Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
simFox

Corona Virus

By simFox, in General Chat

Mark
Message added by Mark

No political discussion in this topic. That is complaining about a country, a politician, a party and/or its voters, etc

Recommended Posts

Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Stan said:

Not good.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis

So many conflicting reports. This article states "The WHO stated then, as it has emphasised throughout, that this highest state of alert required an immediate response."

 

Thought this has been discredited, that the WHO never claimed it was any such thing until late February. Who to trust? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stan

Stan

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

So many conflicting reports. This article states "The WHO stated then, as it has emphasised throughout, that this highest state of alert required an immediate response."

 

Thought this has been discredited, that the WHO never claimed it was any such thing until late February. Who to trust? :unsure:

 

From February onwards, it would be very unfair to suggest the WHO were underplaying the global risk.

 

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Stan said:

 

From February onwards, it would be very unfair to suggest the WHO were underplaying the global risk.

 

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen

I do not disagree Stan, I find myself easily polarised when reading media of late.

I was more pointing out the "throughout" term, which was seemingly not the case, at least "reportedly" they were not shouting loud at the earliest opportunity. This again is not to deride or detract from the efforts of the WHO, and I do sympathise that they face pressures well outside the current health crisis, at least in terms of communicable information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I do not disagree Stan, I find myself easily polarised when reading media of late.

I was more pointing out the "throughout" term, which was seemingly not the case, at least "reportedly" they were not shouting loud at the earliest opportunity. This again is not to deride or detract from the efforts of the WHO, and I do sympathise that they face pressures well outside the current health crisis, at least in terms of communicable information.

That's sadly the nub and crux of it - all they can do is act on the information that they have. If someone, in this case likely the Chinese, tells porkies about the statistics of the outbreak then such organisations don't really have the power and reach to go up against the leading nation-states in order to verify such information. This, of course, leads to the problems that have been seen.

 

I've seen folks calling the WHO "Chinese stooges" or whatever and deriding them for believing the numbers given to them in the first place, but what exactly were they supposed to do in order to get at the real story?

 

This of course suggests that such organisations aren't capable of doing what they are meant to in some circumstances, but rather than simply suggesting they should be "shut down" in a Trumpesque sound-bite, it would be much more useful for them to be beefed up, and actually gain the ability to find out the truth about such things no matter what any nation-state might have to say about it.

 

This outbreak has shown, quite clearly, what the cost of such lies can be. Better to be ready with an organisation more capable of creating transparency when the world faces something like this again, or something else like it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's sadly the nub and crux of it - all they can do is act on the information that they have. If someone, in this case likely the Chinese, tells porkies about the statistics of the outbreak then such organisations don't really have the power and reach to go up against the leading nation-states in order to verify such information. This, of course, leads to the problems that have been seen.

 

I've seen folks calling the WHO "Chinese stooges" or whatever and deriding them for believing the numbers given to them in the first place, but what exactly were they supposed to do in order to get at the real story?

 

This of course suggests that such organisations aren't capable of doing what they are meant to in some circumstances, but rather than simply suggesting they should be "shut down" in a Trumpesque sound-bite, it would be much more useful for them to be beefed up, and actually gain the ability to find out the truth about such things no matter what any nation-state might have to say about it.

 

This outbreak has shown, quite clearly, what the cost of such lies can be. Better to be ready with an organisation more capable of creating transparency when the world faces something like this again, or something else like it.

Agree with this, and the first bit in bold I have zero time for people who regurgitate some shallow thoughtless rhetoric.

The WHO like any body that is dependent (in pretty much its entirety) on outside funding, will always have to some degree "watch what it says" for fear of funding cuts or denial of access to locales.

Having a self funded organisation perform such tasks is also fraught with peril, else such a body would have to have its own interests at its heart.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Agree with this, and the first bit in bold I have zero time for people who regurgitate some shallow thoughtless rhetoric.

The WHO like any body that is dependent (in pretty much its entirety) on outside funding, will always have to some degree "watch what it says" for fear of funding cuts or denial of access to locales.

Having a self funded organisation perform such tasks is also fraught with peril, else such a body would have to have its own interests at its heart.

 

 

And that, right there, is the dilemma that is practically unsolvable. Either supranational organisations are accountable to the big nation states through funding, or they have alternative means of gaining such funding and as such are not accountable to anyone but themselves. Neither way is anywhere close to ideal in terms of them being able to do solely the job they are designed to do.

 

There has to be a solution though, because this event has shown quite clearly what nation-states hamstringing such organisations can cost, and it's merely the latest in a long line of examples of exactly the same happening with various such organisations. Perhaps a halfway house with a self-funded model but a certain element of control/veto authority for orders and action from a majority of nation states? Goodness knows.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And that, right there, is the dilemma that is practically unsolvable.

Bill Gates for God Emperor and Divine Chairman of the WHO (philanthropic funding)

(Melinda Gates to provide oversight)

 

:thumbup:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr The Singh

Dr The Singh

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, MattP said:

Optimistic to say the least.

 

Pubs are going to be an absolutely nightmare to run with any sort of social distancing, will be the last things to open before a return to normal.

I work out in Memphis Tennessee alot and all bars and restaurants are opening on Monday.  It's quite simple, it's all app based table service with booking slots to eat or drink.  All the tables are 2 metres apart, one way in and one way out and you have to wear masks and you can't use the restroom.  There are no walkins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The whole world smiles

The whole world smiles

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I work out in Memphis Tennessee alot and all bars and restaurants are opening on Monday.  It's quite simple, it's all app based table service with booking slots to eat or drink.  All the tables are 2 metres apart, one way in and one way out and you have to wear masks and you can't use the restroom.  There are no walkins.

You can't use the restroom? As in the toilet? Where do you piss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Stan said:

Not good.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis

 

Easy to say we should have started it earlier, but we didn't and we are already seeing people fed up and some people openly admit they are going crazy. If this lockdown gets extended again I've got to admit I'm going to be struggling, it's starting to really get to me now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

The founder of Leicester Children's Choir, Robert Mandell, has died of coronavirus in hospital.

The 90-year-old grandfather, who was known as “Leicester’s Mr Music”, had been admitted to hospital after a fall at home.

He passed away on Saturday morning at Leicester Royal Infirmary just two days after testing positive for Covid-19.

 

RIP

 

But was his death due to the fall or Covid-19? 

Did the virus just accelerate his inevitable demise due to the fall.

I guess only doctors can answer that but it does muddle the figures somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brucey

brucey

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

Easy to say we should have started it earlier, but we didn't and we are already seeing people fed up and some people openly admit they are going crazy. If this lockdown gets extended again I've got to admit I'm going to be struggling, it's starting to really get to me now.

The argument is that by starting the lockdown a week earlier, we might have been able to end the lockdown three weeks earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, brucey said:

The argument is that by starting the lockdown a week earlier, we might have been able to end the lockdown three weeks earlier. 

No guarantees though. And by locking down later we have the ability to see how other countries get on when they try to lift restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...