You want to back your statement with something tangible?
So far you have used propaganda news as your source.
You want to back your statement with something tangible?That is false as the statement is wholly inconsistent with the charter of the United Nations.
The WHO can seek that Member States adhere to their obligations under the IHR, and make recommendations in the best interests of all parties.
As we have seen, nations continue to act as they see fit and the WHO is powerless to intervene.
You have relied on poor information.Are you blind or just stupid?
The WHO can act through the UN which has member states with armies.It would not matter in the slightest what powers the WHO are given. They do not have an army, so are powerless to intervene no matter what.
WHO does not direct troops.You have relied on poor information.
If you had credible information it would be from the source, not third parties.
Your claims are incorrect.
The WHO can act through the UN which has member states with armies.
The UN pays many nations to provide troops across the globe and can take offensive action should its members approve such a resolution.
Do yourself a favour and learn what the UN is about, because I use its source material as the basis of my comments.You want to back your statement with something tangible?
So far you have used propaganda news as your source.
You are good at winning strawman arguments, but poor at comprehension.WHO does not direct troops.
Did you finally achieve brain meltdown?
The who can declare a pandemic.Do yourself a favour and learn what the UN is about, because I use its source material as the basis of my comments.
For example, from its Charter:
Article 2You are good at winning strawman arguments, but poor at comprehension.
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
- The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
The WHO does not declare pandemics as it has no practical effect.The who can declare a pandemic.
That's from WHOGood afternoon.
In the past two weeks, the number of cases of COVID-19 outside China has increased 13-fold, and the number of affected countries has tripled.
There are now more than 118,000 cases in 114 countries, and 4,291 people have lost their lives.
Thousands more are fighting for their lives in hospitals.
In the days and weeks ahead, we expect to see the number of cases, the number of deaths, and the number of affected countries climb even higher.
WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction.
We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.
Pandemic is not a word to use lightly or carelessly. It is a word that, if misused, can cause unreasonable fear, or unjustified acceptance that the fight is over, leading to unnecessary suffering and death.
Describing the situation as a pandemic does not change WHO’s assessment of the threat posed by this virus. It doesn’t change what WHO is doing, and it doesn’t change what countries should do.
We have never before seen a pandemic sparked by a coronavirus. This is the first pandemic caused by a coronavirus.
And we have never before seen a pandemic that can be controlled, at the same time.
WHO has been in full response mode since we were notified of the first cases.
And we have called every day for countries to take urgent and aggressive action.
We have rung the alarm bell loud and clear.
It looks like WHO is the who's who of pandemic declaration.Pandemic were recently changed by who. So yes they do actually call pandemics.
That's from WHO
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/det...he-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020
We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.
There is no internationally agreed definition of a pandemic, so if anyone thinks it meets their criteria, then they can call it one.So if WHO cannot, who can?
Really - the IHR has no role for actions on a pandemic, and they were written in 2005 and last revised 4 years ago.Pandemic were recently changed by who. So yes they do actually call pandemics.
It doesn't matter if it's symbolic or not. They declared a pandemic, extremely late in the game mind you. But they called it. It was then widely covered from multiple news sources around the world that "WHO declared a pandemic". So no it's not really ineffectual.There is no internationally agreed definition of a pandemic, so if anyone thinks it meets their criteria, then they can call it one.
The WHO's assessment is highly regarded because they, as a representative body, have expertise in health matters. It is otherwise meaningless because they have a separate mechanism for initiating action on a public health emergency.
Really - the IHR has no role for actions on a pandemic, and they were written in 2005 and last revised 4 years ago.
As I said, the WHO can characterise a disease as pandemic, and make an announcement to that effect. It is symbolic but otherwise ineffectual.
If what you are saying is credible then the WHO characterisation of the virus as pandemic must have some effect.It doesn't matter if it's symbolic or not. They declared a pandemic, extremely late in the game mind you. But they called it. It was then widely covered from multiple news sources around the world that "WHO declared a pandemic". So no it's not really ineffectual.
You just move the posts when you get caught talking rubbish and side track down a lane no one asked you to go.
Can and did WHO call a pandemic:
Yes they can and did.
You do know what "pandemic" means right?If what you are saying is credible then the WHO characterisation of the virus as pandemic must have some effect.
Please outline what this achieved.
I repeat, neither you nor those you are relying on know what they are talking about in relation to this issue.
Your third party proclamations are factually baseless.
Unless you can cite from the source, which is the WHO and its IHR, you are just living in your own fantasies.
No, when the WHO makes a declaration it has a specific meaning and effect in the context of its charter, and it is completely different to describing the characteristic of a virus, such as announcing its genetic structure.Proclamations can, could and may, in effect, be declared as declarations. So effectively, by WHO proclaiming its position on pandemics, is a declaration in its own right, whether as a third party or otherwise.
Yeah well kudos to you for your interpretation based on your perception.No, when the WHO makes a declaration it has a specific meaning and effect in the context of its charter, and it is completely different to describing the characteristic of a virus, such as announcing its genetic structure.
Nations could and did act on the potential of COV19 to become pandemic even before the WHO declared it as a PHEIC in January, by implementing travel bans.
The question people here are overlooking is "what changed?"
If you don't know what words mean then don't use them.Yeah well kudos to you for your interpretation based on your perception.
But you should've heard the local Chinese ambassador's "declarations" over China's supposed job creation in Australia for example, or reactions to "pandemic" inquiries. He isn't very creative either on the defensive back foot with his "proclamations" which are dangerous... to China's prestige.
Our PM is a policy free zone, and has no capacity to understand the damage his idiot ideas do to our principal trading partner, which is now retaliating.
If you want idiot ideas, you don't have to go further than your Chinese Ambassador, Cheng, Chung...If you don't know what words mean then don't use them.
Our PM is a policy free zone, and has no capacity to understand the damage his idiot ideas do to our principal trading partner, which is now retaliating.
So if you want to appreciate what is dangerous, look at poor diplomacy as a starting point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?