https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/sars-gives-china-lesson-...
This is where the saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice same on me" comes into play. The below source shows the PRC covering up the COVID-19 outbreak:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51364382
I peronsally feel like the WHO should have been a lot more suspicious of the PRC and how they were reporting. However, it appeared like they took information from the PRC at face value in January, where containment could have spared much of this pandemic. Was it political? Much like someone else pointed out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM
A senior WHO offical praises the PRC, even after it is come out the the PRC covered up the initial outbreak. It is very hard to not view that is political.
To me, a lot of the mistrust of the WHO based on these sources are well founded.
You can only blame the PRC's poor response in January and February for some of our failures. Everything that we did wrong in mid-March and onward is squarely on our heads. Unsurprisingly, this failure gets politicized, by the people responsible deflecting their failures on another country.
Vietnam and South Korea and Australia and New Zealand somehow managed to get the epidemic more or less under control - probably because they were actually busy solving the problem, instead of pointing fingers at China and the WHO.
Why were they not dependent on the PRC and the WHO in making the correct response, but we were?
And before someone mentions that Vietnam, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand are islands (Well... Maybe not Vietnam!), I would also like to point out that Hawaii is an island, and currently has 400 times the per-capita cases of Vietnam... And 4 times the per-capita cases of South Korea - despite us knowing a lot more about how to stop the virus when it had its first case.
>You can only blame the PRC's poor response in January and February for some of our failures.
....what? Did you actually read the BBC article I sourced? They punished a doctor for trying to raise the flag on this. You are telling me they handled that better than the US? And how would the US actually be to blame for that?
I don't agree this was a "cover-up" in the sense of a government attempt to hide something they knew was going on.
As your own article says "What Dr Li didn't know then was that the disease that had been discovered was an entirely new coronavirus."
He was warned about spreading rumors. While I don't agree with the way they warn people for things like that in China, it isn't uncommon for this to happen to anyone who disturbs "social cohesion".
Additionally, it was done by the regional government, not the central one. In contemporary news coverage of the outbreak they note how the regional government tried to minimize the severity of the outbreak and it was the central government who intervened to lock the place down.
Could China have done better? Yes - I've run the timeline, and I think it was realistic for them to have known and acted about 2 or 3 days earlier than they Wuhan lockdown in the absolute best case. Do I think this would have made a difference for the rest of the world? Not really - the places that dealt with it well acted when the lock down occurred, and the places that didn't deal with it well ignored that.
It's worth noting that most of the world couldn't believe the Wuhan lockdown when it happened. I don't think places that ignored that news would have acted on any kind of WHO warning.
The WHO is funded primarily by the United States (despite Trump's recent threats), the United Kingdom, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. China contributes less than a tenth of what the US does. The idea that WHO is permanently beholden to China just doesn't add up. Now that China is no longer the center of the outbreak, WHO's praise of the PRC has (as far as I can tell) completely stopped.
In my personal belief, if the WHO had any intregity, they would have not played ball and warned every other country about what China is doing. They did the same exact thing back in 2002-2004 (per the article I sourced).
On the seasonality: at a seminar on the epidemiology of this disease at my institution right today, the evidence on the impact of experimental factors was described as "inconsistent" but not enough to rule out one possibility or the other.
Ironically, a WHO staffer in Italy actually made a claim (or so the media said) about a "second wave" just two weeks ago.
I really don't understand why it is hard for many (not necessarily just the WHO) to say "we don't know".
In particular, if we close everything down, get infections down to a nice low level, then declare victory and throw away all our masks and precautions, you better bet there'll be a "second wave" that has nothing to do with the weather.
How will most people interpret "we don't know"? You and I might understand the wisdom behind admitting to not having enough information, but the average person won't, and the media can easily mock this form of honesty.
Being knowingly wrong or inconsistent seems to be a better strategy since the attention span of the average person is rather short, and appeal to authority is a pretty effective mind trick.
Appeal to authority may work, but authority can fail. And when that happens, the trust is lost.
What's depressing is how politicized the virus has become. How someone feels about the job the WHO has done is probably tied more to their political beliefs than to reality.
If we can't say that the WHO dropped the ball with their mask recommendations then we really can't say anything at all.
Not cloth, but melt-blown (and to some extent spun-bond) non-woven polypropylene. This is the fabric used to make surgical masks, surgical gowns, bouffant caps, and disposable bedding for hospitals. All of these things were in shortage in March and April.
The shortage of melt-blown non-woven fabric itself is now mostly over. Still in shortage are N95 respirators, which use melt-blown electret non-wovens — material given an electrostatic charge so that it attracts particles in the air. International N95-equivalent respirators are available to the public at inflated prices, but genuine (American standard) N95 masks are still difficult to find at any price.
The WHO guidance against mask-wearing was a desperate attempt to mitigate N95 shortages. Even when all major health authorities were telling the public not to use masks of any kind, N95 respirators were widely purchased by people who had no idea how to use them. (I've been in NYC throughout the pandemic. It's extremely common to see N95's worn with facial hair, with un-pinched nose strips, or even with the lower head-strap dangling. N95's have little value if not properly sealed.) The WHO believed advising the public to wear any mask at all would exacerbate N95 hoarding and ultimately cost lives by making them unavailable to hospitals.
[Edit:]
Not sure why I'm getting downvotes for this. This isn't controversial information. Dr. Fauci has given this same explanation for why mask guidance changed:
> [Fauci] also acknowledged that masks were initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE.
> He explained that public health experts "were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply.”
> [...]
> “We wanted to make sure that the people, namely the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected,” Fauci concluded.
See: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...
You seem certain of this.
Please post a link to the high quality evidence that you think WHO should have used to recommend mask wearing in the general public.
This should be either a meta-analysis or RCT that shows a clear benefit.
We have plenty of RCTs of masks to prevent spread of respiratory disease.
It should be very easy to find one -- you're so certain you must have already read the research, and if the effect is so clear it'd be obvious to people doing the research.
I'm having trouble unpacking this statement.
Are you saying that a person's political ideology influences their judgment about what's objectively true regarding the WHO?
Or are you saying that even when two persons agree on the objective details of WHO's behavior, their different political ideologies lead them to different sentiments regarding how well WHO performed?
Or something else?