Cutting Off Our Noses to Spite Our Face?
Qui son nes coupe, sa face desenoure
There is much “noise” around the proposed amendment to the WHO Preparedness For and Response to Health Emergencies. It appears to me that many far right Republicans are having a knee jerk reaction to the possible changes without reading the document – and therefore, cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Dan Cox has mentioned the WHO Amendments in several SM posts. One example from Dan from the AA County FB Page:
The Republican Women of Baltimore County has posted the following graphic/meme, among others:
I have to question whether those that oppose these amendments have even read the document? I don’t believe they have read it.
We all have the responsibility to read the PRIMARY reference, not just taking the ‘soundbites” of candidates or groups as the truth. Take nothing for granted, even if you are “for” the candidate.
Let’s look again at this start of this pandemic. We all know that China did NOT act in an appropriate manner when China knew they had a serious epidemic and knew that the virus, Sars-CoV-2, was the culprit. They had the sequencing done, yet did not provide that sequencing to the rest of the world. They did not enlist the support and help from WHO or the rest of the world. They did everything they could to spread propaganda and to stop their own medical professionals from alerting the world.
I have to believe that we all want China to be held accountable. Just as important is to ensure that this never happens again by any country. And that is precisely is what these amendments will do. They will NOT be taking away our sovereignty!!!!
I have read the Amendments to the WHO Proposal to the International Health Regulations (2005). These amendments will allow the world some certainty that in fact, all nation states will be responding in a timely fashion to provide data, if a country, regional or global hits any country.
“The Biden administration proposal is publicly available online. It seeks to compel the WHO to engage more assertively when a health risk emerges, and to share any information it gleans with the international community more quickly. It requires the WHO to recommend actions to the affected country, and offer expertise. The sanction for nations who reject WHO assistance is public exposure.”
In a nutshell, the US is not giving up any authority over our own national health policies as had been suggested by far right conspiracy folks. These amendments make NO mention of global tracking, vaccine passports, dictating quarantines, or medical surveillance on individuals.
I know this is lengthy, but I wanted to give you a flavor of 4 different sections of the proposed amendments for the WHO Preparedness plan. The link for the entire document is at the end.
I will copy and paste actual text of the document here. Please note: “Explanation of changes: The proposed new text is shown in bold underline, and proposed deletions to existing text is shown in
strikethrough. All other text would remain unchanged.”
Let’s take the first one: Article 5: Surveillance. Here is the proposal :
1. Each State Party shall develop, strengthen and maintain, as soon as possible but no later than five years from the entry into force of these Regulations for that State Party, the capacity to detect, assess, notify and report events in accordance with these Regulations, as specified in Annex 1. This capacity will be periodically reviewed through the Universal Health Periodic Review mechanism. Should such review identify resource constraints and other challenges in attaining these capacities, WHO and its Regional Offices shall, upon the request of a State Party, provide or facilitate technical support and assist in mobilization of financial resources to develop, strengthen and maintain such capacities.
New 5. WHO shall develop early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources and shall convey this risk assessment to States Parties in accordance with Articles 11 and 45 where appropriate. The risk assessment shall indicate, based on the best available knowledge, the level of risk of potential spread and risks of potential serious public health impacts, based on assessed infectiousness and severity of the illness.
This is merely setting a structure for every State to develop their surveillance plan.
We can begin to hold China accountable for future outbreaks.
Many underdeveloped countries do not have the medical and public health infrastructure to do this. This will assist those countries.
Article 6: Notification
1. Each State Party shall assess events occurring within its territory by using the decision instrument in Annex 2 within 48 hours of the National IHR Focal Point receiving the relevant information. Each State Party shall notify WHO, by the most efficient means of communication available, by way of the National IHR Focal Point, and within 24 hours of assessment of public health information, of all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern within its territory in accordance with the decision instrument, as well as any health measure implemented in response to those events. If the notification received by WHO involves the competency of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) or other relevant entities, WHO shall immediately notify the
IAEA relevant entities.
2. Following a notification, a State Party shall continue to communicate to WHO, by the most efficient means of communication available, timely, accurate and sufficiently detailed public health information available to it on the notified event, where possible including genetic sequence data, case definitions, laboratory results, source and type of the risk, number of cases and deaths, conditions affecting the spread of the disease and the health measures employed; and report, when necessary, the difficulties faced and support needed in responding to the potential public health emergency of international concern.
My comments on Article 6.
The “within 24 or 48 hours” is merely inserting a time frame into the regulation, so that no state can dilly dally along with providing the information. This timeframe was NOT in the regulations prior to this proposed amendment. Thus China was able to get away with not adhering to any timelines.
The second Bold and Underline (The Food and Agriculture. .. ) is merely adding other organizations that might have competency within a particular area of expertise involving a possible global emergency.
In Part 2 above, the BOLD words: by the most efficient means of communication available AND genetic sequence data.
This is merely a way to ensure that the state submits the required
document in the most timely fashion. Consider then the genetic sequence data: Did we not suffer from China not providing the
Genetic sequencing of this virus? It was only that someone in
China (I believe) put the sequence up through another portal. We
absolutely need this information immediately, so that our
scientists on a global level can begin to do their work.
Let’s jump to Article 13: Public health response
At the request of a State Party, WHO shall offer assistance collaborate to a State Party in the response to public health risks and other events by providing technical guidance and assistance and by assessing the effectiveness of the control measures in place, including the mobilization of international teams of experts for on-site assistance, when necessary. The State Party shall accept or reject such an offer of assistance within 48 hours and, in the case of rejection of such an offer, shall provide to WHO its rationale for the rejection, which WHO shall share with other States Parties.
4. If WHO, in consultation with the States Parties concerned as provided in Article 12, determines that a public health emergency of international concern is occurring, it shall
may offer, in addition to the support indicated in paragraph 3 of this Article, further assistance to the State Party, including an assessment of the severity of the international risk and the adequacy of control measures. Such collaboration may include the offer to mobilize international assistance in order to support the national authorities in conducting and coordinating on-site assessments. When requested by the State Party, WHO shall provide information supporting such an offer. The State Party shall accept or reject such an offer of assistance within 48 hours and, in the case of rejection of such an offer, shall provide to WHO its rationale for the rejection, which WHO shall share with other States Parties. Regarding on-site assessments, in compliance with its national law, a State Party shall make reasonable efforts to facilitate short-term access to relevant sites; in the event of a denial, it shall provide its rationale for the denial of access.
My comments Article 13: A State party will no longer request collaboration with the WHO. Instead the WHO will offer assistance to a State Party. The State Party shall accept or reject such an offer of assistance within 48 hours and, in the case of rejection of such an offer, shall provide to WHO its rational for the rejection, with the WHO then sharing that with other States. This does not FORCE any state, but it does allow WHO to proceed with all States with information as is available.
In the last paragraph of this section, The State Party is able to accept or reject. They must provide a rationale for the rejection and WHO will share with other State Parties. The 48 hours to respond is a fair timeframe in which to respond in order to keep things moving in a possible global health emergency.
There are no more “may”’s – there are “shall”’s. No more “China may. . “ Now “China shall. . “
Finally let’s look at one section Article 49: Procedure, 53 quater Reports:
53 quater Reports
1. For each session, the Compliance Committee shall prepare a report setting forth the Committee’s views and advice. This report shall be approved by the Compliance Committee before the end of the session. Its views and advice shall not commit WHO, States Parties, or other entities and shall be formulated as advice to the relevant State Party.
2. If the Compliance Committee is not unanimous in its findings, any member shall be entitled to express his or her dissenting professional views in an individual or group report, which shall state the reasons why a divergent opinion is held and shall form part of the Committee’s report.
3. The Compliance Committee’s report shall be submitted to all States Parties and to the Director-General, who shall submit reports and advice of the Compliance Committee, to the Health Assembly or the Executive Board, as well as any relevant committees, for consideration, as appropriate.
My comments: You can see here that the Compliance Committee prepares a report providing advice. The advice is for the State Party experiencing a potential health issue. Any member of the Compliance Committee may, if disagreeing with the Committee, provide his report as to why they have a divergent opinion. It doesn’t commit to WHO to any action.
These amendments provide a framework when a country (like China) has another outbreak (remember China has shirked their duty twice to the global community). We have timelines for submitting info, we inform the other States if the country refuses assistance or information.
There is NOTHING in this that give the WHO any authority over Maryland, as Dan Cox suggests. Once again, Dan uses hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts to rile his base. There is nothing about vaccine passports, dictating quarantines, medical surveillance, or global tracking. No, there is nothing in this document that even remotely suggests treating anyone as China as of late been treating their citizens. RWBC, please stop using false memes.
We must adopt these changes because a pandemic affects us globally . This is the only positive way to move forward so next time we don’t have another global disaster like Sars-CoV-2.
Let’s stop having a cut-off-your-nose type of reaction. Always look at the primary source of information and do your own evaluation. Do not let a political candidate tell you what to believe with his promotion of his candidacy. Do not put up silly memes and assume you have the facts correct.
Without strengthening the WHO, we will “cut off our noses, to spite our face”.
I urge you to read the document in its entirety.
The link to the entire document: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf