On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared Covid19 a pandemic. International public health is their mandate, after all. The problem is that, after admitting that “Pandemic is not a word to use lightly or carelessly”, the Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus went on to say that “We have never before seen a pandemic sparked by a coronavirus. This is the first pandemic caused by a coronavirus. And we have never before seen a pandemic that can be controlled, at the same time.” These words are not only inexplicably careless and fraudulent, but constitute the clearest proof that on 11 March 2020 the WHO flouted its own wisdom and may have scammed the whole world into a pandemic. Since that date, the WHO seems to be leading the global fight against Covid-19 on false pretenses. Perhaps they were pushed into declaring a pandemic, or they do not know what they are doing. But the fact remains that on 11 March 2020 Covid-19 had NOT YET become a pandemic. Ghebreyesus even admits that “Of the 118,000 cases reported globally in 114 countries, more than 90 percent of cases are in just four countries, and two of those – China and the Republic of Korea - have significantly declining epidemics. 81 countries have not reported any cases, and 57 countries have reported 10 cases or less”. SO WHY DECLARE A PANDEMIC?
There are lingering unanswered questions about the WHO’s “lack of transparency, the role of the experts who are being paid by the pharmaceutical industry”, and so on. Indeed, there are a number of recent concerning examples. For instance, in June 2019 the WHO ruled that, although the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was “a severe emergency,” it did not yet qualify as a global emergency. This was the second time the U.N. agency had decided that the Congo outbreak did not qualify to be a global emergency. Then there is the question of H1N1. “In the months leading up to the WHO’s declaration of the pandemic as a ‘level 6’ contagion – the highest possible level – many countries including Italy, Germany, France and the UK made secret agreements with pharmaceutical companies. These contracts obliged the countries to buy Swine Flu vaccinations only if the WHO raised the pandemic to a level 6.” The 2018 documentary TrustWHO by filmmaker Lillian Franck “unearthed footage that showed WHO delegates six weeks before the level 6 pandemic was issued as having described Swine Flu as a ‘moderate’ situation."
The main point concerning Covid-19 is that, by its own admission, WHO seems to have declared Covid19 a pandemic IN ORDER to avert a Covid19 pandemic. This seems illogical, and a scam. The end date of an event cannot come before the start date. You cannot be in a pandemic that has not YET started, and you can only avert a crisis that has NOT YET taken place. But you cannot have BOTH a pandemic AND efforts to avert a pandemic. Certainly, there is a riddle posed by Ghebreyesus’ use of the phrase “at the same time”. I ask: how can an end date come BEFORE a start date? How is it possible that a manufacturing date can come AFTER an expiry date? The current global coronavirus crisis is proof that global agencies such as the WHO can, and do, actually cause irreparable harm. Perhaps their global roles need to be called into serious question. At a time when the blame game has started about who or what caused the current global health crisis, it seems that WHO caused the pandemic, and the blame for the Covid-19 pandemic lies squarely on the shoulders of the UN agency.
UPDATE: On 27 July 2020 WHO described Covid-19 as "a global health emergency" https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-who/who-says-covid-19-by-far-its-worst-global-health-emergency-idUSZ8N2DO000 Notice that this is a subtle shift in language, from pandemic to "health emergency". The definition of a "global health emergency" is ambiguous, and does not necessarily indicate a pandemic, although it could imply it. From seeming to be quite CERTAIN, they are now using deliberately ambiguous language. There is nothing in the notion of a "health emergency" that is NEW, and yet Covid-19 has been punted as NEW, thus justifying the unprecedented measures, such as the setting aside of democracy and human rights (because we are fighting an unprecedented enemy), destroyed livelihoods, mandatory face-mask wearing, physical distancing, lockdowns, closed economies, schools, social life etc.
Is the WHO, by this flip flopping and ambivalent language, trying to tell us something in a coded manner? Was their hand forced? Is there an internal struggle in the institution? Or is the WHO the one driving the scam?
World Health Organization (WHO) has done late in declaring coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as pandemic. If WHO would have declared it as pandemic earlier, then the situation would have been much better today.
If I may add proper and valuable sources for anyone in this network, one useful place to research if this was just a mistake of communication or an issue that should be properly studied, the daily "situation reports" may provide better insights. These were published daily, and maybe in here it could be found the moments at which WHO started to change the narrative (passing from the 100k of cases to the nearing number of 500k today).
