Thread by @TomBollyky

There is not a lot new in the President's latest letter on @WHO handling of the #COVID19 pandemic, sent ahead of second day of #WHA73

But there are few items worth noting, and I will conclude with what I see as major takeaways 1/

https://twitter.com/TomBollyky/status/1262582671764570114?s=20

Notably, letter doesn't rely on any of the theories about the virus's origins (lab safety accident, bioweapon etc) that Trump administration officials have pushed in recent months

If there was "enormous evidence" you'd expect to see it referenced here 2/
theguardian.com/world/2020/may…

Notably letter doesn't rely on any of the theories about the virus's origins (lab safety accident, bioweapon etc) that Trump administration officials have pushed in recent months

If there were "enormous evidence" you'd expect to see it referenced i2/
theguardian.com/world/2020/may…

The President's letter claims the @WHO ignored credible reports of #SARS_CoV2 spreading in Wuhan in early December, including in the @Lancet

As someone fortunate enough to occasionally publish in @TheLancet, I agree that it is a grievous error to ignore its articles

In this case though, @richardhorton1 says that @WHO did not do that b/c there were no such reports in Lancet in December 4/

https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1262662304048562176?s=20

Reportedly, 1st #COVID19 cases go back to mid November, although those reports are vague on when that was observed & recorded by Chinese officials.

IMO this section of Trump's letter may be based on this SCMP article which also notes @TheLancet report 5/ scmp.com/news/china/soc…

Note letter does not allege that @WHO was aware of these early #COVID19 cases, just that should have investigated

Worth noting here that WHO does not have intelligence gathering capabilities.

The US, on the other hand, does 6/

The President also argues that @WHO ignored Taiwan's warning in December that #SARSCoV2 was spreading human to human. 7/

This is the email that Taiwan sent, which @WHO argues made no such warning

7/

For more details on Taiwan & WHO, read this thread on the recent interview in @ThinkGlobalHlth with Taiwan's Foreign Minister Wu 8/

https://twitter.com/TomBollyky/status/1261751123595141124?s=20

Brundtland argument in letter is designed to push back on view that WHO is a technical, normative agency incapable of doing more unless member states empower it to do so 9/

As @IlonaKickbusch notes, Brundtland's actions in SARS occurred before the IHR was revised in 2005

Those revisions were meant, in part, to institutionalize the actions she took and have them operate within a set of rules 10/

I also agree with @HelenBranswell on this point 12/

https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1262718414726090753?s=20

The boorishness of this letter aside, there are legitimate issues on whether IHR, as revised, has gotten balance right and whether approach undertaken by recent DGs (not just this one) toward directly affected states in outbreaks is the right one 13/
foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/10/the…

It is important that an independent, evidenced-based interim review of the response happen soon and the #WHA73 resolution today helps clear the way for that

But this letter only further politicized those discussions & that won't help advance US safety
14/
foreignaffairs.com/articles/china…