After surveying all the BF news sites…from Effect Measure to H5N1 to the Ultimate Database…well, all of them— I have one question. At this point, wouldn’t it be wise for WHO to haul out the “forecasters” mentioned before and start some daily dispersal of information, advice, etc? Just wondering how much more this has to all mushroom before we get them doing some daily spin control…
I doubt they will do anything significant until the pandemic is raging. Their main goal at this point seems to be to obscure information coming from affected countries. Usually we get reasonably good information from media reports when a country first reports infected people, then the WHO team moves in all information stops. We would be better without the WHO. I am sad to say this.
The western European countries probably do not need WHO teams to go in.
After all, western countries are “donor nations” with regard to WHO teams. Epidemiologists and poultry vets and virologists and lab specialists, from western health agencies and universities, make up a significant percentage of the pre-qualified “ready to go” list of specialists that get called up and formed into WHO teams when they are needed.
I wish I could convey the almost unimaginable devotion to duty of these people. I wish I could capture in words the intensity of their desire to thwart this virus — or at least to help the world cope with it.
I have lots of complaints about the institution — possibly even more than some of the WHO-bashers on these forums. But if not WHO, then who?
From “The American President”: (movie, 1995 Michael Douglas, Annette Benning, directed by Rob Reiner)
“People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.”
WHO should be “stepping up to the microphone” now on a daily basis to help pave the way for measured responses— not out and out panic when things really do get underway.
posted recently on fluwiki
“TPTB that orchestrate and control global system are financially and structurally more than capable of assembling the best scientists, managers, equipment, etc and plotting the best course of action. What is happening (regarding HPAI and WHO) is almost exactly what they supposed.”
Path Forward: I don’t doubt that there are dedicated, hard working and self-sacrificing scientists who work at the WHO. As I have mentioned several times, Carlo Urbani, who alerted the world to SARS, is one of my heros. However, any organization can be poorly managed and/or corrupt. This can override the best efforts of the good people who work there. At this point, I think the US and all other scientifically advanced countries should send in their own teams when an outbreak is observed. All national and state plans should be de-linked from the WHO phase system. Basically, ignore the WHO. This will be messy but would be preferable to putting our lives into the hands of the Director-General and his Advisor.
lbaum: The Director-General listens to his Advisor too much to be a leader.
anonymous: TPTB don’t have a clue about what’s going on with H5N1. Many won’t get to their safe houses in time. And the ones that do will cry when look at their net worth after its over. Really, who do you think will happen to companies like Dell or Microsoft after a severe pandemic? The scary thing about TPTB is not how much they know, its how much they don’t know.
“But if not WHO, then who?”
The problem at the WHO seems to be with policy, judgement and general management. The WHO has many capable, decent people. No reason to suspect the organization wouldn’t do well after decimation of it present management. Somebody would have to make sure the cream could rise to the top. How to make that happen? How much time remains for mucking about?
The generalized “Peter Principle”
in evolution systems tend to develop up to the limit of their adaptive competence
I think that you are all making a big assumption here, and one that we all make throughout our lives. This may sound a bit philosophical, but ultimately, nobody really has the answers to pretty much anything.
I have worked at a senior level in several organizations (some that impact the lives of many people) where one would imagine a tight chain of command, a clear focus and direction, a ‘crack team’ at the top, and complete understanding of the business and how it is run. The fact is that most of the time, it is a collection of individuals doing their own thing, mostly chosen on the basis of style over substance, and with very little input or understanding from the ‘corporate level’. I think most people would be amazed at how some of our household name organisations are run (or not, as the case may be), and how quickly they would fall apart.
Naoimi: I think you’re right. Most people would be amazed if they knew the truth about TPTB. The fact is, people often rise to the top of large, complex organizations due to personal ambition, ruthlessness, and an ability to please the people above them in the food chain. Actual competence is not high on the list.
Since WHO is, at least in part, a scientific organization, there is a successful model that could be used to improve the quality of their work - the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US. This organization is not perfect, but it is generally recognized to do a better job of disbursing funds for scientific research than any other. The key is peer-review. People who want money from the NIH have to write grants and submit them for review. Anyone at any academic institution in the US, and some overseas, can submit grants. The reviewers are experts who are not affiliated with NIH. They are drawn from institutions across the US. The make-up of the review panels changes somewhat every year. All reviews are not perfect, mistakes get made, but in general, this is as fair of a process of allocating funds as I have ever heard of.
A similar system could be applied to the WHO. I would streamline the “intramural” program there and institute an “extramural” program. Scientists all over the world would compete for grants to do important studies. Their grants would be reviewed by expert panels drawn from scientists all over the world. The reviewers would not be affiliated with the WHO. The scientists who perform the studies would be required to deposit any raw sequence data with 24 hours of its acquistion. Continued funding would be dependent on publishing of results. In addition, the intramural program at the WHO should be subject to yearly site visits by an external review panel composed of experts in epidemiology, microbiology and chronic diseases. They should have complete access to all raw data available at the WHO. Their report should be published.
Just my 2 cents.
Monotreme
I think your suggestions make absolute sense but I can’t think of one organisation that I know that would be willing to open itself to outside scrutiny unless it was forced to.
On the subject of rising to the top of organizations, I have pleaded at board meetings for them to go with the guy in the grey suit. Unfortunately, those with the real knowledge are often the introverts and are almost always passed over. In elections I rarely vote for the candidate that gives the better performance in the TV debate - whilst I understand the value of a good communicator, give me the ‘plodder’ any day.
Naomi, I think you’ve touched the solution.
“I think your suggestions make absolute sense but I can’t think of one organisation that I know that would be willing to open itself to outside scrutiny unless it was forced to.”
How can WHO be forced to change?
By the way, last I heard, WHO has a meeting (3/6 to 3/10) in Geneva, ostensibly to get global authority to organize and manage a rapid pandemic containment force. Issues of capability and performance should be on the table. Political considerations will also be important. The USA and France have already announced plans somewhat congruent to the notion of rapid response. This could be a good opportunity for nations and power blocks to sort WHO out.
April and Dubina: I agree. Outside pressure is the key. The countries footing the bill for the WHO should demand accountability. Because they had regarded it as a charity, they didn’t pay much attention to it. Now that the WHO is making decisions that affect all of our lives they should insist on an external review committee. In the meantime, they should de-link all decision making regarding pandemic preparations from the Director-General. I suspect most Governors of American States have no idea that the Director-General of the WHO is in charge of determining when preparedness steps are taken in their states. The national governments and the states drank the cool-aid. Time for an antidote.
“in evolution systems tend to develop up to the limit of their adaptive competence “
(wince) Don’t keep reminding me!
With the advent of the cat infection, WHO would be smart to get out ahead of things now. Introduce the “forecasters”…get them on TV, etc….everyday. Get them ID’d by the public now and factor in some “comfort level” now.
Everyone (old enough) remembers how Walter Cronkite ( pre-CNN, pre-internet, pre-big media) helped us digest and understand troubling news, events, etc. Someone on the Wiki mentioned how comforting “Dr. Bob” made them feel with his reassuring tone and words. It will make for less panic in the long run.
WHO: get some PR people on your team!
“WHO: get some PR people on your team!”
Please, the last thing we need is to have WHO PR people talk to us.
We already have too much PR. We want substance. We want data.
thanks
we want government, but we also want opposition and control.We need WHO2.
I think we need WHO.9
I agree with anon_22 that the WHO doesn’t need any more PR people. They have more than enough now. What they need is honest scientists making the decisions. Honest scientists would release the data, now.
Older thread, closing for speed purposes.
check dates