Trump Says US Will Terminate Relationship With WHO Today (cnbc.com) 307
President Donald Trump announced Friday that the United States is will be cutting ties with the World Health Organization later today. From a report: "China has total control over the World Health Organization despite only paying $40 million per year compared to what the United States has been paying, which is approximately $450 million a year," Trump said during a press conference. Trump has repeatedly criticized the WHO's response to the coronavirus, which has hit the U.S. worse than any other country, amid scrutiny of his own administration's response to the pandemic. Earlier this month, Trump threatened to permanently cut off U.S. funding of the WHO. In a letter, he said that if the WHO "does not commit to major substantive improvements within the next 30 days, I will make my temporary freeze of United States funding to the World Health Organization permanent and reconsider our membership in the organization." On Friday, Trump said WHO "failed to make the requested a greatly needed reform" and the U.S. "will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs."
UPDATE (6/13/2020): Though Trump promised "immediate" action, two weeks later, Ars Technica reported there was "nothing to indicate that Trump has followed through on his plan."
UPDATE (6/13/2020): Though Trump promised "immediate" action, two weeks later, Ars Technica reported there was "nothing to indicate that Trump has followed through on his plan."
And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Insightful)
There goes another Trumpertantrum!!
Re: (Score:2)
Warnings were given to the US long before WHO took a formal position, the US simply chose not to do anything. You do not need the WHO to warn you of a pending pandemic - simply monitoring the developing situations in other countries is enough to take reactionary measures. Now if you want to make an informed decision instead of a reactionary one, or actually make some sort of contribution to the global effort to fight the pandemic, a more participatory involvement would be needed, and this is where bodies li
Re:And the NEXT pandemic [or worse] (Score:2)
will just kill Americans without prior warning
There goes another Trumpertantrum!!
Wow, an actually insightful FP that might lead to a productive discussion. Where did Slashdot go right?
Sorry, but I must now wager that the trolls' sock puppets are about to mod you [AutodidactLabrat] to hell and oblivion. I better quote you for a bit of extra visibility, eh? (At least as of the time of starting this writing, there was only the one comment.)
I was thinking whether it should be described as a temper tantrum or lashing out. The "stable genius" is increasingly desperate to change the subject, b
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate Trump, but he's right on this, and WHO is a Chinese puppet with leaders they put in place. You can't trust them to warn anyway.
Now it definitely is. If he really wants to counter Chinese influence in the WHO, you have to do it from within the organization. Pulling out just leaves a vacuum with nothing to check the Chinese.
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And the NEXT election, he's GONNA WIN! (Score:2, Informative)
VP. `8D
.
j88.. . `88. d8' j88.. . `88. d8'
888888D. `Y88P'. 888888D. `Y88P'
Slashdot is mis-quoting Trump, intentionally? (Score:2, Insightful)
From the summary, according to Slashdot: Trump said WHO "failed to make the requested a greatly needed reform." That makes it seem like Trump uttered some horrendously difficult to parse English.
However, if you search the web for that quote, it becomes obvious Trump didn't say that. What Trump actually said is: the WHO "failed to make the requested and greatly needed reforms" which makes a lot more sense grammatically.
Question is, did Slashdot intentionally misquote Trump's words to try to make him sound u
Re:Slashdot is mis-quoting Trump, intentionally? (Score:4, Informative)
How long have you been reading slashdot headlines? These days they seem to be fumbled into a mobile device one-handed while the editor is taking a piss at a noisy bar bathroom with the other hand on his dick. It's the latter.
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the US can not just create a "world" anything organization. You need buy-in from the rest of the world or it does nothing. And given the US piss-poor reputation with the rest of the free world these days, I doubt Trump will be able to convince any world leaders that his "Freedom World Health Talking People Club" was anything but a sad, unfunny joke.
Re: (Score:3)
I bet Taiwan will join us and that is two.
