Estonia was speaking about Russian disinformation. Russia is now raising a point of order saying that this is not on the current topic, and per rule 16.2 asked the chair to stop the provocations and unrelated opinions of the Estonian delegation. #BWCRevCon#1972BWC
The chair now says that they rule that states should be sure to follow the rule, but in order to allow states to complete their statements and tie them into the topic, Estonia may continue and finish making their point.
Georgia now continues its statement, including condemning Russia for disinformation, bringing up their threat of using CBRN weapons, and referencing Russian threats to Ukraine involving possible violations of #1972BWC, which plausibly addresses Russia's objection re: relevance.
Czechia follows suit with criticizing Russia's invasion of Ukraine and their CBRN threats...
...and manages to get almost 30 seconds in before Russia raises a completely new different of order! (I'm joking, of course - it's the same old 16.2 objection.)
Not-at-all-shockingly, the chair says they already addressed this... but then tells Russia they cannot use points of order to respond to the substantive points raised.
Czechia continues, noting "If Russia doesn't like it, they should not invade their sovereign neighbors."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Happy to report that nothing surprising or exciting has happened in the last hour an a half of statements- just states reiterating importance of BWC and need for new widely discussed ideas proposed in the 29 non-Russian working papers. meetings.unoda.org/bwc-revcon/bio…
The chair just said that Algeria will have the last statement, because 2 countries have asked for a right-of-reply before we end for the day. (I wonder who the second one was?)
Very excited to be here for @JHSPH_CHS's Global Forum on Scientific Advances Important to the BWC side event here at the #1972BWC Review Conference in Geneva.
They are recording this event for their podcast, hosted by @ggoronvall, in case anyone is worried that they will miss out.
@JHSPH_CHS@AnnaLauraRoss2 is speaking about the diversity of areas in scientific research which pose both opportunities and risks relevant to the #1972BWC, the diversity of actors and organizations with shared responsibility, and the @WHO's (excellent) framework: who.int/activities/ens…
People interested in reducing biorisk seem to be super excited about 222nm light to kill pathogens. I’m also really excited - but it’s (unfortunately) probably a decade or more away from widespread usage. Let me explain.
Before I begin, caveat lector: I’m not an expert in this area, and this is just the outcome of my initial review and outreach to experts. And I’d be thrilled for someone to convince me I’m too pessimistic. But I see two and a half problems.
First, to deploy safe 222nm lights, we need safety trials. These will take time. This isn’t just about regulatory approval - we can’t put these in place without understanding a number of unclear safety issues, especially for about higher output / stronger 222nm lights.
The recent (inexplicable and irresponsible) decision by the NIH to fund more of Peter Daszak's dangerous bat-virus discovery work brings up the obvious, and easily answered, question; is this safe?
@kesvelt Despite the ill-advised nature of doing this work altogether, however, I will return to the question of whether this is being done safely. That is, are the people collecting samples being kept safe from these potentially dangerous pathogens?
I've been thinking about how people change the world for the better for quite a while. Turns out it's hard, and the world is complex, but more critically, most people aren't trying. And if they care about the world, and want it to be better, that's a shame. (1/25)
Most people don't try to change the world. Some people lack resources to take risks, or don't want to risk failure. This is understandable. But others just never thought about it.
@lxrjl Even among the people who can, and say they want to, most don't bother considering doing something big and changing the world - much less how to do that something effectively.
Don't think that we can change public opinion on a dime. We can't.
And the US isn't the only place in the world. This messaging is killing people in Israel already, where we're already seeing vaccine hesitancy as the key issue.
And this is where public health messaging stop being epidemiology. You're not doing epi now.
For all of the valid complaints about non-epidemiologists doing epidemiology, there's a problem when epidemiologists start trying to do risk communication without sufficient expertise.