ineffective." find a new study to back you up cause this one disagrees with you pretty plainly.
This statement is citing this data.
The 2 statements aren't conflicting with each other.
"Travel bans are ineffective." find a new study to back you up cause this one disagrees with you pretty plainly.
No, it's arguing a synergistic effect but it's dependent on having a large transmissibility intervention that has "a considerable reduction in the disease transmissibility."
They are not an independent organization, they are a branch of the UN.
They have different data for a 'considerable' reduction in transmission. The great reduction in cases from a >90% travel ban is in relation to a 'moderate' reduction. ffs read your own links.
Everything they do is governed by the Constitution of the World Health Organization adopted in 1946 and by resolutions and decisions adopted by member states since then. It is part of the UN family, but "UN" has no control over anything it does, WHO's member states do.
Please stop confusing people if you don't know what you are talking about.
Last edited:
Earlier you stated that they are not politicians, they are doctors. What you describe as their process here is pure politics. Specifically, status quo politics. In which the oppressed stay oppressed, and the oppressors come out on top. This time, Taiwan turned out to be self sufficient. However, if they require further aid, or had they required aid earlier on, their lack of recognition by the WHO will hurt them.
During this current pandemic, since WHO counted them as part of China, countries banned travel from Taiwan despite Taiwan having 0 cases. Because of this designation as part of China and lack of representation at the WHO, Taiwan lacked access to key information and leadership early during the outbreak. Just because Taiwan were able to turn it around despite this doesn't mean the actions of the WHO were not irresponsible and potentially fatal.
The WHO can't force countries to issue a travel ban.
They can't force countries to do anything, they try to stay out of politics as much as they can and America is trying to drag the into a political fight, and you are rooting for that because some theoretical situation in the future where it might make sense to do that?
I think this is amazingly unproductive.
The WHO mostly work with healthcare professionals, and they do important and dangerous work all over the world, especially in poor countries, this endless focus on those statements and press conference achieve nothing but undermining it.
This is the full sentence which for some reason you have spliced.
Are you arguing its not dependent on reducing disease transmissibility? Are we really going to have a semantic debate about "considerable?" Do you think they just linked results from two models in one sentence?
I guess I need to repeat it for a third time.
With no reduction in transmissibility ie. no social distancing then of course a travel ban by itself will not have a considerable impact. No one is arguing that we should have just a travel ban by itself and no other precautions. This is some weird ass strawman you made for yourself.
With a 'moderate' reduction in transmission the results of a 40% and 90% travel ban "are 26 and 5 detected cases per day for the 40% and 90% travel restrictions scenarios, respectively." The result of travel bans of "(>90%) will extend the period of time during which the importation of cases is greatly reduced."
How you read that and somehow translate it to 'travel bans have no effect' is some kind of magic.
Tell me, where have I said travel bans have no effect? I've said they don't work, they're not effective, and at best they delay the curve by a few weeks. The paper at best conflicts with the delay of time and if you want to argue about adding a few more weeks go ahead.
The fact that you continue to be confused by why I isolate the effect of travel restrictions is shocking. Like I said before when you have both travel restrictions and transmission interventions it's hard to attribute which is responsible. But let's actually look at the reference figure of the text that your so fond of. As you can see, travel restrictions don't change the curve, they delay it. It's the transmission interventions that bend it. As I said before we should focus on the effective policies.
Fig. 4 Combined effects of travel and transmissibility reductions on the epidemic.
(A) Median total number of imported cases from Mainland China with no transmissibility reduction, and travel reductions ∈ {40%, 90%}. (B) Same as (A) for the moderate transmissibility reduction scenario (r = 0.75). (C) Same as (A) for the strong transmissibility reduction scenario (r = 0.5). Shaded areas represent the 90% confidence interval. (D) Incidence in Mainland China excluding Wuhan for the different scenarios considered in (A) to (C).
The fact that you somehow hone in on the most speculative part of the paper, where they don't even show the period of time delay for travel bans (>90%) is telling.
And you accuse me of using strawmen.
Let's repeat the main conclusions of this paper:
I remember you now, you're the one who said this:
Last edited:
User Banned (1 Week): Hostility
Youre creating your own conclusions, none of which are supported by this study. Find a new one.
This one deals with the combined effect of transmission reduction and travel limitations and has concluded that under a moderate(.75) and strong(.50) reduction in transmission then travel limitations of 90% or more have a strong effect. They also show the effect of a 40% travel ban for comparison(notice how the number goes down when you increase the travel ban)
Good advice, you arent capable of interpreting data correctly.
Repeat it some more until you understand it.
Last edited:
More fuckery from the WHO
www.reuters.com
Taiwan's government has said that keeping it out of the WHO during the outbreak amounts to playing politics with Taiwanese lives, even as the island has won plaudits for keeping its case toll so comparatively low thanks to early detection and control methods.
