World Health Organization

Published

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.

Specializes in Dialysis.
7 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

"Very left leaning" versus left center bias with high factual accuracy. It's so far left of where you are starting that you can't conceive of even reading it, apparently. And then we get a lesson in a narrow minded vantage point? Is irony a mineral?

yep, too hard for me to conceive. I'm actually well read and well educated. Comments like yours is what backs people out of debate. Implying that someone couldn't possibly be as intelligent as you is a huge turn off in a discussion, and usually shuts it down.

Very left leaning is just that to me, as I'm very conservative, and I didn't realize that was a sin or crime. If you only want to hear from voices that agree with you, I'm out, because I'm not that voice. While I agree with what some of you have said, again I'm not laying total blame there, as there is plenty to go around

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
19 minutes ago, Hoosier_RN said:

yep, too hard for me to conceive. I'm actually well read and well educated. Comments like yours is what backs people out of debate. Implying that someone couldn't possibly be as intelligent as you is a huge turn off in a discussion, and usually shuts it down.

Very left leaning is just that to me, as I'm very conservative, and I didn't realize that was a sin or crime. If you only want to hear from voices that agree with you, I'm out, because I'm not that voice. While I agree with what some of you have said, again I'm not laying total blame there, as there is plenty to go around

Interesting you got all that out of it. Your psychometric extrasensory talents are impressive.

Put another way, I think you protest a little too loudly and project a little too liberally for my conversational tastes.

Take care of those patients.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
52 minutes ago, Hoosier_RN said:

No satire here. All of those sources are very left leaning. Sorry, I will also say the same of any right leaning sources if presented. To look in only one direction makes you look narrow minded. You do realize that a good portion of your sources are opinion pieces, right?

Which of it was an "opinion piece" and please provide objective evidence or drop it.

Clearly it may be easier for you to believe, somehow, your president never saw the news until the end of March as the rest of us watched the disaster unfold in China and that every hard article proving he was warned over and over is some leftwing hit piece making it up, but if that's the case it's clear the one with the bias problem is YOU and the problem is your own.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
57 minutes ago, Hoosier_RN said:

how do we know? Show me something that isn't an opinion piece. The WHO stated that there wasn't transmission from human to human. That was incorrect

They also stated that travel bans from China weren't appropriate. That was incorrect

The news sources stated that we shouldn't close our borders because it was xenophobic and racist, but then said it was a great bold move when Canada and Mexico closed the borders to us. That is bias. On both sides it was a smart move

Stop babbling and cite a single one of the articles I gave you that is an "opinion piece" Hint: even the Hill, which is as close to that as it comes, is right leaning and the article I cited was sourced, not opinion.

If you can't accept facts, that's your problem. it's not my problem to entertain you denial.

PS - what in the name of abandoned logic does when Canada and Mexico closed their border have to do with your President being warned of the potential devastation at least 3 months before he acted. tf.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
23 minutes ago, Hoosier_RN said:

yep, too hard for me to conceive. I'm actually well read and well educated. Comments like yours is what backs people out of debate. Implying that someone couldn't possibly be as intelligent as you is a huge turn off in a discussion, and usually shuts it down.

Very left leaning is just that to me, as I'm very conservative, and I didn't realize that was a sin or crime. If you only want to hear from voices that agree with you, I'm out, because I'm not that voice. While I agree with what some of you have said, again I'm not laying total blame there, as there is plenty to go around

I didn't imply anything about your education or intelligence and didn't compare myself to you. You refused to even consider sources provided and the stated reason was your bias. They were too left leaning to be considered by you. That represents how well read you are.

I live in a world where accountability is part of life. It's up to you to decide whether you want to ignore Trump's malfeasance. I will not. Perhaps some of that blame should land on Trump.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 minute ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I didn't imply anything about your education or intelligence and didn't compare myself to you. You refused to even consider sources provided and the stated reason was your bias. They were too left leaning to be considered by you. That represents how well read you are.

I live in a world where accountability is part of life. It's up to you to decide whether you want to ignore Trump's malfeasance. I will not. Perhaps some of that blame should land on Trump.

My sentiments exactly.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Your remarks here are finite. Someone told you that they found some of your remarks inflammatory. One response is to review your remarks with an eye and awareness for the perception of others. Sometimes people personalize things unnecessarily in their reading or interpretation, too.

And you are too biased to even read or consider their reporting.

The problem with the sources is they include only parts of a story they want to convey and omit critical details that won't give them the desired results. You have to read with a critical mind. For example, I watch Trump in a speech and take note of what was said. Later I look at a biased source such as MSMBC or CBS or ABC or NPR and see an article someone posted that miss quotes and omits thing I actually saw and heard! Now I've seen this behavior time and time again. Or when I see Jim Acosta or another biased reporter argue with the president or make a rhetorical statement posed as a question and then say "trump lashed out in anger." Or reporters telling lies like Dan Rather. Well, I just don't wish to waste my time.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Just now, juniper222 said:

The problem with the sources is they include only parts of a story they want to convey and omit critical details that won't give them the desired results. You have to read with a critical mind. For example, I watch Trump in a speech and take note of what was said. Later I look at a biased source such as MSMBC or CBS or ABC or NPR and see an article someone posted that miss quotes and omits thing I actually saw and heard! Now I've seen this behavior time and time again. Or when I see Jim Acosta or another biased reporter argue with the president or make a rhetorical statement posed as a question and then say "trump lashed out in anger." Or reporters telling lies like Dan Rather. Well, I just don't wish to waste my time.

So that was a further explanation as to why you cannot read or consider those left center and highly accurate media sites or their reporting? All media has a bias...where does that leave a person who refuses to read biased media? I watch most of Trump's remarks...less the campaign rallies.

Maybe they could just watch cable tv or listen to radio commentary?

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 minute ago, juniper222 said:

The problem with the sources is they include only parts of a story they want to convey and omit critical details that won't give them the desired results. You have to read with a critical mind. For example, I watch Trump in a speech and take note of what was said. Later I look at a biased source such as MSMBC or CBS or ABC or NPR and see an article someone posted that miss quotes and omits thing I actually saw and heard! Now I've seen this behavior time and time again. Or when I see Jim Acosta or another biased reporter argue with the president or make a rhetorical statement posed as a question and then say "trump lashed out in anger." Or reporters telling lies like Dan Rather. Well, I just don't wish to waste my time.

This is just silliness. You were provided an entire host of sources ranging from Business Periodicals to the most credible newspapers there is proving beyond any shadow of doubt that your President was informed of the severity and potential economic and life loss devastation for months ranging from hsi own Health and Human Services Secretary Azar to American CDC epdemiologists working with WHO. Instread of acting, he publicly denied and was even spouting off about it being (yet another) "Democratic hoax" to get him.

There's just no "partial" involved.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
10 minutes ago, juniper222 said:

The problem with the sources is they include only parts of a story they want to convey and omit critical details that won't give them the desired results. You have to read with a critical mind. For example, I watch Trump in a speech and take note of what was said. Later I look at a biased source such as MSMBC or CBS or ABC or NPR and see an article someone posted that miss quotes and omits thing I actually saw and heard! Now I've seen this behavior time and time again. Or when I see Jim Acosta or another biased reporter argue with the president or make a rhetorical statement posed as a question and then say "trump lashed out in anger." Or reporters telling lies like Dan Rather. Well, I just don't wish to waste my time.

Don't be preposterous. This is a simple binary question, Either Health and Human Services Secretary Azar of Trump's own administration informed him urgently (twice) in December or he didn't.

Either Navarro showed him alarming models of infection rates and potential deaths in January or he didn't.

Either WHO and the CDC warned him in November and December or they didn't.

If you're claiming they're all lying then please provide some concrete evidence to attest to this instead of babbling stuff more suitable for the Sean Hannity talk show.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
12 minutes ago, juniper222 said:

The problem with the sources is they include only parts of a story they want to convey and omit critical details that won't give them the desired results. You have to read with a critical mind. For example, I watch Trump in a speech and take note of what was said. Later I look at a biased source such as MSMBC or CBS or ABC or NPR and see an article someone posted that miss quotes and omits thing I actually saw and heard! Now I've seen this behavior time and time again. Or when I see Jim Acosta or another biased reporter argue with the president or make a rhetorical statement posed as a question and then say "trump lashed out in anger." Or reporters telling lies like Dan Rather. Well, I just don't wish to waste my time.

See, there you go again. This is supposedly a scientific themed board. If you are going to claim someone is "biased" (Jim Acosta, etc) then you need something to prove it besides your own Limbaughesque, childish rants.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
8 minutes ago, HeartlandRN said:

See, there you go again. This is supposedly a scientific themed board. If you are going to claim someone is "biased" (Jim Acosta, etc) then you need something to prove it besides your own Limbaughesque rants.

You are mixing up science and politics. And I need not prove ANYTHING to you. Especially considering your crass nature. I have witnessed these things throughout decades of watching, listening, and reading all forms of media from all sources. I developed my conservative stance over years of observation. Just remember, there are people who have different views than you and you better get used to that.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion