> By delaying the "pandemic" designation, the WHO has inadvertently cost more lives.
... why?
I mean, it's not like the word of the WHO is a binding thing, where anyone is mandated to take action on any level because of a binary designation in a taxonomy. This whole this is just bureaucratic wheels turning; everyone who needs to take action has all the information they need to do so.
This is just the WHO doing what it does best -- having committees meeting endlessly to decide whether to apply a certain meaningless designation and then announcing the conclusion of that exercise.
Their actual job, of collating and disseminating information and trying to coordinate any large-scale responses, is actually hard, so nobody wants to do it, but having a meeting to decide IS IT A PANDEMIC is an easy bikeshedding meeting that all the MBAs and ex-McKinsey people can attend and offer their stupid opinion on what the definition of a word is.
EDIT: I said "everyone who needs to take action has all the information they need to do so", and that could be interpreted as saying that we know enough to determine what actions to take. But what I mean is that we have enough data to start to make a range of predictions and bound the uncertainty to some degree; having a more precise metric for any aspect of COVID-19 should not affect the response since those metrics are essentially made up and not comparable even on a per-hospital level, much less a per-country level or even a per-test-kit-type level. Uncertainty is part of the game here, and understanding the risk profiles is how people and organizations and governments have to tune their response.
... why?
I mean, it's not like the word of the WHO is a binding thing, where anyone is mandated to take action on any level because of a binary designation in a taxonomy. This whole this is just bureaucratic wheels turning; everyone who needs to take action has all the information they need to do so.
This is just the WHO doing what it does best -- having committees meeting endlessly to decide whether to apply a certain meaningless designation and then announcing the conclusion of that exercise.
Their actual job, of collating and disseminating information and trying to coordinate any large-scale responses, is actually hard, so nobody wants to do it, but having a meeting to decide IS IT A PANDEMIC is an easy bikeshedding meeting that all the MBAs and ex-McKinsey people can attend and offer their stupid opinion on what the definition of a word is.
EDIT: I said "everyone who needs to take action has all the information they need to do so", and that could be interpreted as saying that we know enough to determine what actions to take. But what I mean is that we have enough data to start to make a range of predictions and bound the uncertainty to some degree; having a more precise metric for any aspect of COVID-19 should not affect the response since those metrics are essentially made up and not comparable even on a per-hospital level, much less a per-country level or even a per-test-kit-type level. Uncertainty is part of the game here, and understanding the risk profiles is how people and organizations and governments have to tune their response.