Four hundred and fifty million can fund a lot of scientists.
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, we'd have to recognize them as a country first. You know the US kowtows to China on this, right? According to official US policy, Taiwan is part of China.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not an international competition.
Re: And the NEXT pandemic (Score:3)
You're claiming the Blue Jays are an American team? ;)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
America funds about 22% of WHO's budget. That will be hard for them to replace.
This will put pressure on them to reform. Polls predict Trump losing in November, so if the WHO can clean up their act, Biden can restart funding in January.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
America funds about 22% of WHO's budget. That will be hard for them to replace.
This will put pressure on them to reform.
Or just make them more ineffective and look towards other sources of funding such as China or Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just make them more ineffective and look towards other sources of funding such as China or Russia.
In which case it seems kinda sensible to de-fund and replace them, doesn't it?
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Insightful)
This will harm the USA long term.
Re: (Score:2)
America funds about 22% of WHO's budget. That will be hard for them to replace.
It's actually less than that, but still substantial. From TFA:
The WHO’s funding runs in two-year budget cycles. For the 2018 and 2019 funding cycle, the U.S. paid a $237 million required assessment as well as $656 million in voluntary contributions, averaging $446 million a year and representing about 14.67% of its total budget, according to WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic.
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Informative)
No. No, they showed that Clinton would win the popular vote by 2-5% which she did. So the polls were pretty damn accurate. The Electoral College is another thing altogether and harder to predict as you essentially need to forecast 50 states plus DC accurately. This is much harder to do than get the national poll.
Please stop spreading fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
No. No, they showed that Clinton would win the popular vote by 2-5% which she did. So the polls were pretty damn accurate. The Electoral College is another thing altogether and harder to predict as you essentially need to forecast 50 states plus DC accurately. This is much harder to do than get the national poll.
Please stop spreading fake news.
There were models that predicted Trump had a small but measurable probability of victory in 2016. Here's one. [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't vote for Trump because of who he is. His supporters know that he is a slimebag narcissistic liar. They vote for him IN SPITE OF THAT because they agree with him on the issues, especially immigration, and see the Democrats as a worse alternative.
If the Democrats expect to win the election they are going to have to do more than just repeat over and over that Trump is a horrible person.
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump says stupid things whether scripted or not and it doesn't hurt him at all as we can clearly see.
It certainly does hurt him.
The difference is that people who will abandon Trump because of his stupid lies HAVE ALREADY DONE SO. He is unlikely to fall further because of that.
But Biden is a blank slate to most voters. Some of us are old enough to remember the idiotic utterances that caused Biden's 1988 campaign to implode, but that was 32 years ago, before many current voters were even born.
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a political move for Trump and I doubt he's going to put any kind of replacement in place, but wouldn't it theoretically be easier to just create some alternative and fund that instead?
Not a bad idea. Trump really should do this...put together some sort of pandemic response team at the CDC or something. Why has no president thought of this before?
Re: (Score:2)
The US already has its alternative, the CDC warned about COVID-19 publicly before the WHO.
They only had the info because of co-operation with China.
If USA pulls out what's the incentive for China to provide info?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I welcome rising China, let them have all the influence. You thought the USA was a bad actor? You thought Americans were bad tourists?
Have fun with that, Asia, reap what you sow.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I welcome rising China, let them have all the influence. You thought the USA was a bad actor? You thought Americans were bad tourists?
Have fun with that, Asia, reap what you sow.
Congrats to AmeriKKKa for setting the bar so high
Re: (Score:2)
I hate Trump, but he's right on this, and WHO is a Chinese puppet with leaders they put in place. You can't trust them to warn anyway.
Now it definitely is. If he really wants to counter Chinese influence in the WHO, you have to do it from within the organization. Pulling out just leaves a vacuum with nothing to check the Chinese.
If you can outspend China over 10:1 and still they have more pull then there has to be a better use for $450M. Indeed many, perhaps most, of these multinational organizations are flush with cash yet have little to show for it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can outspend China over 10:1 and still they have more pull then you are not very good at your job.
Agreed. Let's take our money elsewhere and play a game that we're better at.
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Informative)
Now it definitely is.
In what way? The UN (including the USA) setup the WHO with the specific limitation that they are only able to comment on official government data. They are being fed garbage by the Chinese, but it is the USA in part who require the WHO report exclusively on that garbage without question.
That doesn't make them a Chiense mouthpiece, that makes them apolitical. Now what do you propose as an alternative, and be very careful that you don't turn the WHO into a "USA mouthpiece" in the procee.
China should go fuck itself, but so many people here seem to be overly concerned with shooting the messenger. Actually quite consistent given Trump also has something against the USPS.
Mouthpiece (Score:3)
You can't be apolitical unless you also disregard false garbage data.
This is a recurring issue in statistics, sales, marketing, stocks, construction, food, safety, regulations, and more. This is why you blacklist dishonest actors from marketplaces, if possible.
If the WHOs job is global health, and China is feeding it false information, then WHO has failed at its job, even more so when China's funding of the WHO is questionable.
So either the WHO is taking bribes, or not doing their job.
The more sensible opti
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:4, Insightful)
Now it definitely is. If he really wants to counter Chinese influence in the WHO, you have to do it from within the organization.
We've been trying to work from "within" the WHO, and the rest of the UN, for years. And it's gotten us squat. The whole UN fancies itself some kind of world government in training. It was a bad experiment from the start, and it's way past time to end it. Eviction notices should be served at Turtle Bay. Let the whole kit and caboodle move to Beijing. Then they can kiss China's ass up close.
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Informative)
I hate Trump, but he's right on this, and WHO is a Chinese puppet with leaders they put in place. You can't trust them to warn anyway.
Every nation has total control over what the WHO can and can't do in their country. The WHO cannot operate within a country w/o the consent, cooperation and support -- logistical and monetary -- of the host country. Singling out China for this is naive and disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate Trump, but he's right on this, and WHO is a Chinese puppet with leaders they put in place. You can't trust them to warn anyway.
Every nation has total control over what the WHO can and can't do in their country. The WHO cannot operate within a country w/o the consent, cooperation and support -- logistical and monetary -- of the host country. Singling out China for this is naive and disingenuous.
Paying far more than your share is naïve and fiscally dangerous. It's long past time that China quits having it both ways. When you're the #2 economy in the world start paying your share. The US can't pick up the global tab forever.
Re: (Score:3)
I hate Trump, but he's right on this, and WHO is a Chinese puppet with leaders they put in place. You can't trust them to warn anyway.
Every nation has total control over what the WHO can and can't do in their country. The WHO cannot operate within a country w/o the consent, cooperation and support -- logistical and monetary -- of the host country. Singling out China for this is naive and disingenuous.
Paying far more than your share is naïve and fiscally dangerous. It's long past time that China quits having it both ways. When you're the #2 economy in the world start paying your share. The US can't pick up the global tab forever.
Are you implying that the amount a country contributes to the WHO (and/or any UN organizations) should equate to how much control that country has over the organization? So, if the US contributes the most money it should be able to control the organization? Do you really want Trump controlling what the WHO does and says? Not sure you've thought that out.
Otherwise, the original commentary about trusting the WHO to operate independently and your commentary about monetary contributions to the WHO aren't re
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:4, Insightful)
Where are you getting 10X? It's more like 2X. When you consider GDP, and GDP per capita, it really doesn't seem so bad. The whole reason to invest in organizations like the WHO is because things like pandemics can do a lot more economic damage to developed countries than less developed ones. Basically, the WHO is a sound investment overall, and the US has been paying into it because it has recognized how useful it is up until now.
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you misunderstand the issue here.
The problem is that the WHO unilaterally praises the Chinese response to the pandemic, without acknowledging (much less supporting) reasonable* calls for an independent investigation.
Furthermore, I would suggest you go read some of the WHO's publications. I spent quite a bit of time doing that, a few years ago, and found that it's mostly of lower quality than papers undergraduate students create. Why should any nation pay hundreds of millions of dollars to support a mouthpiece for a foreign government when it can't even generate worthwhile research publications?
*Very much reasonable, based on the Chinese government's history of lying to their own people and to the world.
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the WHO unilaterally praises the Chinese response to the pandemic, without acknowledging (much less supporting) reasonable* calls for an independent investigation.
You mean they praise an authoritarian government that strictly controls everyone/thing, including the media and access to, well, everything and punishes those that speak ill of it? How are they expected to do any work in a country if that country is hostile toward them? Not saying this all is right, but reality is shades of gray. Sure, China would possibly be working against its own interests in retaliating against the WHO, but the WHO probably needs China's cooperation more than China needs the WHO.
As a corollary example, how many people and organizations in the US (or the World for that matter) get help and cooperation based on how many nice things they say about Trump? Our President is just as, if not more, fickle, than the whole Chinese government.
Administrations that have glass presidents shouldn't thrown stones.
Re: (Score:2)
WHO is a member organization. If you replaced it with another member organization, then you'd have exactly the same problem: the leadership will still toady to powerful and influential members.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has spent the last four years reducing the amount of soft power we had in the world. This is a continuation of this policy. This is about of reckless of a move as not joining the League of Nations before World War II even though the League of Nations was pitched by an American President.
Re: (Score:2)
Get back to us when those rules apply to the USA
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And the NEXT pandemic (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate Trump, but he's right on this, and WHO is a Chinese puppet with leaders they put in place. You can't trust them to warn anyway.
Eh. I wouldn't exactly say he's right on this. There may be some issues at the WHO and they may need a leadership shakeup. The thing is, 11 days ago, Trump declared that the WHO had 30 days to commit to make unspecified reforms. With 19 days to go before the supposed deadline for the WHO to supposedly commit to making reforms (which are still unspecified) Trump is basically declaring that he's ending the US relationship with the WHO for not making the (still unspecified) reforms that they were supposed to have 19 more days just to commit to making. Calling Trump "right" on this is a bit like saying that someone made a perfect shot when they didn't hit the bullseye but at least they didn't fire the gun over their shoulder at the people standing behind them this time. Seriously Trump is given an amazing amount of slack all the time. He just makes vague, blanket condemnations and then other people have to step in and say "I think he means X, and if he means X, then he's sort of right". It's like a fortune teller that predicts "I see children in your future" and then the person has children and says the fortune teller was right, or maybe they don't have children, but their sister has children and that sort of qualifies, so the fortune teller was right, or they become a teacher, or work as a camp counselor, or have friends with kids, or just really really want kids, so somehow, they still thing the fortune teller was correct.
Trump is just trying to deflect blame for having messed up early on here. Yes, there's some question of leadership at the WHO being too deferential for China. By and large though, they acted appropriately given the information they had. Trump, by and large, did not. China initially did what all authoritarians do and tried to sweep things under the rug (like Trump is trying to do now and like he tried to do early on), that's definitely bad - for the Chinese people and for China itself. It has pretty much no bearing on the US response. When Trump says idiotic things like "this should have been stopped in China", and "China caused this", that's just him trying to deflect blame. China bears no blame for that. The virus was clearly already out of the country before it was even identified.. This is all just buck passing from a man who "take(s) no responsibility".
Re: And the NEXT pandemic (Score:5, Insightful)
As an independent (neither Chinese nor a Yank), it's clear this isn't true. What is clear though:
1) Trump is having another childish tantrum because he found his pressure couldn't influence the WHO the way he wanted
2) He's trying to shift the blame and cover-up for his personal and his government's failures and incompetence in their handling of the pandemic
Re: (Score:2)
Not how this works (Score:5, Insightful)
"China has total control over the World Health Organization despite only paying $40 million per year compared to what the United States has been paying, which is approximately $450 million a year," Trump said during a press conference.