Since the start of the coronavirus outbreak, Taiwan has given the WHO all the information about its cases and prevention methods, but this has never been included in the WHO's daily updated situation report, she added.
"Therefore, the health bodies of various countries cannot understand the current situation of Taiwan's epidemic situation, preventive policies and border quarantine measures from the information provided by the WHO," Ou said.
"This shows that what the WHO said in its statement that it is learning from all regions, including Taiwan, to share 'best practices' with the world, differs from the facts."
Taiwan has also been excluded from over 70 percent of WHO technical meetings in the last decade, and for a key February meeting on the virus Taiwan experts were not allowed to attend in person, only online, she said.
Taiwan says WHO not sharing coronavirus information it provides, pressing complaints
The World Health Organization (WHO) has not shared with member states information Taiwan has provided on the coronavirus including details on its cases and prevention methods, Taiwan's Foreign Ministry said on Monday, ratcheting up its complaints.
www.reuters.com
Taiwan's government has said that keeping it out of the WHO during the outbreak amounts to playing politics with Taiwanese lives, even as the island has won plaudits for keeping its case toll so comparatively low thanks to early detection and control methods.
Since the start of the coronavirus outbreak, Taiwan has given the WHO all the information about its cases and prevention methods, but this has never been included in the WHO's daily updated situation report, she added.
"Therefore, the health bodies of various countries cannot understand the current situation of Taiwan's epidemic situation, preventive policies and border quarantine measures from the information provided by the WHO," Ou said.
"This shows that what the WHO said in its statement that it is learning from all regions, including Taiwan, to share 'best practices' with the world, differs from the facts."
Taiwan has also been excluded from over 70 percent of WHO technical meetings in the last decade, and for a key February meeting on the virus Taiwan experts were not allowed to attend in person, only online, she said.
No wonder you don't understand it. You see numbers go down (herp derp) the end. Let me walk you through the figures one by one.
A. Travel restrictions are put in place. Notice that curve drops but the slope stays the same (indicating a delay). Also notice that by Feb 7 the numbers are back at the levels of January 23 (indicating a delay). Under higher travel restrictions the curve shifts right (delay). Of course the numbers are going to down for a given time point, since there's a delay.
B. Same thing: travel restrictions are put in place, initial drop, curve shifts right. However with a reduction in transmission to r=0.75, the slope flattens.
C. Same thing
D. Notice how the only thing that has major impact on the trajectory is changes in transmission. Changes in travel reduction only shifts the curves right slightly.
Now lets breakdown the text that you're so fond of. I've bolded some key words for you. At march 1, the numbers are down from 26 to 5 cases per day because of the delay caused by greater travel restrictions. Even greater travel limitations extend the delay.
You argue like anti-vaxxers who take a single result from a study, misinterpret it, and say it causes autism, while ignoring the main conclusions. Since you want more links check out the ones in the first quote below from their discussion.
Humor me here. In the below image, if time is on the x-axis, do you see a delay or a drop?
Last edited:
First off, dont mix data regarding the effect of the wuhan travel ban, and the international travel ban. The study makes different statements for both.No wonder you don't understand it. You see numbers go down (herp derp) the end. Let me walk you through the figures one by one.
A. Travel restrictions are put in place. Notice that curve drops but the slope stays the same (indicating a delay). Also notice that by Feb 7 the numbers are back at the levels of January 23 (indicating a delay). Under higher travel restrictions the curve shifts right (delay). Of course the numbers are going to down for a given time point, since there's a delay.
B. Same thing: travel restrictions are put in place, initial drop, curve shifts right. However with a reduction in transmission to r=0.75, the slope flattens.
C. Same thing
D. Notice how the only thing that has major impact on the trajectory is changes in transmission. Changes in travel reduction only shifts the curves right slightly.
Now lets breakdown the text that you're so fond of. I've bolded some key words for you. At march 1, the numbers are down from 26 to 5 cases per day because of the delay caused by greater travel restrictions. Even greater travel limitations extend the delay.
The first set of graphs indicate the number of exported cases from china, the D graph looks at the number of daily cases within china. I suspect this is why youre so confused.
Regarding the affect of the wuhan ban the study concludes.
Regarding the China travel ban it concludes
Any other conclusions you'd like to make are your own. And not the studies.
Should also be mentioned most if not all travel bans include many countries, not just china. ie. US to Canada. This data is strictly Chinese transmissions.
The rest of their conclusion.
Heres a story.
Bob is making bread and is annoyed that it came out flat. He says 'I put so much yeast I dont know why it turned out like this.' Joe tells him 'thats because you didnt put enough sugar.' Bob concludes 'Oh I see, yeast is actually pretty useless and would not be a worthwhile improvement to delay the virus.'
Joe shakes his head.
Last edited:
The WHO clearly trying the Fake News route. We've all seen the video. There's no weirdness here.
