That's the part I take issue with. Any time power becomes centralized (including during emergency situations) it leads to loss of individual freedoms, and often increased anthropogenic (=human-caused) suffering.
Nb America has too many elected positions; most democracies have fewer (are more “centralized”) but also it’s easier to fire them if you don’t like them (here it’s difficult to impossible). For instance the best reason to elect both a mayor and supervisors of SF is if you want them to fight instead of getting things done, and indeed that’s what they do.
> The proposal to grant WHO – and the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which is closely associated with WHO due to its technical skills in epidemiological investigations – the right to carry out on-site assessments/send expert teams that the state party in question cannot easily reject, should be carefully analysed also in light of similar US proposals made in 2004 during the then thorough revision process of the IHR (lasting from 1995-2005). At the time, some WHO regions rejected the proposal as they suspected a US’ intention behind them to gain access to biodefence research facilities around the world, thus fearing espionage. This appeared against the background of the Iraq war which started in 2003 under the pretext of the existence of Iraqi bioweapons that UN investigators had been unable to find.
Great question, and no it doesn't. Part of the UN's push[1] around this treaty is ensuring that it actually has teeth and isn't just hot air. For example, it recommends the involvement of World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and International Labour Organization in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of health emergencies:
>In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak.
The UN also raises the question of countries being punished for non-compliance:
>[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.
In other words, if you report disease outbreaks in a timely manner, you will get financial resources to deal with them. If you DON'T report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.
These proposed rules would incentivize reporting possible disease outbreaks. Some would suggest they actively encourage outbreaks.
[1]https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/C...
Although I fail to see how the Xi era China would allow a WHO team investigate in a timely manner, after they placed the covid investigators in a two week quarantine more than a year after the event occured and they had plenty of time to further cover things up.
I’m gonna call bullshit on this. This sentence can mean anything you want to, while being constructed in such a way to be arise suspicion.
That is, unless you care to clarify what you mean by power and freedom here, i.e. is patents on vaccines included in centralization of power? Is my freedom to infect those around me included?
And even after you have clarified these terms, some empirical data wouldn’t hurt either. To show a negative correlation with—whatever you call centralization of power and individual freedom (however you define it).
Yes.
/s
I'd propose that if you made more of an effort to be empathetic with people who lack access to wealth and privilege, you'd understand better the criticisms of centralizing power and power structures in general.
"You don't understand because you can't see my perspective" goes any which way, and so is not an argument. If their are artifacts of your perspective that we need to form a full and coherent view - then share them with us. If you're just looking to be patronizing and dismissive because you only value a certain perspective - then please reconsider.
The latter does not require the former, contrary to what some people might say -- those who wish to hold unfettered power, or those who wish to be ruled over by one holding such power.
This is discomforting. Genuinely curious how anyone would see this as anything more than a power grab.
All they can do is decide how their funds get spent. They are granted all these "powers" to spend their funds by the participating states. Furthermore, they are restricted to spending it on things that promote world health. The worst they can do is squander the money, which isn't even all that much.
Compare this to people like Jeff Bezos who have vastly more money, 100% centralized, and effectively no restrictions on how they spend it. Whether you should be concerned about that is up for argument, but by contrast, any concerns about the WHO are pretty absurd.
True, but a majority of policy makers and talking heads (that influence and approve laws) carry out their deeds under the guise of "Well, the WHO says so". Consider how frequently the "appeal to authority" tactic was used during the pandemic.
This isn't entirely without consequence.
Maybe this isn’t without consequence, but relatively speaking the risk of negative consequences are next to nothing.
Yeah, what could go wrong with that?
This seems off topic.
The article is about monkeypox. The WHO meeting is about regulations.
Yes, they are both public health issues, but that's about as close of a connection as there is.
Who benefits from 'lockdowns'? The economy slows down, workers stop working and lining up powerful people's pockets. Tourism plummets, supply chains gets disrupted. It's not profitable. Even a war brings profits. Lockdowns don't.
