Kishida and WHO chief agree on new WHO affiliate in Japan: report

One step forward to vaccine passports.

They did SOOOO well with Covid didn't they, this will achieve what exactly? How about a real investigation into Wuhan...

help prevent the spread of infections

The good thing about Tedros is at this point, he realizes his "experts" don't always make scientifically sound decisions, which was the cause of him overruling his panel recently.

Both things are personal comments not based on reality.

There is no evidence the panel of experts have made any decision different from what the evidence points out, and there is no "overrule" when a decision is not made (such as the emergency declaration in the case of monkeypox) part of the role of the head of an organization is to make a decision when a panel could not reach one. Overruling would mean him contradicting an opposite decision, something that did not happen.

And give credit to Japan too for ignoring the WHO's advice that the general public NOT wear masks when the Covid crisis began.

Your example still is a recommendation based on the available scientific evidence of the time, which was also followed by the Japanese authorities that also prioritized the distribution of masks to hospitals and people dealing with symptomatic patients, which is exactly what the scientific authorities recommended at the time (including not only the WHO but also the CDC, EMA, etc.).

Anyone making excuses for this advice also believes a bleeding was the proper treatment for colds in the 1600's.

No, that is just a bad misrepresentation of the argument that any recommendation from a scientific authority such as the WHO must be based on available scientific evidence, not data that could only be obtained with a time machine.

Based on fact, and reported in JT.

No, what has been reported in this site do not conform to your mistaken conclusions, no overruling, no mistake. That comes exclusively from a wrong interpretation.

Overrule means someone with authority "exercises rule" over a situation, which he did. That's history

That is not what overrule means, the definition clearly includes the meaning of opposing a previously made decision, between what you say it means and what the Cambrige dictionary says it means obviously the well recognized dictionary is a better reference.

Overrule

(of a person who has official authority) to decide against a decision that has already been made:

to make a decision that opposes and changes another decision or suggestion from a position of higher authority:

The same applies to your next mistaken argument.

Wrong.

Do you have a scientific study from the start of the Covid crisis that concluded not to wear masks was a way to prevent infections for the general public? Of course you don't!

You are making the claim the CDC, EMA, WHO, etc were all wrong, that means you are the one that need to provide evidence that contradicts their recommendations and was available at the time.

You have provided no such thing, so you can't validly conclude any of these institutions did anything wrong.

Medical experts and doctors in Japan used available scientific evidence at that time to make a fundamental decision.

And this decision was to prioritize the use of masks in hospitals and with symptomatic patients, which is what the international organizations including the WHO clearly recommended.

You have presented zero evidence that would lead to any other recommendation.

Your mistake, your misinterpretation. Like your misunderstanding of the post office.

Trying to derail the discussion of the WHO on completely unrelated matters makes it clear that you have no arguments to defend your clear misinterpretation.

You are the one using a wrong definition to say something happened, that mentions evidence that support your conclusion but repeatedly refuse to present that evidence.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/overrule

As your own source says:

1. to disallow the arguments of (a person) by the use of authority

2. to rule or decide against (an argument, decision, etc)

These definitions (and the much more reliable definitions made by the Cambridge dictionary) clearly disproves what you thought the word meant, if you had to go and use the last definition skipping the ones that disprove your point this becomes a transparent attempt to mislead, else you would have used all the meanings listed.

I provided a source. You didn't. Here, again:

No scientific evidence is presented in your source, zero. That means your argument (that the recommendation was wrong according to scientific evidence available at the time) is still baseless.

The WHO (and the rest of the scientific community of the world) were not wrong for not having data from the future. Tedros did not overrule the panel of experts. Therefore the two criticisms about your comment are still perfectly valid.

Maybe related to the Japanese CDC he announced before (but that nobody knows anything about)? In a way it would be interesting if Japan finally ends up jumping into the 21st century thanks to the influence of the WHO, it would be much more difficult to ignore how the world gives opportune approval of new treatments with the affiliate in the country to promote this knowledge between the medical professionals.

One step forward to vaccine passports

If that were the objective it would be irrelevant if a new WHO affiliate is opened or not, in reality vaccine requirements for travel has been used for decades already.

This cannot be good

How exactly?

A lot of the problems with the pandemic happened because of a lack of a framework that could coordinate the response between countries, an effort that could solve this even partially would be something very positive.

A lot of the problems with the pandemic happened because of a lack of a framework that could coordinate the response between countries, an effort that could solve this even partially would be something very positive.

No, one of the main problems early in the pandemic in the West was the wrong advice given by the WHO to not wear masks, which led to millions of infections and deaths.

WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

Too bad Tedros didn't overrule the agency then like he did last month.

oh dear!!!!!

Both things are personal comments not based on reality.

Based on fact, and reported in JT.

There is no evidence the panel of experts have made any decision different from what the evidence points out, and there is no "overrule" when a decision is not made (such as the emergency declaration in the case of monkeypox) part of the role of the head of an organization is to make a decision when a panel could not reach one. Overruling would mean him contradicting an opposite decision, something that did not happen.

No.

Overrule means someone with authority "exercises rule" over a situation, which he did. That's history.

Your example still is a recommendation based on the available scientific evidence of the time, which was also followed by the Japanese authorities that also prioritized the distribution of masks to hospitals and people dealing with symptomatic patients, which is exactly what the scientific authorities recommended at the time (including not only the WHO but also the CDC, EMA, etc.).

Wrong.

Do you have a scientific study from the start of the Covid crisis that concluded not to wear masks was a way to prevent infections for the general public? Of course you don't!

Medical experts and doctors in Japan used available scientific evidence at that time to make a fundamental decision.

Even the Chinese experts made the same decision. The WHO was wrong. You have to live with it. None of us are medical professionals so reading what medical professionals in Asia advised at the time makes sense, especially more than 2 years later.

Not wearing masks to protect against coronavirus is a ‘big mistake,' top Chinese scientist says

https://www.science.org/content/article/not-wearing-masks-protect-against-coronavirus-big-mistake-top-chinese-scientist-says

If you want to support an incorrect unscientific decision, here's more on bloodletting:

https://www.thecollector.com/the-black-death-medieval-cures/

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus agreed to establish a new Japan-based affiliate of the WHO, Japanese news agency Kyodo reported on Thursday.

The good thing about Tedros is at this point, he realizes his "experts" don't always make scientifically sound decisions, which was the cause of him overruling his panel recently.

And give credit to Japan too for ignoring the WHO's advice that the general public NOT wear masks when the Covid crisis began. Japanese medical experts, doctors, all advised the public that they should wear masls. Sounds kind of incredible now that this agency got things so wrong and ignored the medical and scientific evidence, but here it is:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

Anyone making excuses for this advice also believes a bleeding was the proper treatment for colds in the 1600's.

This cannot be good.