Coronavirus: China rejects call for probe into origins of disease

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Anyway. Bobby D. 3rd Feb. WHO advice. Continue trade & travel in & out of Wuhan.
How did that work out? Hmmmm.

Thanks for that. However it does cast great doubt upon your assumption that WHO are biased towards China, and therefore your whole argument is destroyed because apparently they are also biased towards Spain, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and numerous other countries and areas.
"WHO recommendations for international travel and trade in relation to the Listeriosis outbreak in Spain"
"WHO recommendations for international traffic related to the Ebola Virus Disease outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo"
etc.

From the website suggested by you: http://origin.who.int/ith/en/

 

[Ryler]

Funny how you mistrust UK gov, yet trust the Chinese rulers.

Just looked on the opening page of the gd cesspit and read the op on this thread and concluded the loony left will have most of the thread polluted with their china defending and uk government bashing.
And lo and behold...

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Just looked on the opening page of the gd cesspit and read the op on this thread and concluded the loony left will have most of the thread polluted with their china defending and uk government bashing.
And lo and behold...

To ascertain and confirm the reality of suggestions, insinuations and allegations is not looney, nor left.
Whereas, to selectively quote data, reports and various other related articles, while conveniently omitting other data, etc, is not conducive to supporting an argument or position. It could be described as biased and looney.

I refer you to my recent comments about trazor selecting certain data to suit his argument, ReaganAndCarter quoting and misrepresenting old articles which themselves were looking at historical data, and Dangee selectively quoting from WHO website, while conveniently omitting so many other reports on that same website.

 

[Dangee]

WHO coronavirus update/statement 3rd Feb.

 

[Dangee]

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

WHO coronavirus update/statement 3rd Feb.

Can you provide a link. It's not listed on their website.

But my point still prevails. They have issued many, many travel and trade advice, for numerous countries, not just China. As your argument was based on them providing advice for trade, just with China, your argument is based on a falsehood.
You omitted to mention that it is what they do for numerous other countries in similar circumstances.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

View attachment 191998

You are selectively quoting some reports and conveniently omitting others, albeit, being guided by a news report.
You need to have a more open and questioning mindset.

 

[Dangee]

So you are happy that they are doing a good job & not influenced by China?

 

[Notch7]

2 metres is a made up (but convenient) effective separation distance from research done in the 1930's, which is being seriously eroded by a number of scientists, on a number of fronts.

the actual distance does not change my point: social distancing can work just as well in a high pop dense country as low.

Population density is not the key factor.

most people live in towns and cities -it matter not whether those urban areas are 5 miles apart or 50 miles apart.

 

[Brigadier]

You omitted to mention that it is what they do for numerous other countries in similar circumstances.

There are no "similar circumstances" (barring the Black Death and the "Spanish Flu", the latter predating the WHO by about thirty years, meaning it could not have similarly advised numerous countries.) Therefore , I have to say that

...... your argument is based on a falsehood.
.

 

[Notch7]

So you are happy that they are doing a good job & not influenced by China?

Trump is using China as a deflection

he suspended WHO payments as a massive dead cat and to trigger his Xenophobic redneck base.

During a pandemic, cutting funding to a global world health organisation is not a sensible solution, despite their failings.

 

[Notch7]

There are no "similar circumstances" (barring the Black Death and the "Spanish Flu", the latter predating the WHO by about thirty years, meaning it could not have similarly advised numerous countries. Therefore , I have to say that

Indeed, there is nothing in modern times that has any equivalence. Certainly not Listeriosis or Cholera.

SARS I virus is the nearest and that whilst having a higher mortality rate had much much lower transmission rates (otherwise most of us would be dead).

 

[Brigadier]

the actual distance does not change my point: social distancing can work just as well in a high pop dense country as low.

Population density is not the key factor.

most people live in towns and cities -it matter not whether those urban areas are 5 miles apart or 50 miles apart.

It's just much more difficult to make it work effectively.

In sparsely - populated areas, the likelihood of anyone coming within two metres of anyone else is low and, because it is so infrequent an event, is not inconvenient to achieve.
However, if most everywhere you go necessitates a "person avoidance manoeuvre", this quickly becomes tieing and unmanageable.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

So you are happy that they are doing a good job & not influenced by China?

An irrelevant and unsupported observation.

My opinion on WHO's performance cannot be judged by exposing your selectivity in what or who you choose to believe, and your selective quoting of some reports while conveniently omitting others, because they do not support your argument. If you had included them, they would have negated your argument.

I'm sure that WHO are influenced by all countries, but to highlight one such country, and suggest it exerts undue influence is another case of selection of the criteria and quoting to support your argument. You are allowing your predisposition to determine which bits you want to concentrate on.

In our personal world, and just as much on the world stage, all organisations and entities exert influence. We live in a connected world.
Some exploit such connectivity to spread misinformation.

 

[Brigadier]

During a pandemic, cutting funding to a global world health organisation is not a sensible solution, despite their failings.

Depends on how appalling their failings are.
Reductio ad absurdum, if the WHO did literally fook all, it would make no sense whatsoever to give them a penny.