Mind you, most countries didn't experience any lockdowns at all.
Not every organization is conspiring against you. If anything, the media was regularly pushing to reopen business even as hospitals struggle.
It's very hard to rule over well-off, free people who have the ability to get together in groups and converse.
It is very easy to rule over isolated, poor, desperate people who can't communicate with each other without using the controlled platforms on which unapproved speech is impermissible.
We don't need to physically congregate anymore to 'converse'. Exhibit A: what we are doing here. We are long past the time when this sort of measure would be effective to contain ideas.
> It is very easy to rule over isolated, poor, desperate people who can't communicate with each other without using the controlled platforms on which unapproved speech is impermissible.
That's not a slippery slope anymore, it's a inertialess elevator. Having the power to stop local transmission quickly before it gets out of control != turning people into isolated and poor communities.
edit since I'm not allowed to reply to you anymore, apparently:
Agreement with the narrative produces upvotes, increased karma. Disagreement is punished. On this channel, it tends to take longer to get silenced than on the more popular ones (post on facebook or twitter anything that goes against the obligatory viewpoint and your account will be shadowbanned or actually banned more or less instantly. Here, so long as you agree with the narrative more often than you oppose the narrative, you still can occasionally post -- though as you get downvotes (which only pro-narrative users can hand out) your messages disappear, leaving ... only the pro-narrative message visible. This makes organizing to oppose the narrative nearly impossible.
Look at the large counter-narrative groups. Their numbers were decimated by the lockdowns. They pretty much only exist in the few states that decided to end the lockdowns. Now that covid doesn't scare people into obedience anymore, there is the possible for organization again, which is why a new threat is required.
Anyway, I'm out. Dang's crew has effectively silenced me on the subject, because I am no longer willing to pay to be allowed to disagree with his mandatory narrative. It's really easy to chill speech, it turns out.
IIRC you can still post with negative karma. It's unusual, but I think it's possible.
Dang may still decide to ban you, even if you have positive karma. It's usually due to personal aggressions or lot of silly oneliners. I don't see anything like that in your comment history, but I didn't check too much.
Who benefits from 'lockdowns'?
> 'Biggest fraud in a generation': The looting of the Covid relief plan known as PPP ... the theft of as much as $80 billion — or about 10 percent — of the $800 billion handed out in a Covid relief plan known as the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP. That’s on top of the $90 billion to $400 billion believed to have been stolen from the $900 billion Covid unemployment relief program — at least half taken by international fraudsters ... And another $80 billion potentially pilfered from a separate Covid disaster relief program.
Here's the thing though - it's not sustainable. The entire world is either in a recession or trying their best to not be in one. Inflation is rampant globally. Supply chains have been disrupted. We can't have nonstop pandemics.
Inflation is partially due to trillions printed during the pandemic. Lockdowns created deflation, temporarily hiding the consequences of money printing.
> We can't have nonstop pandemics.
There's a difference between "foo" and "threat of foo". The latter can last for a long time, e.g. airport security procedures implemented in response to one-time events, still in effect twenty years later, with little evidence of effectiveness.
You and I can't afford to do the things we could afford to do pre-pandemic, but the Davos set have more wealth and more uncontested power.
https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/NTI_Paper_BIO...
They have demonstrated that it is unsafe for freedom to have such entities.
> proposed US amendments to Article 12 IHR will both considerably extend the executive powers of the WHO Director-General to declare global emergency-like situations and centralise this power further by removing the need to consult and find agreement with the respective state party ... Articles 9 and 10 IHR moreover strengthen WHO’s powers to assess alleged global health risks by relying on information received outside official channels, giving the respective states only 24 hours to verify such information.
> ... if WHO’s powers are extended in this way, is there a need to also answer the question quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who guards the guards?), and to thus set up mechanisms ensuring that WHO complies with its obligations under the IHR and its Constitution, as well as its responsibilities for human rights deriving from customary international human rights law?
WHO's Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) site has videos from their April 2022 meeting: https://inb.who.int