There is one group of people with unique skillsets to help in a crisis that requires triage a large scale. The rabid left and Hollywood along with the “fake news” media have been giving psychopaths a bad rap for years now.

hah! That story blows my mind.

Even just skipping through that video I done learned a thing or two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZbD...&feature=share

Teslas one looks notbad?

That does look impressive.

Trump just put all payments on hold to WHO. "they got it wrong"

Reporter question, "is it a good time to freeze funding during a pandemic?
Trump "I didnt say I was going to do it" .

Ha I'm watching whithouse broadcast now. He said it.

The WHO has been absolutely fucking useless.

Fair enough, i guess its better not to have a world organisation. Best just let each country deal with things on their own.

The NZH is in no place to call out the WHO. The WHO is exactly what those who fund it want it to be.

World leadership is what's absolutely fucking useless.

It was that interview with WHO's Bruce Aylward where the penny dropped for me. It's like there was a Chinese government official standing off-camera making throat-cutting gestures.

One of my jaded early comments on Covid was that everything the Chinese government says about this is and will be a lie. The realisation that the World Fucking Health Organisation is taking "messaging" instruction from the Chinese government leaves one with the inescapable conclusion that the WHO is lying too.

I was too naive at the time last week to work out why he was so angry at WHO. Makes more sense now. I'll have to listen again (but not while going to sleep - made that mistake last night when I tripped over a week-old Disgraceland John Denver episode - took me halfway through my walk this morning to work out the date of it, and that he wasn't really the third shooter back in '63).

The WHO is expected to provided impartial health leadership to the world in times of crisis like this. It has completely failed because its top officials are corrupt and incompetent.

I was watching Trump's daily word salad for my morning cringe today, and he went on one of his babbling tangents, this time criticising the WHO for being useless, and I found myself going "actually, yeah, Trump's right on this bit" and I felt dirty.

It's the same phenomena behind the state of the WHO and Trump being in power.

We don't step up to China, but we expect the WHO which depends on China to exist to do so?

We're fucking cunts.

For me, it was the press conference in Feb where Tedros Adhanom spent the bulk of the time praising China's wonderful response and advising all countries to keep their borders open. Then later, reading how Tedros tried to make Robert Mugabe a WHO health ambassador in 2017 (as a favour because Mugabe pulled strings to help get him elected Director-General).

WHO is basically FIFA now.

Speak for yourself. The WHO gets about 11.6% of its funding from China and could undoubtedly continue to exist without it. I suspect it's not a organisational funding issue so much as Chinese soft-power projection (through bribery and appointments etc) that has caused the apple to go rotten. Yes, a bit like FIFA.

I'm sceptical that refers to the full funding the WHO relies on to function.

In NZ we had a government gut our public health services while telling us everything was fine. The subsequent problems that came to pass were only predicted by boring people. Anyone exciting enough to get some attention the government was free to slag off and ignore. That government eventually lost power, but the dominant party of that government still retains most of its votes. That's how it goes now. People are eager to hear everything is okay and not much else.

That's New Zealand. Much worse is acceptable the world over.

There is no us and them. It's just us. This is our world, we're responsible for it. Unless you consider yourself so pathetic that you're living someone else's life? Or so grandiose that you're the rare stalwart of decency?

That's the compulsory contributions - I imagine there's also some voluntary stuff. Feel free to do some research and find out for us.

This is so vacuous. Do you have any conception of realpolitik at all?

I had already done the research. Just making space for knowledge I don't have. Only 25% of the WHO's funding comes from compulsory contributions.

Realpolitik is a dynamic, one we play a part in. If we're not the point of intervention, what is? Oh, hello nCov 2019.

Cool. Post your sources dude, including China's voluntary contributions.

These words: they mean nothing.

I'm not making some esoteric claim here (about the document you produced), you can find it for yourself. And behaviour of the WHO towards China's interests reveal their dependence on Chinese funding.

I get you don't understand my meaning. You can suggest my words are meaningless if you like.

A stopped clock and all that.

The burden of evidence is on you, not me.

No, it only implies they are being influenced by China in some way. The precise nature of that influence is not clear.

I understand what you're trying to say. I don't think it has any real substance to it.

I'm not offering a thesis, nor engaging in formal debate. If you're not interested, you're not interested.

My understanding is that 25% of the WHO's funding comes from compulsory contributions, the rest being up to anyone who has an interest in the WHO, whatever those interests night be. It wasn't hard to verify this.

We're also seeing strong critique of the WHO. You've suggested the WHO have a particular role with particular responsibilities. These might be as real as moral authority. How do we know or decide?

I'm referring to the values and behaviour of the world, our focus on the behaviours of others. Our role, individually, locally, internationally, are not things up for consideration or critique. If something is up, we look outwards, not inwards.

This works or it doesn't. In your observations, is our pursuit for economic glory working?

OK, sure. Then it should be easy to show your working. That's hardly unreasonable.

Read the WHO's constitution and code of ethics.

This assemblage of words doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.

What does macroeconomics have to do with anything.

It turns out I'm not interested. You're not offering any kind of interesting engagement, you're just picking.

Because #America

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/04/lo...ew-1202223466/

You don't offer up anything concrete to discuss. It's just horseshit like

I'm referring to the values and behaviour of the world, our focus on the behaviours of others.

That's hilarious

Why are you being a dick?

Oh wait, I know. I've embarrassed you by pointing out that you didn't know that most of the WHO's funding isn't accounted for in the document you're aware of. That's why you're asking me to "show my working", as if telling you the set of words I entered into Google demonstrates anything.

You're just having a boo-hoo.

lol, nice try. If you'd actually bothered to research the voluntary contributions from member states you'd realise that China's amount is proportionally about the same or less than their compulsory contribution - it makes no difference to my point that the WHO could easily survive without China's money if they needed to.

My understanding is it's more complex than that. No, I can't produce everything I've read or watched that is the basis for this understanding.

Tell me more about the WHO and its survival that's so easy. You're saying it gets adequate funding and support for its mission, hence your high expectations of it?

It was great watching Trump walk out being quizzed on Peter Navarro's memos to the administration and Trump himself. Well, as great as anything feels upon hearing of ignored advice that would cost potentially millions of lives.

But hey, it's the WHO's fault, threaten their funding, that'll do the trick.

The point was that the reasons for the WHO apparently falling under China's influence are probably more subtle than just being about funding. China has massive political and economic leverage over many smaller countries, which it can use to, for example, manipulate elections for Directors-General and put its accomplices in positions of power.

mmm I smell someone getting some funds in the election campaign account

The point is the environment the WHO operates in isn't insulated from undue influence, funding an obvious example, as Donald makes apparent.

Therefore, how responsible can the WHO be for its failures? It's being set up to fail, because leaders find failure more palatable than the risk of being held responsible.

Of course a WHO representative is going to dodge hairy questions like Taiwanese membership. Taiwan is a hot button issue anyone hoping to deal with the Chinese are smart to avoid. That's realpolitik.

This is obvious and expected. There is a tipping point though, and it occurs when a multinational agency becomes so corrupted by a single member state that's it's not able to perform its critical functions and exacerbates a crisis rather than helping to mitigate it.

Its leaders can certainly be held accountable. It's clear that structural changes should be made and better oversight needs to be introduced if the organisation is to retain any credibility. These things can be made to happen with sufficient political will. COVID-19 has really highlighted that the world needs a strong, independent WHO, not a Chinese glove puppet.