Well, if China didn't before, they do now. Well done. Just keep on reducing the US's global influence. I'm sure that won't come back to bite us in any way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's fine. Why should the US pay for a Chinese mouthpiece? That money can be better spent elsewhere.
Re:Not how this works (Score:4, Insightful)
"China has total control over the World Health Organization despite only paying $40 million per year compared to what the United States has been paying, which is approximately $450 million a year," Trump said during a press conference.
Well, if China didn't before, they do now. Well done. Just keep on reducing the US's global influence. I'm sure that won't come back to bite us in any way.
I'd trade less influence for not having to carry the world. Far simpler to just mind our own business and fix our own problems. It's not like the world appreciates our "help". Let them see how much better China is to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
"China has total control over the World Health Organization despite only paying $40 million per year compared to what the United States has been paying, which is approximately $450 million a year," Trump said during a press conference.
Well, if China didn't before, they do now. Well done. Just keep on reducing the US's global influence. I'm sure that won't come back to bite us in any way.
I'd trade less influence for not having to carry the world. Far simpler to just mind our own business and fix our own problems. It's not like the world appreciates our "help". Let them see how much better China is to deal with.
If the river a mile away is about to flood its banks, it's easier, cheaper, and more effective to help your neighbors build up the river bank than wait for water to reach your house before you start laying down sandbags. World problems will eventually reach our doors, I'd rather we fixed them before they get close.
Re: (Score:2)
"China has total control over the World Health Organization despite only paying $40 million per year compared to what the United States has been paying, which is approximately $450 million a year," Trump said during a press conference.
Well, if China didn't before, they do now. Well done. Just keep on reducing the US's global influence. I'm sure that won't come back to bite us in any way.
I'd trade less influence for not having to carry the world. Far simpler to just mind our own business and fix our own problems. It's not like the world appreciates our "help". Let them see how much better China is to deal with.
If the river a mile away is about to flood its banks, it's easier, cheaper, and more effective to help your neighbors build up the river bank than wait for water to reach your house before you start laying down sandbags. World problems will eventually reach our doors, I'd rather we fixed them before they get close.
Except that the situation now is that the people on the riverbank are doing little to nothing and thinking don't worry about it, the guy a mile away will fix it. We are paying for way more than our share and that needs to be fixed. Trump pops off at the mouth a lot but this is one area where his lack of eloquence is hitting a truth. We're carrying much of the world and it needs to be rebalanced. Is pulling out extreme? Probably. But ignoring it as all previous administrations have done is as bad or wor
Re: (Score:2)
I'd trade less influence for not having to carry the world. Far simpler to just mind our own business and fix our own problems. It's not like the world appreciates our "help". Let them see how much better China is to deal with.
Ya, thank God we don't have to live on this World with everyone else; we can just go on all by ourselves ... -- oh, wait.
Fools (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump got rid of the pandemic response team and brought about this pandemic .. now he's ditching the WHO what do you think will happen long term? It's not going to help us find emerging asymptomatic viruses. When Ebola happened in 2014 and the first round of SARS happened in 2003 we stopped it by helping out right when it started .. instead of saying "it's their problem lol" and allowing it to spread. Ebola was more contagious than COVID-19 we controlled that. The original SARS (2003) was just as contagious but we reacted much faster and it essentially went away. Trump bamboozled himself into this messed up response. He got tricked, and he tricked himself too.
Re: (Score:2)
White House did not get rid of pandemic response (Score:4, Informative)
Trump got rid of the pandemic response team
Fake news - in fact Trump did not get rid of that team. [washingtonpost.com]
and brought about this pandemic
So a wet market in China and bats had nothing to do with it, is what you are saying...
Funny how Trump Haters are the most anti-science people of all in the end. They just make up everything.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fake news - in fact Trump did not get rid of that team. [washingtonpost.com]
That's not a news story, it's an Op-Ed piece.
Here's another opinion piece, also in the Washington Post, painting quite a different picture:
I ran the White House pandemic office. Trump closed it. [washingtonpost.com]
Re:White House did not get rid of pandemic respons (Score:5, Interesting)
The two op-eds are not contradictory, if you actually read them.
The first one correctly describes what actually happened: The new office Obama created and staffed was shut down, and the politically appointees fired. The professional bureaucrats with expertise in disease and bioweapons were transferred to an existing office (headed by the man that wrote this first oped).
The second correctly describes that the author was there - and lost his job, because he was one of the political appointees who had no purpose when the multiple existing offices doing the same thing were merged.
The net result, of course, is different than what you and the OP are trying to claim, though - that there was no office dedicated to handling pandemics and bioweapons. In fact, there was one, it was well staffed, and it dated back to the Bush Administration.
Re:Fools (Score:5, Insightful)
Ebola was more contagious than COVID-19 we controlled that.
Wait, what? Ebola was spread exclusively by touching the bodily fluids of an infected person. Basically, up until the person starts bleeding out every orifice, it likely isn't contagious, and after that, most people are so horrified that they stay the heck away. The combination of those two factors made Ebola one of the least contagious diseases we've seen in a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
SARS was also not as contagious - but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. **Also doesn't mean this was all handled well
Re: (Score:2)
It's not entirely clear whether SARS was truly less contagious or we just got lucky and didn't happen to have any outbreaks in areas that were more susceptible because of ultra-high density. But it was probably less contagious.
Biden has a LOT of work to repair what this .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I have to ask; are you really that excited for Biden? Or are you excited to vote against Trump?
There's a difference, and I really want to talk to someone who is excited to vote for Biden.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, I'm very excited to vote for Joe Biden. Mainly because he isn't Donald Trump. That's all you need to know about this election. If you don't like people voting against things, I guess get rid of voting. Oh, that's right. That's what the Republicans are trying.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the correct answer.
There is nothing more exciting or more motivating than voting for Trump's opponent, so absolutely ecstatic to vote for Biden. It has nothing to do with who would make the best president, nor does it ever, it has only to do with purging the government of grifters and crime bosses for international organized crime.
Re: (Score:3)
I would have been excited to vote for any number of other candidates on the Democratic side in the upcoming election. Biden is one drool rag away from being comatose at this point. He's not just the least exciting, he's the least everything that the Democrats had. No clear policy. No clear action plan. Simply, "I was there before with Obama, except when he fucked up, then I wasn't really there at all."
So I'm not excited to vote for Biden. And I'm not excited to vote against Trump, though I do think he
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
questionable logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, China had corrupted them and had them eating out of their hands. But is withdrawal the right path here? Can the WHO be reformed with political will and the pressure/clout the USA can wield? If not, what will replace its role on the world's stage? Is there a better option out there?
And regardless of that, if the rest of the world doesn't follow along and condemn the WHO and walk away, we just end up looking like a tantrum-throwing loser and saying, "I quit". And any past American money/resources thrown at the WHO will all be Chinese-controlled. China comes out with a big win and takes control.
As a country, the United States can't act impulsively with every big decision we make. It's gambing... and I think President Trump may have lost with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, who cares if China fully controls the entity dedicated to getting health advice out to the world, that already was politicizing for China?
Does the WHO not give health advice / donations if you don't pay in ? Aside from things coming out of China, which apparently weren't going to be done right anyway, what's the difference?
Libya seems to be getting donations / advice from the WHO on covid without paying much in, USA and Libya can be brothers for the next pandemic.
Reform (Score:2)
There was a lot of talk about reforming the WHO back when the last big ebola outbreak happened in 2014. So far, it seems like not a lot has changed. At some point you have to cut your losses. Maybe wind down the current incarnation of the WHO and spin up another one?
Re: (Score:3)
No, because this assumes that the problem is with WHO.
Republicans have, for some time now, had a "me first" anti-globalist strategy that includes destroying US leadership in worldwide coalitions. It has nothing to do with WHO, it has to do with the selfish nationalistic bigotry of the party. Trump want to destroy the UN and NATO as well, not to "wind down" for objective benefit and replace with "another one", but to render everything everywhere a banana republic. There are two ways to be king of the hill
Re: (Score:3)
No, because this assumes that the problem is with WHO.
The problem is with the WHO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They are moving to include traditional Chinese medicine in diagnostic recommendations, for crying out loud.
Trump should copy the chinese (Score:2)
You can't stop funding you already stopped funding (Score:5, Informative)
Per the WHO, it didn't look like the USA had paid for last year, or the invoiced amount for this year (https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/AC_Status_Report_2020.pdf?ua=1). Maybe there is a reason why China had so much influence? That said, this is just a blame game. Trump dropped the ball, and he wants someone's head to roll.
The U.S. is not the worst hit (Score:5, Insightful)
A disease is going around. It kills 2 people from a family of 4. It kills 3 people from a family of 10. Which family is hit worse?
To properly compare rates of something happening to groups with different populations, you need to normalize by dividing by the population. The family of 4 has an incident rate of 50%. The family of 10 has an incident rate of 30%. So the family of 4 is hit worse, despite suffering fewer fatalities.
Look at the world virus stats [worldometers.info] and click on "Deaths / 1M population" twice to sort it by the death rate. The U.S. is currently the 12th worst-hit at 315 deaths per million. Belgium, Spain, the UK, Italy, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Ireland have all been hit worse. And if you subtract the tri-state area (NY, NJ, CT, 45091 deaths), the rest of the U.S. is only at 136 deaths per million, which would tie it with Portugul at 21st. Doing better than Switzerland and Canada.
California is a particularly good example of how your perception can be screwed up if you incorrectly look at just the raw number of deaths. It's currently the "4th worst-hit" state if you look at raw deaths. But California is the country's most populous state. If you look at its death rate, it's only at 102. It's doing better than Germany (103), which has been widely lauded for how well it's handling the virus.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also pointless to compare deaths at any one instant. The virus didn't enter all countries simultaneously, and the rate of spread in the earliest stages is partly a matter of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially with how much of this country is nowhere near an International airport and there are quite a few pockets of people who simply don't get out much. The spread is actually much slower in this country per capita than it would be otherwise.
You do realize... (Score:2, Funny)
$40 vs $450 million (Score:2)
I think we all saw this coming (Score:2)
I fully expected to see something like this. I mean, I recently read something about him threatening exactly this. I don't know if China is heavily influencing the WHO or not, but I do know the blame of how this virus spread so quickly around the world had to have more at fault than one country and a world organization.
It took quite a while for many countries to react. And with good reason, lack of experience dealing with this situation not being a small one. But even with the restrictions in place, ind
This is actually really smart (Score:5, Interesting)
The Trump administration wants to paint the WHO as a scapegoat for the coming election. It also wants to paint China as an enemy as part of his campaign strategy. Both smart moves for an election year.
That said it's unfortunate that we have a system that values re-election over actually whats doing what is right. The world is truly a worse place because of this man. History will judge him and his family poorly.
Re: (Score:3)
Sad as it is, I completely agree. Trump is not playing to the smart part (well, minority) of the US voters. He knows he has absolutely no chance with them. He is playing to the morons and like most con-men, he is doing it ignoring whatever collateral damage he does. There will be a huge price to pay for that.
At least the US is forcing a change (Score:2)
All the money countries have spent and a global pandemic is what we got. The fundamental idea of having an organisation will always stand, but the people we've put in charge didn't deliver on it. One can demand for Trump to resign, but the same is true for the WHO leadership.
WHO does have a weird relationship with China (Score:4, Informative)
A Dutch late night snow made an item about the WHO's relationship with China. It's online here with English subtitles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It's actually pretty enjoyable to watch and it is illuminating. Long story short: something fishy does seem to be going on. Of course Trump as always overreacts and uses this story to distract from how weakly he's handled COVID-19 in the US and to distract from his absence of any leadership or taking any responsibility. But there is something there that should be looked at regardless of this.
Just shouting, terminating a relationship doesn't help, maybe the next president can take care of this, if no other country steps up before then.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
When your leader orders you to drink the kool-aid, drink deep.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read your linked article, or just the headline?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ? Which part specifically are you referring to ? The "Unless sick or helping someone who is sick" part? With an asymptomatic disease?
Or are you just going to refer to the 2nd part, lack of masks, and ignore the first part ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that China *knew* that person to person transmission was possible for ~10 days at that point. They Chinese where withholding critical information.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically WHO recommended nothing there. Great work.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, it's up to the rest of the world to ignore the US. Don't expect financial support. Don't expect military support. Don't expect scientific support. The US is officially a failed state. Great job Republicans. You won. Yay.
You really should ask why the world needs the US. They are adults, let them take responsibility. The rest of the world shouldn't expect financial or military support. Indeed why would they? It's not like we don't have problems of our own to solve. I'm not clear how that translates into being a failed state but perhaps you could elaborate?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the real, long-term damage Trump has inflicted on the country, and it will take decades to fix. Whoever comes after Trump will have a shitload of work to do.
Even if he fails to get reelected, the damage is done: the US is no longer a soft power player in the world stage.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, not at all, that's why we're not even in the news anymore!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the US is on the news alright... for all the wrong reasons. This story is an example why.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, broken countries are always in the news for all the wrong reasons. Libya is basically #2 in the news cycle, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, it's up to the rest of the world to ignore the US. Don't expect financial support. Don't expect military support. Don't expect scientific support. The US is officially a failed state.
Great job Republicans. You won. Yay.
There's been so much winning, really too much winning, if you ask me. :-)
Hate to say it, but Trump was right, I'm tired of all the winning.
Re: (Score:2)
How in the world is this voted informative? The US is obviously not a failed state. We failed at electing a leader. A temporary leader. Remember George W. Bush and the unjust invasion of Iraq? He was in office for 8 years and then gone. Ya, there was a lot of repair to be had, but repair was made. We elected Trump and he may be gone in January.
Failed state. Jeez. How old are you to literally not remember any amount of political strife in your time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ignore the US (Score:4, Insightful)
At this point, it's up to the rest of the world to ignore the US. Don't expect financial support. Don't expect military support. Don't expect scientific support. The US is officially a failed state.
Great job Republicans. You won. Yay.
This is laughably stupid. Flip that around. It's the US that doles out money to other countries. It's the US that sends military support, often with countries spending paltry amounts on their own forces because they expect the US military to take the brunt of their defense. It's the US that's the number one source of scientific and technical discoveries.
In short, if we take our ball and go home, you don't have a game anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
"We're _getting into debt_ to support them" Haven't looked at the Federal Budget recently have you. Total foreign aid is south of $50 Billion out of a $5 Trillion budget. The military alliances pay for themselves, less we must do for ourselves.
The main drivers of the Fed. Debt are the social programs. And SS and Medicare will go negative shortly. SS is a pay as you go system. When we don't pay, it goes. By law, SS must cut its benefits, so maybe Grandma will be coming to live with you. I'm unsure about what
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who believes SS will reduce benefits is dumb. If you can print a trillion a year to fund Medicare you can print another few hundred billion for SS.
I mean, the money not actually buy much of anything at that point, but the dollar amounts will not go down.