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports
The World Health Organization (WHO), like other United Nations organizations, is subject to the will of the influencing states in the Security Council, and therefore the WHO may or may not succeed in making the right and timely decision. Moreover, this situation confuses the international decision and delays or impedes the adoption of consensus or any joint action to confront the global crisis.
Gerardo Castañeda True. The interesting thing is that, even going by the current rate of infection and mortality, it is not clear that we have YET reached the "threshold" of pandemic. It seems that we will reach that threshold at some future point, but the fact of the matter remains that we have NOT YET reached that point. Certainly, there was no pandemic (yet) on 11 March 2020. The WHO therefore seems to have declared a pandemic in advance. This action is inexplicable and irrational. Certainly it sets a complex and fateful precedent and its rationality needs to be questioned in terms of international public health policy and international public health ethics.
Saad Ahmed Ali Jadoo True, prevention is better than cure. But declaring something a pandemic is not prevention. Rather, it is turning the world upside down. And for what? To scare people into action? Fear appeals? What seems cleart to me is that WHO based their decision on a whim, in the absence of planning and data, and this is VERY DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL. How do we know, for instance, if the WHO's careless actions have not actually made the problem worse and irreversible? What they did was not prevention. It was throwing flames into the fire. And thus there is a sense in which the deaths of hundreds of thousands are on their account. WHO wields much power, and they misused it and are misusing it. What we do not know is which agenda, and whose agenda, they are pursuing. They need to be transparent about these things.
World Health Organization (WHO) has done late in declaring coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as pandemic. If WHO would have declared it as pandemic earlier, then the situation would have been much better today.
Arvind Singh No, you do not do that. You do not declare a pandemic when there is NO pandemic. That is illegal and unethical. A doctor cannot declare a patient dead before the patient is legally dead, or declare a patient cured before a patient is cured. What the WHO did was illegal and unethical.
@ Nyasha Mboti
It may be your thinking. In my opinion it was late but right decision taken by World Health Organization.
Thanks!
Arvind Singh I agree with you .. the declaration by WHO was late.. But I am quite curious at the same time-that initially the disease was contained in China..to be specific in Wuhan only, then how it spreads so fast to the rest of the world..
it is mindboggling There has to be an explanation..but no point in indulging in blame game now... Be safe..stay home.
Arvind Singh With all due respect, declaring a pandemic is neither subject to "your thinking" nor "my opinion". There is a formal criterion that has to be followed. Are you aware of this formal criterion? If you are, show me proof that this criterion was followed.
Amina Sultan Please help me to understand why the decision was late. Just give me a single reason, and provide a basis for it.
Amina Sultan What do you think the Director General of the WHO means when he says “Of the 118,000 cases reported globally in 114 countries, more than 90 percent of cases are in just four countries, and two of those – China and the Republic of Korea - have significantly declining epidemics. 81 countries have not reported any cases, and 57 countries have reported 10 cases or less”?
This does not look like a pandemic.
To
Nyasha Mboti
Thanks for bringing in this topic..
These are some of the questions the world wants the answers for..
Why was there a delay?
China reported their first COVID case quite late ( December) and WHO delayed declaring it to be pandemic crisis ( March)..
Now who should be held responsible? Researchers/scientists across the globe are not silly..they all are watching and speculating obviously. There have been lapses.
But now ,we have to come out of the mess asap...
Stay safe.much regards
It was too late. Even a single case is considered an outbreak and once a Single case crossed a border or involved another country then it should be declared as a pandemic. The basis should be the number of countries involved not the number of cases. Now there is a lot of what if....
Rodel Capule Please. A single case may be an outbreak, but it is NOT a pandemic. Let us stick to the formal definitions of things, and let us call things by their names. A pandemic has an objective definition:
Pandemic (noun): "An epidemic that is geographically widespread; occurring throughout a region or even throughout the world."
Perhaps it is time to redefine what pandemic is. A rigid or Cookbook type of decision making , specially in medicine, is a recipe for bigger problems. The present concept of pandemic does not factor in the speed of travel available today, the number of human interactions happening at any given time, the number of people hopping from one country to another at any given time, the way things are sent or spread by mails and parcel services, among others. If a computer virus can trigger an spontaneous corrective reaction from the highest level of government world wide, I don’t see why a real and lethal virus should only merit a cookbook type of reaction. It is my observation then that the moment we label it a “pandemic“ we also tacitly admit that we were too late. Respectfully,
Rodel Capule Excellent thoughts. Would I be wrong to say that global agencies like the WHO wield (such) unimaginably immense power to declare pandemics and what not? You and I know did not elect them. And you and I know that I cannot wake up at my house and declare a pandemic. Who am I? In a word, we must surely be able to hold accountable these immensely powerful UN agencies. At the very least we must compel them to be transparent about their definitions and criteria. But we cannot pretend that it's ok that they get to define things that define our lives, and we do not get to have a say in the definition.
The economic meltdowns, the panic buying, the shortages of hospital beds: who knows how much of that was provoked by the declaration of the "P" word by the WHO?
If they are not interested in being transparent about how they make these sorts of decisions, who authorises them, how they define "pandemic", and so on, then they stand accused of cheerleading and promoting this current Covid-19 crisis.
Rodel Capule I agree with you about redefining pandemic. But I don't think we must outsource that definition to impersonal global agencies. We "the people" must do the thinking and come up with those definitions, definitions that march in step with our lived experiences and quotidian lives. I will personally sign up for such an initiative. We can put together a panel of interested volunteers to reflect on this question. I just think it is too important to leave to the UN.
If an only if WHO was manned by GOD 'supposedly extraordinary, clairvoyant'! But it is manned by humans like you and I, except that they are certainly health literate. Please throw out the blaming attitude. At the moment, it is all deserving to join in combating this stubborn virus from spreading like a wildfire. The best we can do is to educate on preventive measures as much as possible within our capacity! By not being part of COVID-19 is the best to keep it at bay while healthcare professionals like us are left with no option but to frontline it.
Nidup Dorji With all due respect, please explain what you mean by "blaming attitude"?
Also, did you hear me say anything about not deserving to join in combatting this stubborn virus? Did I ever say anything about health professionals or anything remotely in that direction? Again, with respect, please stop putting words in my mouth.
Any person can see that we are in an emergency. I, like anyone else, have the right to pose questions and the right to say what I think is going on. Who wants to walk in a nightmare with their eyes wide shut? I will NOT stop asking questions, whether my questions irritate, annoy or enlighten people. In that light, my only interest is knowledge, particularly insights and new knowledge about this nightmare Covid-made that we are entering. Thus I only sent out an invitation to like minded human beings to reflect on the definition of pandemic and the WHO's role in directing the affairs of our lives like this, and to propose insights about what can be done to combat the lack of transparency at powerful UN agencies. If you feel that the invitation is not to your liking, well, NOSCE TE IPSUM.
Nyasha Mboti Although I understand anger and frustration. The easiest part was declaring a pandemic (on time or too late). The hardest part is still to come with the current effects of the pandemic already bigger than the last economic crisis. That crisis took almost 7 years to get back to business as usual. Before we declare the end of the pandemic at least several 100.000 people have died of the direct consequences and many more will follow from the postponing of "non-urgent" care in many countries. Another group of people that will pay the price in many countries, are those who are hit economically, many of them will not be able to get the same level of medical care afterwards. This will also result in casualties who will not be linked to the pandemic. The focus should be: "how can we get back to business as usual as soon as possible" and that should be the only focus.
Jef Hendrickx I have zero quarrel with any of your points. They are important and spot on. My concern is more about the transparency of the processess of powerful global agency such as WHO. They have unchecked, unelected power and have zero accountability - and yet people think this is a non-question. What have they done before and what are they doing now and what will they do in future without transparency about definitions, data modeling and decision making?
Jef Hendrickx Basically, we can fight Covid19 AND still hold powerful decision-makers to account. I do not see the contradiction or the incompatibility. To wit, we can do BOTH. We can fight the virus and still ask difficult questions. Unless you are saying that we must not ask questions in the time of a pandemic. We must just shut and support WHO?
Dear Nyasha Mboti I disagree with you on accountability and unelected power.
The national governments (most of the elected in some form) can hold UN agencies accountable not only direct but also indirect by (temporarily) blocking funds. So the agencies are accountable as their mandate is delegated by national authorities. The issue that you refer to is the lack of priority that many national governments allocate to oversight of the agencies. But that's not the responsibility of the agencies.
Unless the WHO is really failing at its task, which I do not see at this moment but that's not my expertise, I would suggest to continue to oversee their operations and evaluate and hold accountable after the facts. As with any large event in history, we only know what the right decision was, after the pandemic is over.
History gives us lights on human behavior and refreshes our memory when we often prefer to forget. On the occasion of the coronavirus different publications recall the terrible impact of other pandemics. Thus, the review of the plagues of Justinian and the bubonic, the ancient and long of cholera, or the Spanish flu and its impressive effects, accompanies us until a century ago. Of the victims of avian influenza, swine flu, influenza itself and coronavirus known as SARS and MERS, we can establish deadly effects so far more potent than covid-19. This pandemic we now suffered expanded at an unusual speed and showed the seams of the time we live in. Vision and lucidity in one of the best feathers of this time are betrayed in José Saramago. "Essay on Blindness" leads us to a world where evil is gradually spreading. The other title is "Lucidity Essay". The dichotomy between blindness and lucidity is a contradictory metaphor that illustrates the days we live in amazement. When China expanded evil from Wuhan, many did not want to see it. A maleficent exaggeration of the press, alarmist news from the perverse media, they said. An attempt by Western imperialism to discredit the great China, they repeated. European governments put a bandage on their eyes, trusted the eyes, and today countries like Italy and Spain pay the consequences of skepticism with thousands of deaths. France woke up a little late. Angela Merkel showed lucidity to guide Germany that has high contagions. The United Kingdom isolated itself from the European Union and its island status, they thought, was a natural wall. The plague came, after all. Another arrogant show of power deployed the disbelievers Donald Trump who now sees New York in panic, Washington confined. California quarantined and up to Miami in the emergency. WHO with its own agenda. It is not necessary to have eyes to see, as was the thing with Jorge Luis Borges, although lucidity, in times of blind and ravaged by pandemics is not common in the political class of the world that we had to live. When the curve is below 1% and everyone in their jobs and daily tasks will know what the right decision was and which the culprits and heroes, although in this crisis no one is guilty or no one is a hero, the Pachamama, Gaia, the Earth is restored with isolation , what message does it send us?...
Jef Hendrickx Marco Antonio González Escudero Nidup Dorji Rodel Capule Arvind Singh It seems other people had already started to question, too. See link to an article from a decade ago:
https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html#4f8374ae48e8
“The World Health Organization confirmed a covid-19 pandemic on 11 March.”
As of 11 March, there are more than 118,000 cases in 114 countries, and more than 4000 people have died, Tedros said. “In the days and weeks ahead, we expect to see the number of cases, deaths and affected countries climb even higher.” (Citations omitted)
(February 20)
“The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the covid-19 virus already meets two of its three criteria for a pandemic: it spreads between people, and it kills.
The third is that it has to spread worldwide. The virus is now in 38 countries – and counting – on nearly all continents, and those are just the ones we know about. How much more worldwide does it need to be? (citations omitted)
I guess the WHO struggled with the third criteria or did It? Should the whole house be on fire first before I call the firemen? On the one hand, is it only the WHO who can and who should read “the writings on the wall“? Why do I need a conflagration when I can read it simply with a lighted candle! We rely so much (on the WHO) that sometimes we forget that the very answer is already in our very own backyard. As a frontliner I sometimes catch myself asking these questions.
Dear researchers, thank you all for your questions and comments. I am very happy to read contradictory opinions and the possibility to write an opinion freely on this platform. Some other provocative comments and questions I would like to add, just think about it, because this is, in my opinion, our job as researchers, what form so ever, our job is to THINK:
1. Do we know what we actually measure with our mortality rate with patients that are positive with Covid-19. Is Covid-19 the main reason or is it a Co-Factor?
2. Can we trust the numbers? Are there less fatalities in the African continent? Did they learn from Ebola and therefore have a better system to prevent a pandemic or are the numbers higher?
3. Do we trust the Chinese numbers or do we take into account, that a Chinese government, and a lot of others, have more interest in keeping economy running than telling the truth?
4. What about Mr. Faucis comment in an interview: "We really have to take a look at ACE-Inhibitors". If the figures of Hopkins University are real, why are western civilizations hit so hard at the moment? Yes I read what one colleague mentioned, the greed, for sure one factor, if you look at textile industry in North Italy. But how many people take hypertensive medication? One statistic said, that 90% of sold hypertensive medication in North Italy are ACE-Inhibitors and Sartane. Do we miss something? Something totally different than I mentioned?
And 5. Why do we treat only symptoms? As public health specialist and not very internal medicine affine ENT I just ask my myself: why is it not possible to prevent the overreaction of many patients and prevent ARDS before it happens?
What do YOU THINK?
Science has made significant progress in recent decades in the fight against disease, but the reality is that, many countries, the stagnation of funding and the lack of policies aimed at the most vulnerable people has led to a resurgence of pandemics, losing the ground gained and jeopardizing all the progress found in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to achieve the end of these pandemics in 2030." Where are the real commitments to defend the planet? , Photos of diplomatic cocktails and the dead are put by helpless peoples?
I take my own the words of Lederberg (Nobel Prize 1958) who is sorry of emerging infectious diseases, and said, "It's our wit in front of their genes." Today 2020 when
We live the SARS-CoV-2/COViD-19 pandemic, their genes are being mocked by adapting to this infection that spreads silently, without revealing, until now, all its secrets. All we have left is what Pandora did, avoid a single leak: "There was only Hope left ..., she stayed under the edge of the jar and didn't fly away."
I don't think so. Nobody is perfect and they have to make decisions based on their experience. Anyway, here in North America hardly anyone has heard about the WHO. In previous battles against tobacco, sugar, pollution, etc, etc you only hear the opinion of the Big Business, while the WHO is pushed aside, as if not important.
WHO gave warnings, but brainless people like Trump and the like made a joke of the WHO, instead of listening to their suggestions. This "joke" has caused the death of thousands. So, the WHO should be respected more in N. America at least.
Michael Issigonis Marco Antonio González Escudero Stefanie Meyle Rodel Capule Jef Hendrickx It seems the questions about WHO's processes are increasing. See link: https://goachronicle.com/open-letter-to-dr-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-are-you-chinas-puppet-in-w-h-o/ Even Donald Trump has jumped in on the issue.
Too many incompetent heads of UN offices are around now. WHO leader is just a perfect example of incompetency. Is UN worth of existence? Isn't it just a joke today?
Thank you for your question. The whole records of communications with China should be surrendered to investigations, together with timeline actions taken. This is an outstanding organisation and this matter with these global losses in people, and the economy should be investigated. Ib would also say, China should also be investigated so that we can understand how this was triggered, what exactly went wrong? How this problem caused. We cannot just go like this. We need accountability.
SUN in the next 2 weeks moves towards the north, so Covid 19 will decrease. During the month Bangladesh temperature rises until September. This will be strengthened by the attitude of the people against the creator of the universe.
The suspension of the United State's funding for the World Health Organization reflects the level of dissatisfaction towards the WHO's actions.
Thank you Nyasha Mboti.
Should public health criteria be reviewed to declare an epidemic or a pandemic? WHO, a specialized agency of the United Nations since 1948, should know and do its job well. With all these member countries, if there are lies or incompetence on the Covid 19, now is the time to rethink and do more research.
World Health Organization (WHO) took too long to declare the pandemic and relied on the initial data without taking all the forecasts. Today the entire planet is suffering from this error.
Nyasha
By March 11, 56 countries had reported covid cases.
Surely that is grounds for declaring a pandemic.
Will you blame the messenger (WHO) for the message?
WHO has to act and respond according to the information provided by different countries, which is often hidden or communicated to WHO late. On COVID-19, it responded according to the information it received.
Furthermore, not many countries are funding WHO in it's mammoth job to allay the suffering of the world population from hunger and diseases particularly in poor countries.
Good job done by WHO has been are Smallpox eradication, efforts to eradicate poliomyelitis, its programs for tuberculosis, malaria, HIV-AIDS, vaccinations and many locally endemic diseases.
Therefore, WHO is as good as the support it gets from the the rich countries to help the poor. I am sure, if you close down WHO, you would see exponential increase in hunger, starvation and infectious diseases in the unprivileged poor countries of the world.
No, I don't think so. The member of WHO represents all countries in the world.
Lets not break the walls of trust. WHO is the main center of controlling and coordinating the conditions related to pandemics and epidemics. As things stand right now, they have done a very good job. Extreme reactions such as the one adopted by the U.S. president should not befuddle our judgement about the organization. Lets close our ears to unfair propaganda.
But don't you think the missing control instrument also of an WHO is worth a discussion? In my opinion too much power in one institution is at least questionable, what do you think?
Pays to look back to this Tweet:
Dr. Nancy Messonnier Retweeted📷Secretary Alex Azar@SecAzar·Jan 29Delighted that China has agreed for the @WHO to send in international experts to help develop a greater understanding of the #coronavirus outbreak to help guide response efforts around the world. I reiterated our offer of @CDCgov teams to Minister Ma Xiaowei this week.
And this:
Dr. Nancy Messonnier Retweeted📷Dr. Robert R. Redfield@CDCDirector·Jan 31As cases of #2019nCoV (#coronavirus) continue to increase in China and other countries, CDC supports the decision today by @WHO to declare the outbreak a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC).
Reza Biria This question is not about "walls of trust" (whatever this means). This question is about the chain (and transparency) of decision-making.
Nazaruddin Sinaga What do you mean "the WHO represents all countries in the world"?
Nazaruddin Sinaga Two questions for you:
- Is the WHO an elected body? So where does it get its power of representation?
- How much do you know about the chain and transparency of decision-making at the WHO? What can you tell us about this?
Muhammad Yousuf Unfortunately, WHO is not JUST a messenger. They are:
@Arvind Singh Do you still think the WHO was late? It's looking more and more as if the world OVER-REACTED based on initial unrealiable data.
Geoff Taylor You say "By March 11, 56 countries had reported covid cases. Surely that is grounds for declaring a pandemic." Short answer is NO. What can you tell us about the GROUNDS of declaring a pandemic? You think 56 out of 192 declaring cases is grounds for a pandemic? Not severity? By your logic, it would be a pandemic if all 192 countries in the world declared at least 1 case each of a disease? Are you sure that the number of declarations of cases is adequate grounds for declaring a pandemic?
Geoff Taylor I do not see how Dr. Nancy Messonnier tweet from Jan 29 answers the question about illogically declaring a pandemic to avert a pandemic. If anything, it proves my point: that efforts to avert a pandemic caused health authorities to declare a pandemic in advance. This, to my mind, is completely bonkers.
Geoff Taylor The fact that the CDC was early in supporting "the decision today by @WHO to declare the outbreak a 'public health emergency of international concern'" is not evidence. What we are looking is evidence of data about 1) how global the virus was, 2) how globally severe the virus was 3) what data was used to project into the future 4) chain of decision-making, 5) transparency about decision-making at these powerful global agencies.
I would only say regarding a previously unknown virus SARS-CoV-2 resulting in a serious world health problem of today: COVID-19 pandemic.
"It is very easy to ask questions from any one, but very difficult to answer them to the satisfaction of others".
We should see what countries with with mega budgets on health have done and achieved!
Now that cases have reached 4 million and we have moved from March 26 to May 12, semantics are perhaps a luxury.
Stefanie Meyle What worries me is how they want to eat their cake and still have it. I can never wrap my head around that illogicality. It's all about control, without costs and consequences for themselves. All the costs are invoiced on the poor, mostly.
Jose Luis Da Silva Which data are you relying on for this conclusion that the WHO were too late in declaring a pandemic?
Daphnee Michel Yes, health is too important a topic to leave to arbitrary global (and local) agencies. We must ask difficult and uncomfortable questions, and continue asking them.
Marco Antonio González Escudero But what data can you point to that indicates "a resurgence of pandemics"? I can't find any such data.
Michael Issigonis You say "Nobody is perfect". Granted. But WHO is not "nobody". They are a powerful agency of the UN. We cannot treat them like a little boy stealing sugar ("nobody is perfect"). They are the same club as the IMF, World Bank, and so on. They shape global policy. This is too important to just brush away with "nobody is perfect". Again, I repeat: the UN is not just "nobody".
@Michael Issigonis You say the WHO "have to make decisions based on their experience." That's the basis of my question. What is "their experience"? What data is their experience based on? Can we also see that data?
The World Health Organization has now lost its reliability. People's faith in WHO was broken.
This is useful if you want a credible picture:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00154-w
Geoff Taylor Thanks for the link. Very insightful. But it just adds to the clutter and confusion. For instance, subsequent headings like these make me question what is really going on, and what kind of a pandemic this really is:
2 April 21:00 bst — COVID-19 cases cross the one-million mark
7 April 21:00 bst — No new reported COVID-19 deaths in China
Note that there are just five days between the two headlines. One headline suggests that it is going like a wildfire, another that it is going away. So it's really important that we get our heads around how we are interpreting these data. Something really is broken.
Geoff Taylor Ramazan Bicer Muhammad Yousuf Stefanie Meyle Jose Luis Da Silva @Arvind Singh Daphnee Michel @Michael Issigonis And now this: "Governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine
In spite of the title, this is fairly balanced:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8382411/China-slow-share-early-data-coronavirus-world-internal-recordings-reveal.html
How should pandemic be defined? Currently there is no scientific definition. I have tried to set up a discussion here several times how to scientfiically define pandemic. There was not a lot of interest, thus far. Still it would be very helpful to have a scientific definition, isn't it?
Pieter Borger Absolutely. This is really needed. Indeed, it is the most important step. So much hangs on the definition: funding, economies, livelihoods, stigma etc. And it is odd that health scholars in general and epidermiologists, health policy scholars and public health scholars would be disinterested in such a project. In 2019 the WHO steadfastly refused (for the 2nd time) to define Ebola a global health emergency. But it is never clear what they base their decisions on. It is very opaque. And, at this stage, seems arbitrary too.
Pieter Borger But even with the scholarly community showing general disinterest, I think this is a worthwhile project and should be done nevertheless, with or without broader support. I think it is possible to bring together a few critical scholars who share the same interest in defining pandemic. The world with thank you later. Trust me, this question is going to become even more urgent in the future, what with modelling suggesting that Phase 2 of Covid is certain and that we are poised for more pandemics. I think it is a public duty to do these sorts of baseline studies.
Geoff Taylor Thanks for the link. I found it interesting that "The information was delayed at a time when the virus' spread could have been drastically slowed". Can we really slow a pandemic, never mind "drastically slow" it? Is it still a pandemic if we can drastically slow it? Why call it a pandemic if it can be drastically slowed. That sounds like a "potential pandemic" to me, rather than an actual pandemic.
Geoff Taylor Furthermore, if China was slow to share crucial information, one wonders which information WHO based its decision to declared a pandemic on, and when. Did WHO get all the information from China at all? And what really is the implication of this? Would WHO have declared a pandemic when it did had it received all the information from China?
Geoff Taylor Finally, if China was slow to share crucial information, does this imply that WHO would have declared a pandemic even earlier? On what basis?
Currently we are in a pandemic. Whether or not the pandemic started on 11th March is now irrelevant. Vision through the retrospectoscope is 20:20. Before the WHO declared Covid-19 to be a pandemic many were asking for this to be done sooner.
We currently have bigger issues to deal with. We currently do not need a definition of a pandemic. Once the dust settles we can check the Oxford dictionary. Right now we need the World Health Organisation and every other relevant organisation to focus on improving outcomes from Covid-19.
It does not matter. It is pandemic now and the number of affected people to this moment is 6.6M with 393142 deaths.
That is the point, Rajkumar and Hussain, what exactly is a pandemic? There is no scientific definition for a pandemic, so how can you say we are now in a pandemic? So it does matter. Because if there is no pandemic by this definition, we can reduce or stop the measures. Maybe we need grades of pandemia too. For instance green, yellow, orange, and red.
What we need is an independent world wide consortium of independent experts, who set up reliable fact-based scientific definitions, grades of severity, and standarization of measures to be taken. That would help.
Some issues raise questions- Why the infection rate is so law in China and did not spread to other states compared to what happened to Europe and the USA? Second- Why China stopped travelling of Chinese citizens interstate but allowed thousands of them to continue going to Europe, Canada and the USA? Third, all early reports from China showed that the reproduction number of SARS-CoV-19 is in the range 2.8, 3.6, 4.5, and even 6.8. This means it is highly infectious. Why China and the WHO did not pass such information earlier? Why did China not stop travelling overseas?
To answer all these questions, we need investigations.
We have two viruses originating in China in the last 17 years, the first was SARS-CoV in 2002, and the second SARS-CoV-19, which is more series. This is a public health problem affecting the globe. It is the right of all nations safety to investigate these matters, receive accurate information, issues recommendations and follow up. The aim is to get the truth and avoid any future crisis. Maybe the third one will be a disaster. We cannot wait or relax for security reasons, political, economic, and health reasons. The matter is not simple.
Rajkumar Rajendram The question is not about whether we are now in a pandemic or not. The question is: HOW transparent are the WHO's processes of defining and declaring a pandemic? How does the WHO reach these decisions? How can we trust opaque processes. I am surprised that you, a scientist, don't care how phenomena are defined.
