How the World Health Organization might fight future pandemics

Most countries would benefit from the planned new rules, and obviously it would be much better from a global perspective, but individual interests may be affected (for example those of pharmaceutical companies) so negotiations may get complicated before an agreement is reached.

After the influenza scare of 2009 some countries fought diplomatically to greatly reduce the scope of the 2005 health regulations, unfortunately they got their wish granted and covid is one of the consequences. Now (after disaster struck) some of those countries have recognized the value of an international public health authority pushing for countries to implement and obey rules meant to reduce the risks of pandemics happening and going unreported until it is too late.

Big problems remain, for example China (a likely place for newly introduced zoonosis to become the new pandemic) opposing the reforms, but hopefully something can be decided on time to prevent or lessen the damage from the next pandemic.

Until governments and health agencies acknowledge and hold people accountable for the "errors" and corruption that occurred during this pandemic, they must be resisted.

Also, they must address the extreme levels of influence that big pharma and people like Gates and Faucci have on health agencies, governments, MSM, and researchers.

Until governments and health agencies acknowledge and hold people accountable for the "errors" and corruption that occurred during this pandemic, they must be resisted

What errors and corruption are you talking about? and how is resisting the increase of transparency supposedly helps?

Also, they must address the extreme levels of influence that big pharma and people like Gates and Faucci have on health agencies, governments, MSM, and researchers.

When everybody in the field have the same conclusions about the value of measures and you refuse to accept these conclusions as valid the problem is much more likely to be of personal bias than a world wide conspiracy involving every single institution of the world.

When everybody in the field have the same conclusions...

Oh please, you know very well that not everybody in the field have the same conclusions. Plenty of doctors/researchers preferred to get fired than to follow those "conclusions". And as I have pointed out many times already, those conclusions are increasingly shown in peer-reviewed studies to be wrong....

This is just one part of 'global governance'... while it appears there is no one world government, in reality the private sector is brought under control to outsource management of the population and there is even less accountability.

Part of the actions being taken is precisely to make a requirement for companies to open the contents of the contracts they make with national governments, if this do not bring more accountability then what?

Oh please, you know very well that not everybody in the field have the same conclusions.

Why would I know something that is not true? you keep claiming there is no consensus, but fail to bring even one institution of science or medicine that support the claims you make, this clearly indicates that the consensus is real and applies. There are "doctors/researchers" making claims against the consensus for everything, (for example against the microbe theory of infection), that do not prove the consensus is wrong, just that there is always the chance of people not fulfilling their professional obligations and giving too much importance to what they want to believe, even if they can be proved wrong.

Plenty of doctors/researchers preferred to get fired than to follow those "conclusions"

If their choice was to ignore the evidence and just repeat things that could be demonstrated easily as false without anything to support those claims then they opted to get fired instead of acting professionally, which is completely different.

And as I have pointed out many times already, those conclusions are increasingly shown in peer-reviewed studies to be wrong

You have claimed so, but then offer no evidence of this actually happening, no peer reviewed studies indicating the consensus is wrong, much less with evidence of the level that support this consensus.

Is the WHO going to be able to force countries like China to obey international guidelines so they can't hide outbreaks like they did this time? if not then this will be useless.

The best thing they could do is make sure nobody carries out viral gain of function research ever again...

The best thing they could do is make sure nobody carries out viral gain of function research ever again...

Aside from that being basically impossible (even a simple viral multiplication culture may already qualify as "gain-of-function research"),

No, I am not referring to the natural evolution of viruses, but rather genetic manipulations, either by directed recombinant DNA technology and/or through passages through engineered animals (e.g. humanize mice). You yourself stated in your previous post that we had not had a pandemic in the last years. "Simple viral multiplication cultures" did not produce pandemics. The only reason we had one now is because of gain of function research.

As for the antiviral countermeasures that were supposedly obtained thanks to gain of function research, well to be honest they have been disappointing and we would have been better off without them...

Sorry, but I have to side with Raw Beer (even if it's not how he intended): Lots of countries, lots of government officials have royally screwed the pooch when it comes to handling the pandemic, especially in the early days. 

