World Health Organization

[Emergent]

What are the strengths and deficits of this organization? I've heard pros and cons lately. I do think, if there are problems, the time to address them is AFTER this crisis.

I'd love to learn information from fellow nurses.

[Daisy4RN]

16 minutes ago, HeartlandRN said:

OK, Rush Limbaugh. "Libreral" persumably being an peer reviewed, fact-verified source that doesn't excuse the fact your president dissolved the pandemic team set up to prevent Ebola, defunded the CDC, and ignored warning after warning for 3.5 months, sent the national PPE stockpile to China in February and cancelled the contracts to maintain the national ventilator supply in 2018?

That's too bad. Unapologetically, I will NOT accept the endless excuses and blame shifting you offer, nor will I sacrifice my peers and parents for your ideology.

Not ideology! I am Independent and vote accordingly. Your "peer reviewed" " fact verified source" doesnt really mean anything unless you know who the peer is, and who is the fact checker. Again, the fact that the Director of the WHO screwed up and/or was incompetent has nothing to do with deflecting or whatever else you think. Like Trump, dont like Trump, I really dont care, it doesnt change the fact the WHO needs to be investigated.

[toomuchbaloney]

39 minutes ago, Daisy4RN said:

Not ideology! I am Independent and vote accordingly. Your "peer reviewed" " fact verified source" doesnt really mean anything unless you know who the peer is, and who is the fact checker. Again, the fact that the Director of the WHO screwed up and/or was incompetent has nothing to do with deflecting or whatever else you think. Like Trump, dont like Trump, I really dont care, it doesnt change the fact the WHO needs to be investigated.

The notion that someone else "may" have screwed up something somewhere else has ZERO bearing on whether or not Trump screwed up the American pandemic response. Is this a terribly difficult concept?

[Daisy4RN]

3 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The notion that someone else "may" have screwed up something somewhere else has ZERO bearing on whether or not Trump screwed up the American pandemic response. Is this a terribly difficult concept?

Uh, that is exactly what I just said and have been saying, so obviously not a difficult concept for me!

[Guest219794]

1 hour ago, HeartlandRN said:

With all due respect there, Daisy, this is the precise sort of thing that makes me inclined to disregard you as a polemic gadfly. If defending Donald Trump against all odds and costs is what gets you through the night by all means don't let me stop you.

However it doesn't obligate the rest of us to accept opinon as fact and biased sources, opinion blogs and random quotes from Dr. Gupta as peer-reviewed sorts of evidence. But you know that, right?

looking like this thread may get closed soon.

But, before it does, I just wanted to commend you on your use of the term "polemic gadfly".

I would still like to hear from anybody who can cite some information that WHO could have provided that would have changed Trump's approach. Given the intelligence he had access to, what more did he need? The chair of the Senate intelligence committee certainly know what was coming (even Fox reported this) when he warned donors, then dumped over $1,000,000 while saying “the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus.”. BTW- also got that from Fox. Citing Fox to avoid the inevitable challenge to the bearer of news rather than the content.

There are multiple incidents of accurate information being passed to the white house- anything WHO might have added is superfluous. The fact that certain news outlets reported these things while certain outlets did not has nothing to do with their veracity. Think back to before 2016, when the term "fact" meant something that actually happened, and could be verified. Before "alternate facts" was offered as a reasonable alternative to verifiable objective information.

[toomuchbaloney]

13 minutes ago, Daisy4RN said:

Uh, that is exactly what I just said and have been saying, so obviously not a difficult concept for me!

All questions about the WHO at this moment in time in this country are precisely a deflection from Trump. All concern at this time originate from Trump or his appointees because that takes some of the scrutiny off of his failures. The USA is in a pickle because of Trump's incompetent leadership, not the WHOs.

[guest1146168]

25 minutes ago, hherrn said:

looking like this thread may get closed soon.

But, before it does, I just wanted to commend you on your use of the term "polemic gadfly".

I would still like to hear from anybody who can cite some information that WHO could have provided that would have changed Trump's approach. Given the intelligence he had access to, what more did he need? The chair of the Senate intelligence committee certainly know what was coming (even Fox reported this) when he warned donors, then dumped over $1,000,000 while saying “the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus.”. BTW- also got that from Fox. Citing Fox to avoid the inevitable challenge to the bearer of news rather than the content.

There are multiple incidents of accurate information being passed to the white house- anything WHO might have added is superfluous. The fact that certain news outlets reported these things while certain outlets did not has nothing to do with their veracity. Think back to before 2016, when the term "fact" meant something that actually happened, and could be verified. Before "alternate facts" was offered as a reasonable alternative to verifiable objective information.

I

My point exactly. We've established in fact WHO was providing live data dumps as early as last November. We've established Trump's own HHS secretary, and even hacks like Peter Navarro were urgently warning him as early as December and January. That the President couldn't be bothered with it and was calling it "nothing", insisting China had it under control and it wouldn't reach here, , it was a "Democratic hoax" is clearly on the record as is the fact he did effectively NOTHING other than "ban" China travel (except for 40,000 flights) and ignore the fact that the virus was already HERE when he banned it.

Leaving aside the economic devastation, which has just begun, the cost of this incompetence has been going on 100k lives and I predict millions before it's over given there's no ability at all for central intelligence and testing and tracing infrastructure in place.

If Erewon Texas thinks that re-opening their local Piggily Wiggily is going to save the economy when New York and Boston, Atlanta, Miami and LA have been left to hang to dry, I got a bridge to sell them.

I agree the thread will be shut down. One particularly hypocritical poster seems to enjoy fanning the flames and piling inflammatory person attacks and then jumping in and saying it's "too political" and flagging the moderators (I thought kindergarten was in another building) in another thread and I'm sure he'll get here.

In a short while of sticking to citable medical and historical facts, I've had to endure personal attacks from hyperpartisan gadflies (:)) insisting I, somehow, had an agenda (my "agenda" is your SAFETY, Bonzo) all lathered up because I'd offended their delicate defend-Trump-till-ya-Bust sensibilities.

f they're so worried bout getting back to work one can only wonder why they haven't accepted one of the thousands of positions with SNF's and LTAC's now who are begging for nurses. But it would seem that like the Lt. Gov of Texas they SAY they we need to take risks and jump off the cliff but what they really mean is someone ELSE needs to incur the risk rather than themselves. I was over that characteristic of these people well before Corvid...

[HandsOffMySteth]

56 minutes ago, HeartlandRN said:

My point exactly. We've established in fact WHO was providing live data dumps as early as last November. We've established Trump's own HHS secretary, and even hacks like Peter Navarro were urgently warning him as early as December and January. That the President couldn't be bothered with it and was calling it "nothing", insisting China had it under control and it wouldn't reach here, , it was a "Democratic hoax" is clearly on the record as is the fact he did effectively NOTHING other than "ban" China travel (except for 40,000 flights) and ignore the fact that the virus was already HERE when he banned it.

Leaving aside the economic devastation, which has just begun, the cost of this incompetence has been going on 100k lives and I predict millions before it's over given there's no ability at all for central intelligence and testing and tracing infrastructure in place.

If Erewon Texas thinks that re-opening their local Piggily Wiggily is going to save the economy when New York and Boston, Atlanta, Miami and LA have been left to hang to dry, I got a bridge to sell them.

I agree the thread will be shut down. One particularly hypocritical poster seems to enjoy fanning the flames and piling inflammatory person attacks and then jumping in and saying it's "too political" and flagging the moderators (I thought kindergarten was in another building) in another thread and I'm sure he'll get here.

In a short while of sticking to citable medical and historical facts, I've had to endure personal attacks from hyperpartisan gadflies (:)) insisting I, somehow, had an agenda (my "agenda" is your SAFETY, Bonzo) all lathered up because I'd offended their delicate defend-Trump-till-ya-Bust sensibilities.

f they're so worried bout getting back to work one can only wonder why they haven't accepted one of the thousands of positions with SNF's and LTAC's now who are begging for nurses. But it would seem that like the Lt. Gov of Texas they SAY they we need to take risks and jump off the cliff but what they really mean is someone ELSE needs to incur the risk rather than themselves. I was over that characteristic of these people well before Corvid...

You are right, he is here. And you are just proving my point. That statement was inflammatory and not necessary.

[toomuchbaloney]

17 minutes ago, juniper222 said:

You are right, he is here. And you are just proving my point. That statement was inflammatory and not necessary.

Inflammatory, perhaps, although I got more the read of frustration and passion. I disagree that it was unnecessary.

[HandsOffMySteth]

1 minute ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Inflammatory, perhaps, although I got more the read of frustration and passion. I disagree that it was unnecessary.

The reason I stated unnecessary is because inflammatory remarks are against forum guidelines.

"We promote the idea of lively debate. This means you are free to disagree with anyone on any type of subject matter as long as your criticism is constructive and polite. Additionally, please refrain from name-calling. This is divisive, rude, and derails the thread."

"Problematic posts/threads may be deleted or closed. Threads are closed to cool down passionate postings that have strayed off the original topic; we will attempt to post warning notice before taking this action. Please note, the administrators do have the ability to read private messages."

"You agree NOT to post false, defamatory, name-calling, obscene, or threatening messages."

[toomuchbaloney]

5 minutes ago, juniper222 said:

The reason I stated unnecessary is because inflammatory remarks are against forum guidelines.

"We promote the idea of lively debate. This means you are free to disagree with anyone on any type of subject matter as long as your criticism is constructive and polite. Additionally, please refrain from name-calling. This is divisive, rude, and derails the thread."

"Problematic posts/threads may be deleted or closed. Threads are closed to cool down passionate postings that have strayed off the original topic; we will attempt to post warning notice before taking this action. Please note, the administrators do have the ability to read private messages."

"You agree NOT to post false, defamatory, name-calling, obscene, or threatening messages."

And so, I trust the moderators to break the tie relative to inflammatory. Just because one feels inflamed does not mean that the content was inflammatory in some derogatory sense. Lots of political discussion causes people to feel inflamed. So people avoid it and never learn how to have reasoned conversation.

[Hoosier_RN, MSN]

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The notion that someone else "may" have screwed up something somewhere else has ZERO bearing on whether or not Trump screwed up the American pandemic response. Is this a terribly difficult concept?

Kinda hard to make a sound decision regarding the 3.5 months prior, when the so-called experts that were supposed to be guiding him with information, did not provide said information, or gave incorrect information. They were touting that it was not transferred from human to human, etc. So if information is flawed or not given, what do you expect?

Before you try to turn this politically on me, I'm not a Trump supporter, cannot personally stand to hear him talk. But I support the office of President, regardless of who (and what party) is in office.

[toomuchbaloney]

1 minute ago, Hoosier_RN said:

Kinda hard to make a sound decision regarding the 3.5 months prior, when the experts that were supposed to be guiding him with information, did not provide said information, or gave incorrect information. They were touting that it was not transferred from human to human, etc. So if information is flawed, what do you expect?

Except that the credible reporting is in direct conflict with that belief. We know that Trump got good and credible information early and multiple times. He blew it off.

But Trump is a liar providing lies, deflection and excuses, what did you expect? This particular character flaw is not new and wasn't an unknown in 2015.