Mainly, because other organizations outside of the communist party are on the ground in China and are confirming much of what they say.
Okay…
4 Likes
Your argument parallels that of antivaxxers. “Why would doctors participate in a sham that harms their patients?” “Because they are paid off by the pharma industry!”
“Why would the WHO sign off on fake numbers from China?” “Because of money!”
Here’s the thing: Just like pediatricians don’t become pediatricians for the money (they make on average less than 1/3 as much as cardiologists), people don’t join the WHO for the money (or the glamor, or the frequent flyer miles). They do it as a calling. The WHO isn’t going to sign off on fake numbers to placate China. They will pretend Taiwan doesn’t exist in public interviews, as long as they get to help Taiwanese people in a pandemic.
9 Likes
Which allegedly they don’t, fully, given what was stated in the CNN article upthread. In particular:
[quote=]
The WHO argues that Taiwan’s exclusion from meetings of member states does not have an effect on the day-to-day sharing of health information and guidance, with experts and health workers still interacting with international colleagues through the organization. However, numerous observers, including Taiwanese officials, have claimed that it has had a negative effect both during the SARS epidemic and the current crisis.
[/quote]
[quote=]
“Taiwanese authorities have complained about the lack of access to WHO data and assistance,” she said.
That lack of information may have forced Taiwan to go it alone and make decisions early on independently of the WHO guidance and broader international consensus.
[/quote]
Which is actually true? Who knows. But I do wonder if it is safe to assume that the WHO goes along with China’s denial re Taiwan actually believing it will have no effect.
1 Like
you truly believe that making statements supported by multiple reliable sources makes me like an antivaxxer? Would not, believing the communist party is transparent and that the WHO is independent of their bosses be more akin to the head in the sand approach of the antivaxxers?
From NPR:
2 Likes
That NPR article was from Feb 8 (nice try!) before the WHO mission to China on Feb 16.
The Formosa News interview I addressed directly in my post. The WHO has to carefully navigate serving the global community while not pissing off the primary funding sources (like both the USA and China). The reporter was asking Aylward political questions that he could be fired for answering.
6 Likes
Since I was trying to give substance to my oppinion that the CCP can not be trusted to be transparent, the date of the article is completely immaterial. Why would you consider it a “nice try”?
Oh, look. Here’s another country caught lying about its number of deaths.
I wonder if trumplethinskin will cut their funding to help them do a better job.
4 Likes
If you think that is bad you should check out what Nicaragua is doing.
The “Love in Covid 19” Festival
Good Sandinista logic:
State-run media politicize the pandemic, push out propaganda that COVID-19 is a “disease of the rich and bourgeois” and “divine justice for the poor and oppressed.” Official media claim that promoting personal protective equipment is meant to create panic.
I’m not sure what browser or device you’re viewing BB on, but all the ones I use keep the topic title nice and handy at the top. In this case, that topic is “Trump bizarrely orders half to W.H.O. funding amid coronavirus pandemic.” Your argument is that the WHO is complicit or even conspiring with China to downplay the number of infections and/or deaths of coronavirus in China. (Either that, or you’re off topic) By citing an article about China downplaying their numbers that was published before the WHO intervened and China cleaned up their numbers, you’re trying to make it look like the WHO remains complicit, when in fact the WHO should be credited with forcing China’s hand to improve the accuracy of their reported numbers.
Again, either that or you’ve strayed off topic.
7 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