That is understandable and correction desirable, but the obvious intention of the original comment to which I replied is to also include as "errors and corruption" the achievements of the industry and governments as well as the understandable excess of actions where no other option (or precise information) was available to know for sure how much risk was acceptable. The examples you mention are reasonable and part of what would be corrected with the change of rules, but looking at the history of the comments the original was too obviously meant to mean use of vaccines and lack of use of worthless repurposed drugs, neither of which are examples of error nor corruption but perfectly valid actions that benefited countless patients.

The best thing they could do is make sure nobody carries out viral gain of function research ever again...

Because the opportune development of safe and effective vaccines thanks to these research (and the countless lives saved thanks to them) is something you want to forbid?

Exactly zero pandemics have been caused by gain of function research, and many measures against infection have been developed thanks to responsible use of this kind of work, a blanket disapproval of something that has been proved beneficial is not valid, what is valid is regulation and ethical/biosafety based rules so it can continue to be so.

"Simple viral multiplication cultures" did not produce pandemics. The only reason we had one now is because of gain of function research.

No, it is not, the experts agree the hugely most likely explanation for the pandemic is the same as all the other pandemics in the history of humanity, pretending a personal belief that gain of function MUST have originated this pandemic completely depends on ignoring the many kinds of evidence that this was just another example of a natural pathogen adapting to humans, and pretending evidence that should be present (but is not) is available to prove the artificial origin of SARS-CoV-2. That is not reasonable and only evidence a very strong personal antiscientific bias.

Since when has science depended on consensus and NOT verifiable and repeatable research?

Oh yeah when the billionaires fund "the science".

Since when has science depended on consensus and NOT verifiable and repeatable research?

You got it wrong, the evidence do not depend of the consensus, the consensus reflects the best available evidence. Saying that there is a consensus do not mean this is what people have to find in their research, it means this is what the full medical or scientific communities end up agreeing is what has been found with the latest research, of course in some fields or details there is no consensus, but in heavily studied things there is one.

It would be great to see the WHO fight any pandemic, not just future ones.

There are currently a plethora of pandemics that the WHO is not fighting because of lack of manpower, lack of leadership, lack of ability.

As the article describes "the global health agency" had limited ability to fight Covid outbreaks. In other words, it failed.

Time to allow health expert organizations in major countries take the lead, especially in poorer countries that have been failed repeatedly by the WHO.

There are currently a plethora of pandemics that the WHO is not fighting because of lack of manpower, lack of leadership, lack of ability.

Any reference for this? lack of power is a given since governments fought very strongly to decrease it, but I can't find anybody saying the WHO lacks leadership or ability to fight the pandemic.

 In other words, it failed.

How do you get this conclusion from having multiple successes in spite from the limited ability to strongarm countries to do better? do you think not having absolute success in every single detail automatically means failure?

Time to allow health expert organizations in major countries take the lead

Which organization have done anything even comparable to what the WHO achieved?

Any reference for this? lack of power is a given since governments fought very strongly to decrease it, but I can't find anybody saying the WHO lacks leadership or ability to fight the pandemic.

Oh this is easy. There is a reference mentioning the WHO's inability to fight the pandemic.

It's called The Article on which we are commenting:

The global health agency itself is facing calls for reform after an independent panel described it as "underpowered" when COVID-19 struck, with limited ability to investigate outbreaks and coordinate containment measures.

Absolutely refers to ability specifically;

Your argument is that the WHO has lack of ability to fight the pandemic, but the quote only refers to one specific action, not the general fight. The part where your argument becomes invalid is not the meaning of the word ability is the unwarranted generalization of one single kind of action (that no other organization did either) as if that represented an inability to do everything else. That is still completely false.

Looks like the EU hs been critical of the WHO leadership too (again, from the article):

following allegations of "vaccine apartheid" from the WHO's Director-General Tedros.

Putting a little attention would let anybody understand that the allegations were done BY the WHO director-general, not against him. This is a well reported thing.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/world-has-entered-stage-vaccine-apartheid-who-head-2021-05-17/

I'm using Thomson Reuters as the source. Shouldn't you?

Again, the problem is not the source, the problem is trying to pretend it is saying something only you are doing. You are the one saying lack of absolute perfect success means failure, Thomson Reuters did not made this obviously invalid conclusion, that is all from your part.