Hussain Alsaffar I think you are on the wrong thread. You say "It does not matter. It is pandemic now" but the question never asked what it is NOW. The question is about HOW TRANSPARENT the WHO's processes are. At the moment they seem arbitrary and opaque, as just happened with the Lancet Hydroxychloroquine scandal https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/how-were-medical-journals-and-who-caught-out-over-hydroxychloroquine
Rajkumar Rajendram Pieter Borger Samy Azer Hussain Alsaffar Geoff Taylor Ramazan Bicer If there is a vindication for the need for stricter scrutiny and transparency in the WHO's process, it is the ongoing academic fraud scandal involving Lancet and Hydroxychloroquine. How did the WHO stop its own randomised controlled Hydroxychloroquine trials inside 24 hours on the basis of the findings of a fraudulent "observational" study? 24 hours! Where is the due diligence? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/lancet-had-to-do-one-of-the-biggest-retractions-in-modern-history-how-could-this-happen https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/how-were-medical-journals-and-who-caught-out-over-hydroxychloroquine
Pieter Borger Geoff Taylor Sorry. Re-shared: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/lancet-had-to-do-one-of-the-biggest-retractions-in-modern-history-how-could-this-happen
Pieter Borger Geoff Taylor #2 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/how-were-medical-journals-and-who-caught-out-over-hydroxychloroquine
Pieter Borger Geoff Taylor Samy Azer Rajkumar Rajendram Ramazan Bicer Hussain Alsaffar
After the H1N1 pandemic of 2009 evidence came to light that the WHO had exaggerated the danger and had spread fear and confusion rather than helpful information. It was later learned that “Italy, Germany, France and the U.K. made secret agreements with pharmaceutical companies” that “obliged the countries to buy vaccinations only if the WHO raised the pandemic to a level 6.” https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1281081/who-world-health-organisation-coronavirus-latest-swine-flu-covid-19-europe-politics-spt
Pieter Borger Geoff Taylor Samy Azer Hussain Alsaffar Ramazan Bicer Rajkumar Rajendram After H1N1 in 2009 the WHO "proceeded to change its guidelines for defining a pandemic in order to accommodate pharmaceutical contracts"... public fear seems to have been deliberately stoked "despite the fact that the pandemic never became a serious threat."
Note also how in 2019 the WHO refused to label Ebola a global health emergency without clear justification https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/drc-ebola-outbreak-global-emergency-190614153745192.html According to the WHO, lthough the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was “a severe emergency,” it did not yet qualify as a global emergency. This was the second time the U.N. health agency had decided that the Congo outbreak did not qualify to be a global emergency. What is the criteria for "qualifying"?
Dear Pieter Borger here are some definitions of the pandemic:
"..occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population "
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandemic
or
(of a disease) existing in almost all of an area or in almost all of a group of people, animals, or plants: In some parts of the world malaria is still pandemic
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pandemic
or
A pandemic is a disease outbreak that spreads across countries or continents. It affects more people and takes more lives than an epidemic.
https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/what-are-epidemics-pandemics-outbreaks
or
An epidemic that spreads globally is a pandemic.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2726986
Dear Nyasha Mboti
I just wonder why are we seeing all of sudden number of reports concerning the transparency of WHO. All of sudden! Don't you think there is a propaganda against WHO? Does the politics have a rule into this?
H1N1 occured in 2009 (11 years ago), co-incidentally, somehow, it was discovered in May 2020 that WHO had changed its guidelines to accommodate some contracts!!! That is strange to me to discover all these things at once.
If you think that I am on the wrong thread as you have mentioned 7 hours ago, then please accept my apologies and I withdraw myself from this discussion.
I wish you all to be safe and well.
Good day
It appears that some people think that the WHO is a unique organization or above questioning or investigations. Do not touch. Who said that? We have seen over the years problems in other major organizations such as the FIFA World Cup, and the Olympic Organising Committee and others. Is the WHO because it is about health, standards at a different ground? Nyasha - The issue is only about COVID-19 and has nothing to do with your own views and issues you are raising. I suggest not to go into these directions.
Hussain Alsaffar I apologise for my testiness. Sorry. I just lost my cool for a moment. I take all that back, for what it's worth. Samy Azer Thanks for the gentle touch on the shoulder. Point taken.
The covid-19 genome was first lodged with GISAID on Christmas Eve last year.
See
https://virological.org/t/novel-2019-coronavirus-genome/319
This is the Institute which lodged the genome last Christmas:
http://english.cams.cn/maps/207.html
More on where transfer of virus information is facilitated rapidly:
See gisaid.org
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GISAID
Alaa Hussein Fadhil
But do you know what their (i.e. WHO's) definition is? I still cannot find it.- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology