This is getting absurd.
This is not about WHO's effectiveness, it's about finding a scapegoat for the USG's ineffectiveness. Nothing that WHO did or did not do in January/February prevented the USG from recognizing this risk and preparing for it.
This is not about WHO's effectiveness, it's about finding a scapegoat for the USG's ineffectiveness. Nothing that WHO did or did not do in January/February prevented the USG from recognizing this risk and preparing for it.
More to say later, but for the time being: we had all the basic info we needed to accurately judge the risk of COVID by 23 January. Source? @WHO. A week later they declared a PHEIC. Our failure to act on it isn’t their fault.
OK, picking this up again.
I'll not speculate on what sparked the abrupt full-court press (Trump, Graham, Risch, etc) yesterday arguing WHO is at fault for the USG's failure to prepare.
But it's a jarring change from the praise over past 2 months. 👇
I'll not speculate on what sparked the abrupt full-court press (Trump, Graham, Risch, etc) yesterday arguing WHO is at fault for the USG's failure to prepare.
But it's a jarring change from the praise over past 2 months. 👇
Let's just focus on the merits.
There are a couple of questions at play here:
- Did WHO provide accurate info and guidance on this virus?
- Did WHO act to do so in a timely way?
- Did WHO signal sufficient urgency to member states?
There are a couple of questions at play here:
- Did WHO provide accurate info and guidance on this virus?
- Did WHO act to do so in a timely way?
- Did WHO signal sufficient urgency to member states?
First, the accuracy question.
Most of the early info we had on the basic characteristics of this virus came from what WHO was able to obtain from China. It has held up pretty well, as I outlined in this thread last week.
Most of the early info we had on the basic characteristics of this virus came from what WHO was able to obtain from China. It has held up pretty well, as I outlined in this thread last week.
WHO reporting in January revealed that this virus:
- Was as or more transmissible as seasonal flu
- Had initial estimated fatality rate 40x as high as flu (4%)
- Was transmitting between people
That's red-flag-level stuff.
- Was as or more transmissible as seasonal flu
- Had initial estimated fatality rate 40x as high as flu (4%)
- Was transmitting between people
That's red-flag-level stuff.
On the timeliness question:
WHO's reports in early January did echo China's incorrect downplaying of human-to-human transmission potential.
Could argue they were overly credulous, but those aspects were also caveated and got updated/corrected more than two months ago.
WHO's reports in early January did echo China's incorrect downplaying of human-to-human transmission potential.
Could argue they were overly credulous, but those aspects were also caveated and got updated/corrected more than two months ago.
Jan 9: WHO puts out initial lab guidance
Jan 16: German lab to announces reliable test and begins sharing with others
Jan 23: WHO shares accurate initial details on transmission characteristics (noted above)
Jan 30: WHO declares PHEIC (highest level alert)
Jan 16: German lab to announces reliable test and begins sharing with others
Jan 23: WHO shares accurate initial details on transmission characteristics (noted above)
Jan 30: WHO declares PHEIC (highest level alert)
Getting an accurate diagnostic test and description of novel virus behavior in <1 month from emergence is lightning fast.
US still didn't trigger domestic prep til March.
Hard to see how shifting January timeline 2-3 wks earlier would've triggered different US action.
US still didn't trigger domestic prep til March.
Hard to see how shifting January timeline 2-3 wks earlier would've triggered different US action.
On the urgency question:
By 23 January WHO was considering a PHEIC, and issued it on 30 January (2+ months ago).
Their 30 Jan SitRep assessed the global risk as high. They upgraded that to "very high" on 28 Feb, as Italy, Iran, S. Korea began seeing surges in cases.
By 23 January WHO was considering a PHEIC, and issued it on 30 January (2+ months ago).
Their 30 Jan SitRep assessed the global risk as high. They upgraded that to "very high" on 28 Feb, as Italy, Iran, S. Korea began seeing surges in cases.
WHO statements:
Feb 24: “Does this virus have pandemic potential? Absolutely”
Feb 28: "Reality check for every government on the planet: Wake up. Get ready. This virus may be on its way"
March 5: “This is not a drill...pull out all the stops”
March 11: Pandemic declaration
Feb 24: “Does this virus have pandemic potential? Absolutely”
Feb 28: "Reality check for every government on the planet: Wake up. Get ready. This virus may be on its way"
March 5: “This is not a drill...pull out all the stops”
March 11: Pandemic declaration
Could they have shown those levels of rhetorical urgency a week or two earlier? I think they should have.
But they were still way out front of USG official comments, which as of 29 Feb were still maintaining that "the risk to Americans remains low." whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat…
But they were still way out front of USG official comments, which as of 29 Feb were still maintaining that "the risk to Americans remains low." whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat…
Finally, on the China angle:
Does WHO walk on eggshells around powerful member states? Yes. But not just China.
WHO has been extremely diplomatic about US performance even as we've become the global COVID epicenter. We're throwing stones from a pretty brittle glass house here.
Does WHO walk on eggshells around powerful member states? Yes. But not just China.
WHO has been extremely diplomatic about US performance even as we've become the global COVID epicenter. We're throwing stones from a pretty brittle glass house here.
Members state politics and sensitivities are tricky.
WHO is not a human rights advocacy org. They have to engage states and build trust, not gratuitously bash them, or they lose access to those states' info and resources. Welcome to the frustrating world of multilat orgs.
WHO is not a human rights advocacy org. They have to engage states and build trust, not gratuitously bash them, or they lose access to those states' info and resources. Welcome to the frustrating world of multilat orgs.
WHO's job here was to report on the disease and advise on risks and preparedness. It did that serviceably well.
Indeed the very day that Trump tweeted that WHO was "very smart" was the day Tedros told the world COVID "absolutely" had pandemic potential. who.int/docs/default-s…
Indeed the very day that Trump tweeted that WHO was "very smart" was the day Tedros told the world COVID "absolutely" had pandemic potential. who.int/docs/default-s…
Has WHO been perfect in this outbreak? No.
Has it improved dramatically over its performance on Ebola, in large part because of major US-backed reforms? Yes.
Has the analysis it has provided generally been reliable and actionable? Yes.
Has it improved dramatically over its performance on Ebola, in large part because of major US-backed reforms? Yes.
Has the analysis it has provided generally been reliable and actionable? Yes.
The middle of a pandemic is a terrible time for the USG to pick a fight with WHO. Both institutions need and rely on each other. WHO has a critical role fighting this in developing world. I hope both institutions can get aback to focusing on the actual crisis at hand.
(sorry, one clarification to above; the test and characterization came out <1 month from *confirmed* emergence of novel virus; actual emergence occurred earlier but wasn't immediately recognized/confirmed as such - again, not atypical of novel viruses)
