Critics say pandemic treaty text is 'step backwards'

this next pandemic, this next health threat, is probably not far away,

And this is probably true, though not because the WHO or anyone else has some pandemic up their sleeve, as some nutty folk would have it. Eating mammals and birds is a huge risk factor, including exotic ones or any that can be a vector for pathogens from the exotic ones.

It's unlikely anyone is really holding their breath to see the outcome of this treaty.

Western countries have already implemented changes so that any WHO advice is secondary to what the experts arounds the world advise.

In addition, lab leaks can happen anytime again.

If anything, the treaty should compel the WHO to not saddle up with an offending country from day one.

It's unlikely anyone is really holding their breath to see the outcome of this treaty.

The article clearly describe how developing countries have been affected by unfair distribution of vaccines and other tools for the control and treatment of covid for the latest pandemic, it should be rational to think they are extremely interested in a treaty that would prevent the same situation from repeating for the next one.

In addition, lab leaks can happen anytime again.

that is unrelated to the covid pandemic, since the scientific evidence clearly points out to the natural origin to be the cause of it, the same as every other pandemic in the history of humanity.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337

If anything, the treaty should compel the WHO to not saddle up with an offending country from day one.

If the purpose of the treaty is to limit the negative consequences of a pandemic then it should give tools to address countries that are not following the agreed recommendations and put in risk the world as China did for this one.

The article clearly describe how developing countries have been affected by unfair distribution of vaccines and other tools for the control and treatment of covid for the latest pandemic, it should be rational to think they are extremely interested in a treaty that would prevent the same situation from repeating for the next one.

So you don't know what developing countries think, and you are only speculating.

that is unrelated to the covid pandemic, since the scientific evidence clearly points out to the natural origin to be the cause of it, the same as every other pandemic in the history of humanity.

You are clearly wrong, because one of the largest science institutions in the world finds the lab leak was the likely cause of the Covid pandemic.

If the purpose of the treaty is to limit the negative consequences of a pandemic then it should give tools to address countries that are not following the agreed recommendations and put in risk the world as China did for this one.

That's all good and speculative, and full of personal bias. At the same time, it is nice you recognize the complicity of the WHO with China.

So you don't know what developing countries think, and you are only speculating.

Do you have any argument against the logic used based on what is written on the article? what part can you demonstrate as invalid?

You are clearly wrong, because one of the largest science institutions in the world finds the lab leak was the likely cause of the Covid pandemic.

That is not true, no scientist (named, with credentials) have said so, a governmental pannel made that claim and it has not been sustained with scientific arguments such as the two references already provided do for the opposite. Without a discussion that includes the available evidence that discredit that theory there is no basis to call a conclusion as scientific.

Again, what evidence have been produced and discussed that can refute the many different reports that clearly say the natural origin is the only one that corresponds with the available data?

That's all good and speculative, and full of personal bias

When you are unable to use even one single argument to refute the logic of the comment you are recognizing the bias is on your part. Avoiding to argue something because you understand you can't disprove that something can't be justified by making accusations without proof.

it is nice you recognize the complicity of the WHO with China.

There is no way to interpret the quoted text as complicity, the comment clearly says that it is much more productive (for the purpose of avoiding negative consequences) for the WHO to be given power to oppose countries doing things opposite of what they agreed previously. If you think not having that power means being complicit on those actions then you think every other medical institution (including the CDC) is in the same situation as well because they did not force Chine to do anything.

Given the record of the WHO and most western governments during the recent pandemic, I am leery of any policies they might implement. We endured great restrictions and hardships during the pandemic which had no meaningful effect on stopping it, but which did great harm to society. We have kids who weren’t able to receive a proper education for 2 years, catastrophic harm to small businesses, increases in crime, violence, suicide, and domestic abuse, not to mention runaway inflation as governments spent money like drunken sailors.

 We endured great restrictions and hardships during the pandemic which had no meaningful effect on stopping it, but which did great harm to society.

That personal opinion is contradicted by the professional conclusions from medical and scientific experts that clearly say the measures helped saving millions of lives. Can you provide any expert analysis (that can at least survive post publication peer review) that says the measures in general were not justified by the benefits they brought?

Pretending the measures had no positive effect is not a valid argument. That is like saying life saving drug was worthless because it produced pain at the site it was injected.

The treaty is precisely the way the different countries of the world could correct the problems that prevented not only the WHO but all other interational public health authorities deal with the pandemic in the best possible way, most of the problems were due to policies not being put in practice.

The treaty is precisely the way the different countries of the world could correct the problems that prevented not only the WHO but all other interational public health authorities deal with the pandemic in the best possible way, most of the problems were due to policies not being put in practice.

You mean the WHO couldn't dictate and now wants that power!

Look at how Canada locked everyone up and in, NZ even more Europe, etc..

Then look at Japan it did it's own thing, ignored much of what the rest were doing and came out better in nearly every aspect.

Thank goodness Japan wasn't listening the the WHO in any real way.

You mean the WHO couldn't dictate and now wants that power!

No, if the proposal is a treaty, meaning all the countries in general would be the ones having that power, the WHO is simply the medical authority in charge of demonstrating what is the best approach from a scientific point of view. Nobody is giving the WHO an army to force anything.

Look at how Canada locked everyone up and in, NZ even more Europe, etc..

Again, measures never were proposed as perfectly benign without any negative repercussion, just the much lesser evil that prevented uncountable deaths and destruction of social services.

Then look at Japan it did it's own thing, ignored much of what the rest were doing and came out better in nearly every aspect

That is false, what Japan did was to enact measures without having to force them, people used masks, isolated, business closed, etc. etc. Based mainly on people doing what was necessary without the government having to force that.

Thank goodness Japan wasn't listening the the WHO in any real way.

Japan enacted all the measures that the WHO recommended for countries in the same situation, the only difference is that the government did not had to force those measures.

virusrex

Today 07:24 pm JST

Funny I was in Japan the entry time seems one of us has a convenient lapse of memory.

I recall all the people complaining that Japan wasn't following the WHO including you.

No, if the proposal is a treaty, meaning all the countries in general would be the ones having that power, the WHO is simply the medical authority in charge of demonstrating what is the best approach from a scientific point of view. Nobody is giving the WHO an army to force anything.

Perhaps you should get a copy of the proposed "treaty" the new wording included "binding" by that signatories agree to be bond to the agreement and follow all WHO procedures not voluntarily but blindingly!

As even the British MPs have pointed out, if the WHO recommends lockdowns, closure of air travel, closure of borders, etc... signatory countries are obligated to put those measures in place.

Funny I was in Japan the entry time seems one of us has a convenient lapse of memory.

If you fail to remember everybody using masks, business closing, people teleworking, Hospitals segregating according to status to avoid exposing people, vaccinating everybody etc. etc. you are not making an argument, you are just recognizing you don't have one.

I recall all the people complaining that Japan wasn't following the WHO including you.

Of course you can just post a link proving it, right? there is a huge difference between the government wasting the effort of the population and the people not doing anything in the first place.

Perhaps you should get a copy of the proposed "treaty" the new wording included "binding" by that signatories agree to be bond to the agreement and follow all WHO procedures not voluntarily but blindingly!

As even the British MPs have pointed out, if the WHO recommends lockdowns, closure of air travel, closure of borders, etc... signatory countries are obligated to put those measures in place.

Again, that is completely different from the misrepresentation you tried to make, the treaty do not put the WHO as the enforcer that will force countries to do anything but the members will be the ones using that authority. You still have not explained what army is being given to the WHO to force things on its own.

The misrepresentation is debunked in the same way as in the last comment, the WHO is not forcing anybody, it is just scientifically deciding what are the measures that better prevent the worst consequences of a pandemic, things that countries already agreed on but ignored and caused the covid pandemic in the first place.

.!. .!. In Tedros We Trust .!. .!. .!.

Again, that is completely different from the misrepresentation you tried to make, the treaty do not put the WHO as the enforcer that will force countries to do anything

> The misrepresentation is debunked in the same way as in the last comment, the WHO is not forcing anybody,

You are playing with semantics.

Binding means what?

I will answer because I know you will not do it directly.

Binding means signatory countries wil HAVE to do what the WHO says.

So who will be saying lockdowns?the WHO.

Who will say close the borders? The WHO.

Just because they will not be the ones enforcing it does not mean they are not the ones ordering and doing it.

Binding means binding, not like today recommended follow if you want.

So the only way a signatory government would not follow would be by breaking the agreement and suffering the applicable penalties.

@Antiquesaving

Bingo