World Heath Organisation = one world health
Discussion
Lots has been mentioned about this before on multiple threads but I think it should be discussed properly.
Countries are being asked to sign their pandemic responses to the WHO as well as giving 5% of heath funding to them. for the uk thats 7bn.
Obviously there are some conspiracy's linked to this due to the funders of the who. Private and government.
Us for them has a letter to send to MP's
https://usforthem.co.uk/cta/who-pandemic-treaty-an...
from the telegraph
WHO could gain powers to impose lockdown on UK:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/25/wh...
Personally I dont think he WHO should be in charge the way they handed covid for example and its origin
Countries are being asked to sign their pandemic responses to the WHO as well as giving 5% of heath funding to them. for the uk thats 7bn.
Obviously there are some conspiracy's linked to this due to the funders of the who. Private and government.
Us for them has a letter to send to MP's
https://usforthem.co.uk/cta/who-pandemic-treaty-an...
from the telegraph
WHO could gain powers to impose lockdown on UK:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/25/wh...
Personally I dont think he WHO should be in charge the way they handed covid for example and its origin
Oh I don't know, I mean an organisation that has appointed Susan Michie, a long time communist, as its Chair of its Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health, is surely one that can be trusted. Comrade.
The WHO made all the right calls during the Covid pandemic, and is a humble body with no desire for a power grab. /sarcasm mode.
The WHO made all the right calls during the Covid pandemic, and is a humble body with no desire for a power grab. /sarcasm mode.
This has been concerning me for some time - especially now that they have amended the wording of the treaty to give them even more power.
The power to impose lockdowns is an interesting one - is there really anyone left (apart from Ferguson and Michie) that think these are a suitable and effective action, given the clear damage to health and economies?
This move needs to be stopped before gaining any traction with our weak and malleable politicians who would seem to love to hand their collective responsibilities to someone else.
The power to impose lockdowns is an interesting one - is there really anyone left (apart from Ferguson and Michie) that think these are a suitable and effective action, given the clear damage to health and economies?
This move needs to be stopped before gaining any traction with our weak and malleable politicians who would seem to love to hand their collective responsibilities to someone else.
Given the speed of the Covid spread, and the fact that a disease starting in New Zealand can be a problem in Norway within a matter of days, it makes perfect sense for an overriding organisation to get countries to agree on a unified response to any future outbreak. Who does that, who runs it, how it's funded etc. are the big questions, but the underlying principle is a sound one.
Covid: Serious failures in WHO (and elsewhere) Report finds.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-57085505
They're no better, except at consuming funds in a needless layer of admin with "serious failures".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-57085505
They're no better, except at consuming funds in a needless layer of admin with "serious failures".
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Given the speed of the Covid spread, and the fact that a disease starting in New Zealand can be a problem in Norway within a matter of days, it makes perfect sense for an overriding organisation to get countries to agree on a unified response to any future outbreak. Who does that, who runs it, how it's funded etc. are the big questions, but the underlying principle is a sound one.
For starters measures as extreme as lockdown should only be possible to be imposed by democratic governments. Secondly the WHO failed dismally at those aspects of its role that it should be doing as it didn't want to upset the chinese. So no there is no case for handing a politicised and incompetent organisation more power. JagLover said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Given the speed of the Covid spread, and the fact that a disease starting in New Zealand can be a problem in Norway within a matter of days, it makes perfect sense for an overriding organisation to get countries to agree on a unified response to any future outbreak. Who does that, who runs it, how it's funded etc. are the big questions, but the underlying principle is a sound one.
For starters measures as extreme as lockdown should only be possible to be imposed by democratic governments. Secondly the WHO failed dismally at those aspects of its role that it should be doing as it didn't want to upset the chinese. So no there is no case for handing a politicised and incompetent organisation more power. Maybe the WHO isn't the right organisation. But there's little point in individual nations having their own solutions to worldwide problems. Be it pandemics, climate change, etc. We need agreed international strategies.
turbobloke said:
It makes no sense. The UK and most other countries have democratically elected governments who are accountable to their electorates.
Unelected supranational bloat has no accountability, but plenty of suction on funding and a penchant for power and diktats.
It is entirely normal and sensible for accountable, democratically governed countries to create supranational organisations to coordinate their efforts. They are accountable. They have no more power than their members choose to give them and members can always withdraw. Plenty of problems are better tackled by countries working together and global health problems and emerging medical crises are one of them.Unelected supranational bloat has no accountability, but plenty of suction on funding and a penchant for power and diktats.
ATG said:
turbobloke said:
It makes no sense. The UK and most other countries have democratically elected governments who are accountable to their electorates.
Unelected supranational bloat has no accountability, but plenty of suction on funding and a penchant for power and diktats.
It is entirely normal and sensible for accountable, democratically governed countries to create supranational organisations to coordinate their efforts. They are accountable. They have no more power than their members choose to give them and members can always withdraw. Plenty of problems are better tackled by countries working together and global health problems and emerging medical crises are one of them.Unelected supranational bloat has no accountability, but plenty of suction on funding and a penchant for power and diktats.
GroundEffect said:
ATG said:
turbobloke said:
It makes no sense. The UK and most other countries have democratically elected governments who are accountable to their electorates.
Unelected supranational bloat has no accountability, but plenty of suction on funding and a penchant for power and diktats.
It is entirely normal and sensible for accountable, democratically governed countries to create supranational organisations to coordinate their efforts. They are accountable. They have no more power than their members choose to give them and members can always withdraw. Plenty of problems are better tackled by countries working together and global health problems and emerging medical crises are one of them.Unelected supranational bloat has no accountability, but plenty of suction on funding and a penchant for power and diktats.
Having some diversity in responses allows recognition / identification of alternatives working better than others.
turbobloke said:
GroundEffect said:
ATG said:
turbobloke said:
It makes no sense. The UK and most other countries have democratically elected governments who are accountable to their electorates.
Unelected supranational bloat has no accountability, but plenty of suction on funding and a penchant for power and diktats.
It is entirely normal and sensible for accountable, democratically governed countries to create supranational organisations to coordinate their efforts. They are accountable. They have no more power than their members choose to give them and members can always withdraw. Plenty of problems are better tackled by countries working together and global health problems and emerging medical crises are one of them.Unelected supranational bloat has no accountability, but plenty of suction on funding and a penchant for power and diktats.
Having some diversity in responses allows recognition / identification of alternatives working better than others.
BBC said:
The WHO should have declared a global emergency earlier than it did, its report said, adding that without urgent change the world was vulnerable to another major disease outbreak.
BBC said:
To prevent another catastrophic pandemic, the report suggests key reforms:
A new global threats council should be created with the power to hold countries accountable
There should be a disease surveillance system to publish information without the approval of countries concerned
Vaccines must be classed as public goods and there should be a pandemic financing facility
There was an immediate request for the wealthy G7 nations to commit $1.9bn (£1.3bn) to the WHO's Covax programme providing vaccine support to low income countries
without reading the full report it appears the recommendations are for their to be more global oversight and more latitude to prescribe things. Maybe not legally but at least have their recommendations more understood and recognised. A new global threats council should be created with the power to hold countries accountable
There should be a disease surveillance system to publish information without the approval of countries concerned
Vaccines must be classed as public goods and there should be a pandemic financing facility
There was an immediate request for the wealthy G7 nations to commit $1.9bn (£1.3bn) to the WHO's Covax programme providing vaccine support to low income countries
So let's do that.
Hants PHer said:
Oh I don't know, I mean an organisation that has appointed Susan Michie, a long time communist, as its Chair of its Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health, is surely one that can be trusted. Comrade.
The WHO made all the right calls during the Covid pandemic, and is a humble body with no desire for a power grab. /sarcasm mode.
The very same Susan Michie who was expelled from the Stalinist Communist Party of GB for being too authoritarian and too extreme in her political views.The WHO made all the right calls during the Covid pandemic, and is a humble body with no desire for a power grab. /sarcasm mode.
What could possibly go wrong !
And as for those suggesting that a standardised procedure is a great idea, I’d just like to remind them that one size doesn’t fit all and accountability is key.
When it really mattered, the WHO has proven themselves to be utterly inept at the cost of God knows how many lives.
Frankly I couldn’t think of a worse organisation riddled with corruption and incompetence to ‘lead matters of such a serious nature.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
JagLover said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Given the speed of the Covid spread, and the fact that a disease starting in New Zealand can be a problem in Norway within a matter of days, it makes perfect sense for an overriding organisation to get countries to agree on a unified response to any future outbreak. Who does that, who runs it, how it's funded etc. are the big questions, but the underlying principle is a sound one.
For starters measures as extreme as lockdown should only be possible to be imposed by democratic governments. Secondly the WHO failed dismally at those aspects of its role that it should be doing as it didn't want to upset the chinese. So no there is no case for handing a politicised and incompetent organisation more power. Maybe the WHO isn't the right organisation. But there's little point in individual nations having their own solutions to worldwide problems. Be it pandemics, climate change, etc. We need agreed international strategies.
An overriding organisation? It depends on how much power you are willing to hand over to them. Recommendations on what to do in the event of another pandemic, or the power to lock us all down again?
World Health Organisation = One World Health = One World Government.
No thanks.
hstewie said:Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff