Japan Today
health

Africa's cholera crisis worse than ever

26 Comments
By SEBABATSO MOSAMO, FARAI MUTSAKA and GERALD IMRAY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


26 Comments
Login to comment

Easily prevented and easily treated, if one has access to basic healthcare. Alas, billions of people do not.

Zambia is rich in copper and other metals, but the resources are not used for the common good.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The one's who control the money control what gets done, is it not so? The mineral wealth of Zambia, for instance, which is considerable, is largely controlled by the Chinese state. If they wanted to, and that is a big if, they could use some of the wealth generated from the sale of Zambian minerals for the health, education, and infrastructure development of the host state. Or, they could concentrate on making China as wealthy as possible, and not concern themselves with the welfare of the people who live in the area. Given the evidence that is before our eyes, which path has the Chinese leadership taken?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

And the developed countries are in a space race to develop space tourism at the expense of the environment. And as always, the people who have no voice pay the real price for this folly.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Africa's cholera crisis worse than ever

The failure of the WHO is on display again.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

The failure of the WHO is on display again.

There is no such failure, the roles of the global authority in public health do not include correcting climate change, governing countries so they stop falling into poverty nor forcing developed countries to invest in what is necessary on the developing countries. If anything this would be a failure for the people responsible of educating the few that are still convinced climate change is natural and have no negative consequences.

For rational people it is easy to understand the solution requires the cooperation of the full international community, and that no single organization have the magical means to solve world problems by itself.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

But thanks for recognizing that the planned agreement is binding

That was never questioned, the countries themselves are the ones that look for this purpose.

Perhaps not questioned by you, but the mainstream narrative was that it was not binding. It was only when some people carefully looked at the wording and noticed that the "non-binding" in previous drafts was quietly deleted; that is when people started making a big fuss about it.

The misrepresentation you made previously was that they were supposed to lose their sovereignty which is still completely false

If the WHO can arbitrarily declare a pandemic and impose mandates and lock-downs, it is not completely false to say that countries have given up some of their sovereignty.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

On the subject of global warming, the New York Times is reporting that 2023 was very possibly the high point in human CO2 emissions, and that from now on those emissions will decline. Sounds wonderful to me. However, CO2 has a half life in the atmosphere of about 100 years, so we are still getting warmed up by emissions from hundreds of years ago. Still, I guess one could say there is hope.

By the way, the article in the NYT said that most of the increase in green energy production world-wide happened in China, so I guess they are using their money for something useful, at least some of the time.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

nobody is trying to sneak something that is widely recognized as the main point of the agreements. 

Actually, not true.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It is like saying that the police is trying to "sneak in" payable penalties in parking fines, that is the main purpose.

Yeah, but imagine a police authority that is lead, advised, and funded by unscrupulous people, and they ask to have the right to arbitrarily determine where and when people can park anywhere in the world.

No thanks!

But thanks for recognizing that the planned agreement is binding...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Oh, really?

Part of the article is precisely about this,

That's a new argument you brought it. But do you disagree with the above poster? He seems to think the WHO does not have power. Tell him why you think it does!

The respect from the global public health community is part of the power that the WHO excercise, there is no other organization that can coordinate global responses. That alone means the WHO can do something no other institution can. By definition that is power, brought by its scientific authority.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The WHO observes, warns, declares emergencies, gives recommendations. To follow up on that guidance, however, is the task of the its member states. The governments and their medical organisations need to carry out the actions, not the WHO.

That is the case now, but they tried to sneak in an agreement that would make those declarations and recommendations binding. Luckily, it did not pass.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It is like saying that the police is trying to "sneak in" payable penalties in parking fines, that is the main purpose.

No, it isn't.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Actually, not true.

Completely true, the agreement is even described this way in another of the articles here.

countries have spent two years **trying to reach binding commitments** for tackling future pandemics.

It is difficult to be more clear about this being the whole point of the agreement, did you not know about it before commenting about it? that would explain your mistake, and why you have been completely unable to argue in defense of that mistake.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yeah, but imagine a police authority that is lead, advised, and funded by unscrupulous people

That would still make the "sneak in" part terribly wrong, and showing deep ignorance about the whole topic as well.

Not to mention, that the WHO is a well recognized global authority that is respected by public health related organizations around the world, enough for those organizations to base a lot of their practices in what the WHO has to say.

and they ask to have the right to arbitrarily determine where and when people can park anywhere in the world.

That is not what the agreement would mean, the agreement would make the own countries the ones that would guarantee their commitments, once again the completely false misrepresentation only plays towards the interests of billionaires and corrupt politicians that would be the ones affected, and it means you are against the interests of the developing countries that continuously demand the agreement to be signed so they will no longer have to be as unprotected as they have been.

But thanks for recognizing that the planned agreement is binding

That was never questioned, the countries themselves are the ones that look for this purpose. The misrepresentation you made previously was that they were supposed to lose their sovereignty which is still completely false

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Perhaps not questioned by you

Again, pretending the WHO is not respected by the worlds public health services does not make it an argument, it is very simple to find out examples where the professionals in charge of public health, the universities, the research institutes of the world listen and consider very important whatever the WHO has to say.

The ones that question the WHO are the same that question every other scientific authority because their main purpose is to reduce the image of science so they can personally profit by misleading people.

It was only when some people carefully looked at the wording and noticed that the "non-binding" in previous drafts was quietly deleted

Except it was not quiet at all, and the countries included in the agreement actively promote this as the obvious main point without which there is no merit on having an agreement in the first place. Again the most vocal countries are the ones that were left abandoned this time.

If the WHO can arbitrarily declare a pandemic and impose mandates and lock-downs, it is not completely false to say that countries have given up some of their sovereignty.

Completely false, countries making their own commitments in case of a pandemic means they are using their own sovereignty in order to have a huge benefit globally, trying to disguise this huge hole in your argument is what makes it evidence your intention is not to have a rational discussion, instead using false claims even when they are terribly obvious for anybody paying attention.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The WHO observes and comments on health issues, even the ones it is not involved with.

Oh, really?

Again, pretending the WHO is not respected by the worlds public health services does not make it an argument, 

That's a new argument you brought it. But do you disagree with the above poster? He seems to think the WHO does not have power. Tell him why you think it does!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yes, as an observer. The WHO observes and comments on health issues, even the ones it is not involved with.

The WHO has absolutely been observing the cholera outbreak--and doing nothing.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Except for cholera being one of the WHO's biggest issues in Africa.

Is one of the biggest public health problems, but not because of any actions of the WHO but instead because of the expected consequences of climate change, political corruption and lack of involvement of the countries that should be doing something about it.

The WHO has stumbled again while letting another outbreak flourish under its watch.

Again, pretending anyone can just magic infinite resources to solve any and all problems of the world is just magical thinking and a totally illogical position to take. The WHO can't force countries to deal with climate change for example.

The WHO has absolutely been observing the cholera outbreak--and doing nothing.

Any source that says this? because nameless people on the internet pretending the WHO should have military powers to stop wars and also revert climate change is not exactly something rational that people can believe.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That is the case now, but they tried to sneak in an agreement that would make those declarations and recommendations binding. Luckily, it did not pass.

What do you think the whole point of the agreement is? to let the WHO say things even if it carries no weight and nobody has to be responsible for their actions? that is even worse than the current situation right now.

It is like saying that the police is trying to "sneak in" payable penalties in parking fines, that is the main purpose.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No, it isn't.

Since you were completely unable to argue how the analogy is wrong, it would mean it is perfectly appropiate, nobody is trying to sneak something that is widely recognized as the main point of the agreements. If anything thinking so reveals a deep lack of knowledge of the topic in the first place. The same as being surprised parking fines are paid with money.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Outside of some minor training efforts and an observing role, the WHO has little to no involvement in Cholera elimination efforts in Africa.

Except for cholera being one of the WHO's biggest issues in Africa.

The cholera outbreak in the WHO African Region has affected 18 countries over the last two years. 

https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/disease-outbreaks/cholera-who-african-region

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The WHO has stumbled again while letting another outbreak flourish under its watch.

Tragic. But we have seen these comedic errors committed over and over.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites