Corona Virus

[MinionZombie]

I do agree that international flights/travel should have been shut down far quicker, but Trump shutting down flights from China didn't help much when everyone else was moving about quite freely at the same time. IIRC, Trump at one point early on blamed immigration for the spread of the virus, when blatantly it was everyday international travel. A silly bit of sabre rattling for the core audience, surely? It's also certainly true that pretty much no nation is coming out of this as a glowing exemplar of what to do in a Pandemic, some moreso than others, and the WHO will certainly have some things to answer for, but so will every other body and nation. Germany seized upon their firm foundation in pharmaceuticals to get some proper testing going, didn't they? As well as employing the use of private facilities early on, while here in the UK we've dragged our feet on testing and, IIRC, only just recently brought in help from the private sector for testing capacity. Although Boyega (I'm presuming you're comparing posters in regards to him?) has a decidedly and conspicuously reduced bit of real estate on that poster (while BB-8 takes a larger chunk), note that it's Oscar Isaac (already a minimal presence on the original poster) who is removed entirely, in addition to the deletion of Maz Kanata and Chewie.

[Neil]

...playing silly political games with an organisation that is at the front line in the war against it Neil. The WHO are not the front line. In the case of the US, it is the frontline. ie: The US needs what from the WHO at the moment? It truly needed the WHO 3-4 months ago, but the WHO failed in its most important function then. You can bullet point selective details against the WHO all you want And you don't find some of these "selective details" utterly breath taking? ie: The WHO repeated China's lies without question, for month(s). The WHO were told in December there was person to person infection, yet even in mid-January they were denying it. The WHO's poor handling of this pandemic and clear partisan relationship with China literally cost time and therefore lives. Again, incase this isn't clear, the WHO didn't question one of the most oppressive inhumane regimes in the world when they lied about the infection in their country and covered up the infection in their country. Instead the WHO have only praised them. but now is certainly not the time to be pulling funding from them, especially when the most vulnerable countries are beginning to feel the sting of Covid-19. Agreed... But then I don't know what the US pausing their contributions will do to this? It could well be over the next six months for example, while the US pauses its payments, that quarter of a billion dollars that can do more good in the US than funding a questionable WHO. ie: If that money can significantly help US citizens? As for being "objective", I don't think you are. You are merely parroting the party line that Trump has offered you. Can't agree I'm afraid. Especially when I can't even remember the last time I "listened to Trump" Ultimately I cannot fathom the notion that some people criticising Trump, had it been different people acting the same or saying the same, the reaction would be different... You attempt to label the WHO as "not fit for purpose" sounds ridiculous and is absolutely baseless too. Their most important purpose from Nov-19 to Jan-20 was to gauge and advise on the pandemic coming out of Wuhan. They seriously failed to do this, instead putting too much weight on the word from a cruel regime, to the degree they cost the rest of the world time (& lives). They are not fit for purpose as they are not acting in a unpartisan fashion befitting their title.

[shootemindehead]

You think Trump is right to withdraw funding to an organisation tasked with fighting the effects of a global pandemic. We'll leave it there so.

[JDP]

A small compendium of Trump's recent blunders & lies: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/polit...-14/index.html A more comprehensive compendium of Trump's lack of foresight and ineptitude for dealing with the Coronavirus threat: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/o...ronavirus.html

[Neil]

You think Trump is right to withdraw funding to an organisation tasked with fighting the effects of a global pandemic. We'll leave it there so. I've repeatedly listed a fair old factual diatribe against the WHO (& China), including the fairly clear demonstration that, a) China lied and covered up CV19 for month(s) in Wuhan, including silencing Chinese doctors attempting to warn the rest of the world, and b) the WHO happily echoed, accepted and even praised China's narrative, were partisan and negligent in their role, and therefore put the entire planet at more risk. So, remove funding from the WHO? Yes... Definately. And I hope other countries follow suit, or threated to follow suit. I'll happily question its timing of course, but I've already explained my thinking on that... We'll leave it there so. - - - Updated - - - A small compendium of Trump's recent blunders & lies: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/polit...-14/index.html A more comprehensive compendium of Trump's lack of foresight and ineptitude for dealing with the Coronavirus threat: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/o...ronavirus.html Understood... What I find fascinating about the kind of list(s) you've included is just how skewed the measuring sticks used are. eg: Trump has indeed been woefully complacent in some of his references to CV19, but at the same time he's made some pretty good calls, some of which were well ahead of the curve demonstrated in other countries/leaders. Indeed, even better than the WHO's recommendations, but that's another point. Ultimately, do you believe your article(s) in anyway give a balanced account of Trump's actions? Honestly? Or could we consider them more of a one side hit piece? Honestly? My point is, the media has now made politics rediculously polarised, where people are now utterly demonised beyond all levels of reasonable logic. An example? Certain US politicans were telling members of the US public to actively go and hug Chinese people less than even two months ago, with all the clear unnecessary risk that exposed them to, in all thruth for no other reason that to virtue signal. Had Trump told people to do this, it would undoubtably appear on one of your lists.... But the fact instead other US politicans said to do this - who were not Trump - means those publication will of course no doubt not mention these dangerous recommendation. Do you see my point? Or another angle, for example mentioning Trump downplaying CV19 towards the middle of Jan, and yet completely ignoring the fact the WHO just a week or so before were still telling the world it wasn't transmitting person to person. Yet, Trump is demonised, and the WHO's rediculous handling and misinformation is not deemed a fair part of the narrative? I just don't fathom this need to go all out and demonise Trump beyond seemingly all levels of fair mindedness. To wantonly emphasise failings and negatives, and all but ignore successes and positives. How is that balanced? How does that lead to a fair conclusion? I can't understand people who seem dedicated to the former... and seem so unwilling to (ever) accept the latter.

[EvilNed]

I think it is far too early to draw any definite conclusions regarding any perceived short comings of the WHO. Whether or not they are mishandling the situation is definetly not clear. What is clear is that they are needed in this time of crisis, regardless of whatever mistakes they may have done - they certainly aren't doing it now. Donald Trump's actions in the last few weeks have been far from decisive or awe inspiring. I believe rather they've been shallow, narcissistic and sometimes outright stupid. He's way too impulsive to be able to handle a situation like this, and if he feels he has an axe to grind with the WHO then he should do it after the crisis has abated rather than trying to divert attention toward them in a time of his own short comings.

[Neil]

I think it is far too early to draw any definite conclusions regarding any perceived short comings of the WHO. Whether or not they are mishandling the situation is definetly not clear. What is clear is that they are needed in this time of crisis, regardless of whatever mistakes they may have done - they certainly aren't doing it now. Maybe... I think the actions of the WHO over the past four months has clearly shown they are partisan as regards China, and this may have contribued to them dropping the ball as regards their actions and advice at times, especially Dec/Jan, which was woefully counter productive. Not accepting the disease was spreading from person to person, and not advising flights to be curbed for example in/out of Wuhan, caused the disease to spread unnecessarily early (eg: to Italy)! I'd also ask, as far as the US for example is concerned, why are "they [the WHO] needed in this time of crisis?" ie: What are they actually contributing at the moment to the US and why does the US "need" them? "his own short comings" - What do you feel those are out of interest? (BTW I fully accept he's downplayed the seriousness of the disease at times, what ever his motives were for that) And, to be fair, are you able to list anything he did that was positive? - - - Updated - - - Germany is talking about reducing their lockdown measures - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52299358 Here in the UK, we seem to be at the peak of our infection rate now, and plateauing, so I guess in a week or so, when infected figures are reducing (an R0 of less than 1), what will our exit strategy be. Clearly we can't stay in lockdown for much longer without serious SERIOUS impact to the country. What's also interesting is some countries, such as Sweden, haven't even had any really!?

[EvilNed]

The WHO contributes in that it coordinates research efforts from all across the world. The WHO has weekly conference and update calls from researchers from Argentina to South Korea. They have access to more information, doctors and research than any other organization in the world. While you may scoff at their inability to act decisively or correctly, they are certainly not to blame for anything (they did not create the Virus) and in any case the same can be said of anyone. Donald Trump has acted irrationally and impulsively throughout, yet his leadership is still needed. Time will tell who was right and wrong, but the WHO is contributing immensly. Among Donald Trump's short comings, the most obvious are the multitude of erroneous information he spreads and the rash statements he makes which someone has to either correct or retract. "Absolute authority", "open by easter" - etc, he's just not a very thorough or decisive person. He makes numerous incorrect statements. I'm not as poralized on him as others are. I don't think he's all bad, but he's certainly not fit for the Presidency. However, having said that, I'm not sure that there are many who are... The US political landscape is completely broken and that's not his fault. He's just a product of it. Also, living in Sweden, I can confirm that we haven't had any drastic lockdown measures. The only state-mandated closures are high schools, universities and elderly homes (visitors are barred). Might be a few others, I can't remember. However the jury is still out if this is a succesful strategy or not, however it doesn't appear to make a huge difference either way. Our former Jeapordy host just died from it, it was announced this night. Not the equivalent of Alex Trebek (he's already passed on), but the one who replaced him for a few years afterwards. He was 51.

[JDP]

- - - Updated - - - Understood... What I find fascinating about the kind of list(s) you've included is just how skewed the measuring sticks used are. eg: Trump has indeed been woefully complacent in some of his references to CV19, but at the same time he's made some pretty good calls, some of which were well ahead of the curve demonstrated in other countries/leaders. Indeed, even better than the WHO's recommendations, but that's another point. Ultimately, do you believe your article(s) in anyway give a balanced account of Trump's actions? Honestly? Or could we consider them more of a one side hit piece? Honestly? My point is, the media has now made politics rediculously polarised, where people are now utterly demonised beyond all levels of reasonable logic. An example? Certain US politicans were telling members of the US public to actively go and hug Chinese people less than even two months ago, with all the clear unnecessary risk that exposed them to, in all thruth for no other reason that to virtue signal. Had Trump told people to do this, it would undoubtably appear on one of your lists.... But the fact instead other US politicans said to do this - who were not Trump - means those publication will of course no doubt not mention these dangerous recommendation. Do you see my point? Or another angle, for example mentioning Trump downplaying CV19 towards the middle of Jan, and yet completely ignoring the fact the WHO just a week or so before were still telling the world it wasn't transmitting person to person. Yet, Trump is demonised, and the WHO's rediculous handling and misinformation is not deemed a fair part of the narrative? I just don't fathom this need to go all out and demonise Trump beyond seemingly all levels of fair mindedness. To wantonly emphasise failings and negatives, and all but ignore successes and positives. How is that balanced? How does that lead to a fair conclusion? I can't understand people who seem dedicated to the former... and seem so unwilling to (ever) accept the latter. If you read the facts compiled by the second link, Trump & his entourage have been ignoring what the WHO had already been saying and warning even as early as January. Let's not try to deviate the bulk of the blame on the WHO. They did much better than Donald Trump & company. It is them who are mostly at fault here. These guys took the whole thing basically as a "joke" from the beginning, until many Americans started dropping like flies. "The Kung-Flu Virus", indeed. Clowns.

[shootemindehead]

I think it is far too early to draw any definite conclusions regarding any perceived short comings of the WHO. Whether or not they are mishandling the situation is definetly not clear. What is clear is that they are needed in this time of crisis, regardless of whatever mistakes they may have done - they certainly aren't doing it now. Donald Trump's actions in the last few weeks have been far from decisive or awe inspiring. I believe rather they've been shallow, narcissistic and sometimes outright stupid. He's way too impulsive to be able to handle a situation like this, and if he feels he has an axe to grind with the WHO then he should do it after the crisis has abated rather than trying to divert attention toward them in a time of his own short comings. It's probably fair to say that the WHO could have been a little bit more vigilant with the news coming from China. But I wouldn't buy any of Trump's bullshit about them being "too China centric", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. It's especially lamentable, considering that he was saying that China was doing a good job himself in February. Hindsight is easy and shudda, wudda, cudda rarely helps. But sanctioning them, especially at the moment, is the action of truly shallow mind indeed and at the end of the day it's merely about redirecting blame in an attempt to make one's self look better. - - - Updated - - - Also, living in Sweden, I can confirm that we haven't had any drastic lockdown measures. The only state-mandated closures are high schools, universities and elderly homes (visitors are barred). Might be a few others, I can't remember. However the jury is still out if this is a succesful strategy or not, however it doesn't appear to make a huge difference either way. Our former Jeapordy host just died from it, it was announced this night. Not the equivalent of Alex Trebek (he's already passed on), but the one who replaced him for a few years afterwards. He was 51. I read somewhere a while ago that Sweden has about 40% single occupancy in dwellings. I can't say whether that's true or not. But if it's the case, it would have a big impact on transmission. So your relatively mild lockdown measures may be somewhat sufficient. Contrast that with Italy which is being hammered because of the way they live, with multiple generations under the same roof.

[EvilNed]

I read somewhere a while ago that Sweden has about 40% single occupancy in dwellings. I can't say whether that's true or not. But if it's the case, it would have a big impact on transmission. So your relatively mild lockdown measures may be somewhat sufficient. Contrast that with Italy which is being hammered because of the way they live, with multiple generations under the same roof. I keep forgetting this fact, but yes, Sweden is made up of overwhelmingly more single households than some other countries

[Neil]

The WHO contributes in that it coordinates research efforts from all across the world. The WHO has weekly conference and update calls from researchers from Argentina to South Korea. They have access to more information, doctors and research than any other organization in the world. Agreed... And that's why I'll even question Trump's immediate stopping of contributions, rather than the threat of it without reform. That said, the WHO has not been completely defunded. They have now had a shot fired across the bow by something like 15-20% of their budget being removed to apply pressure to get their ship in order. While you may scoff at their inability to act decisively or correctly, they are certainly not to blame for anything Simply cannot agree with this. Repeatedly they have praised China for their actions. And at the risk of repeating myself this means praising one of the inhumane regimes on the planet who lied and attempted to cover up the pandemic within Wuhan. Had they been more open the disease would not have spread so quickly or prolifically. Had the WHO (instead) done their job, likewise. And to repeat myself again, we had Chinese whistle blowers quite literally risking their lives and indeed Taiwan telling the WHO, and the world, the virus was spreading person to person in 2019. Meanwhile in mid Jan 2020 the WHO happily repeated China's mantra, that the virus was not spreading. And as regards Taiwan, let's remember they have been one of, if not THE, most successful in preventing the spread of CV19 in their country, yet, the WHO refuses to acknowledge them or listen to them. Why? How is that befitting of the supposed title of "World Health Organisation". they did not create the Virus No, but their poor partisan actions allowed it to spread more quickly. And if we consider what did create the virus, and others, the Chinese wet markets, the WHO of course have just praised China for reopening them again? Really? Shouldn't the WHO be asking China to close them, or significantly reform them in order to prevent the next virus? Among Donald Trump's short comings, the most obvious are the multitude of erroneous information he spreads and the rash statements he makes which someone has to either correct or retract Trump has indeed said questionable things at times. But he has also made some important well timed moves other countries and leaders did not, and indeed which the WHO should have made and did not. eg: Trump limited flights when the WHO were still saying there was no need to. If only Italy had done the same and ignore the WHO's misguided advice! And if we consider this measuring stick being applied fairly, we had other prominent US politicans lambasting Trump for taking action against flights in Jan. We have similar prominent US politicans less than two months ago actively virtue signalling by suggesting the public should "go hug a Chinese" with all the rediculous unnecessary risk this creates. Had Trump behaved in this way, no doubt some individuals would be including these on "their lists". Because it wasn't Trump , it's not on their radar! Again, I'm more than happy to acknowledge Trump's faults, but what I'm highlighting here is the way some individuals seem to not want to do it in a measured and fair minded fashion... And alas certain branches of the media follow suit. Also, living in Sweden, I can confirm that we haven't had any drastic lockdown measures. The only state-mandated closures are high schools, universities and elderly homes (visitors are barred). Might be a few others, I can't remember. However the jury is still out if this is a succesful strategy or not, however it doesn't appear to make a huge difference either way. Our former Jeapordy host just died from it, it was announced this night. Not the equivalent of Alex Trebek (he's already passed on), but the one who replaced him for a few years afterwards. He was 51. Understood. I'm very wary of "died from it" vs "died with it"... While it probably is the former, assuming it's not the latter could dangerously skew stats. Taiwan - which the WHO actively ignores - have been outrageously successful in dealing with the infection. I think they've had only six CV19 related deaths? Why won't the WHO listen or acknowledge Taiwan? Could it be because of China? - https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...hting-pandemic - - - Updated - - - If you read the facts compiled by the second link, Trump & his entourage have been ignoring what the WHO had already been saying and warning even as early as January. Let's not try to deviate the bulk of the blame on the WHO. They did much better than Donald Trump & company. It is them who are mostly at fault here. These guys took the whole thing basically as a "joke" from the beginning, until many Americans started dropping like flies. "The Kung-Flu Virus", indeed. Clowns. I totally agree Trump underplayed CV19 at times. So what I find interesting is you won't seem to use the same measuring stick for the WHO? Had the WHO listened and reacted to CV19 correctly, acknowledging there was person to person transfer earlier, proposing shutting down flights earlier, the world would be in a far better position than it is now. They accepted and repeated China's lies. They ignore reports for weeks (months?) of person to person infection. So who is to blame for the prolific spread of the virus across the planet? Who could have significantly curtailed it? The WHO, or Trump? Clearly the WHO... Yet we have people fixated on Trump, and willing to give the WHO as pass? eg: Again, had the WHO proposed shutting down flights as soon as Trump did, undoubtably lives would have been saved. Yet, this won't appear on some peoples radar? Why? Why is the measuring stick only seemingly put next to Trump, not the WHO? As for the lists supplied, I'd suggest again these are far from fair minded, even reports. eg: The NYT has repeatedly shown its colours as regards Trump. For example, attempting to smear Trump's talk about Hydroxychloroquine potentially being a useful tool by needlessly saying he had a financial interest in its use with everything that implies. Utterly disingenuous, and of course leads to even more unfair nonsense like this - https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...e-manufacturer Again, I'm absolutely not saying Trump has handled things perfectly, few countries have in this unprecedented time. But the WHO have been overly partisan towards China, to the degree they did not react in the best interests of the world. They are a compromised organisation, and have demonstrated this repeatedly. They need to reformed. I'd personally be happier if Trump had threatened to defund them, but I can understand why he's done it immediately too. - - - Updated - - - Australia on lock down for another FOUR WEEKS! Wow!

[bassman]

Trump seemed to be a bit subdued during yesterday’s briefing. Compared to his usual actions, he seemed to be keeping his thoughts to himself and speaking more from the prewritten notes. I bet his campaign crew are losing their minds trying to control his consistent flow of word vomit. Today he’s announcing the reopening guidelines. Should be interesting. At this point, I’m addicted to these briefings like a housewife to soap operas. Some of the most dramatic and jaw dropping stuff on the tube. I have to tune in for “my stories”.

[Neil]

Trump seemed to be a bit subdued during yesterday’s briefing. Compared to his usual actions, he seemed to be keeping his thoughts to himself and speaking more from the prewritten notes. I bet his campaign crew are losing their minds trying to control his consistent flow of word vomit. So the point of that comment was? I mean, it could just be he was very tired? And I'm sure his campaign crew are indeed losing their minds at his continued high approval ratings? So the need to come to a specific conclusion, simply to deliver "consistent flow of word vomit?" - Hmmm... Just pointing it out... - - - Updated - - - Also, living in Sweden, I can confirm that we haven't had any drastic lockdown measures. The only state-mandated closures are high schools, universities and elderly homes (visitors are barred). Might be a few others, I can't remember. However the jury is still out if this is a succesful strategy or not, however it doesn't appear to make a huge difference either way. Just seen an article that infact Sweden isn't actually doing very well compared to other Nordic countries? ie: Highest death count and highest death %age? Could stronger social distancing action help? That said, figures are still low...

[bassman]

So the point of that comment was? I mean, it could just be he was very tired? And I'm sure his campaign crew are indeed losing their minds at his continued high approval ratings? So the need to come to a specific conclusion, simply to deliver "consistent flow of word vomit?" - Hmmm... Just pointing it out... I’m not against Trump, Neil. He’s done several things right, so I’m not saying he’s all bad. But I don’t see how anyone could say he’s a good public speaker during all this. The point is that he needs to stick more to the teleprompter because his own thoughts are only causing more drama, and it seems like his crew may have finally convinced him to stick more to the text he’s given. I know nothing about politics, I’m only referring to his awful press briefings where he’s stirring up trouble for himself because he can’t control his mouth.