|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 9, 2020 11:15:20 GMT -8
For those between the ages of 18-44, the death rate for coronavirus is 199 out of a million, 0.0199%, around a 5,024:1 shot. A selection of things that are more dangerous to people under the age of 45 than coronavirus: Depression/suicide Drug overdoses Motor vehicle accidents Falls Being struck by an automobile while bicycling or walking Drowning Choking on food And these are not your typical 18-44 year-olds but athletes who are in their late teens and early 20s. Coronavirus can be very bad for those over the age of 45 or those with pre-existing conditions, but 18-26 year-old athletes? C'mon now. Coronavirus isn't exactly the Spanish Flu. The vulnerable are the folks you identified. But the point is that once a person is carrying the virus they can infect others. Which means if an athlete tests positive, they may have already spread the virus to others and certainly for multiple days after diagnosis can infect others (part of the reason for 14 day quarantine). So while the risk to the health of the athlete is limited, the risk to everyone else in his or her circle is high. Which means that athlete could spread it to someone who could spread it to another person who then have direct contact with a person in the vulnerable population - and that person could be at a much higher risk of death than 0.0199%. I am in fear of the spread. I don't have a large fear that the virus will kill millions of 18 - 40 year old folks. The more you can control the spread, the better the chance to prevent the virus from reaching an at risk person. Excellent post and what those who protest the curve-flattening strategies seem to overlook. Very selfish of them. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 9, 2020 11:19:49 GMT -8
For those between the ages of 18-44, the death rate for coronavirus is 199 out of a million, 0.0199%, around a 5,024:1 shot. A selection of things that are more dangerous to people under the age of 45 than coronavirus: Depression/suicide Drug overdoses Motor vehicle accidents Falls Being struck by an automobile while bicycling or walking Drowning Choking on food And these are not your typical 18-44 year-olds but athletes who are in their late teens and early 20s. Coronavirus can be very bad for those over the age of 45 or those with pre-existing conditions, but 18-26 year-old athletes? C'mon now. Coronavirus isn't exactly the Spanish Flu. Wilky, you are correct, of course. I do not worry about the athletes dying, but the fact is that medical professionals do not know the long term effects of COVID 19. In fact, an article from Johns Hopkins states exactly this and goes on to say that they anticipate that many will require rehabilitation of their lungs for a year. And we have heard about how it attacks the liver, so you should not take Advil. This may not be the Spanish Flu, but it sure isn’t the seasonal flu, either. I feel college athletes have more pressure upon them to play. Others make those decisions and they have to live by those decisions. I’m afraid that the decisions made concerning college football will not protect the athlete. Remember the football game a couple of years back at Cal when California was filled with smoke from the fires? Doesn’t give me confidence that the powers that be will make sound decisions. Bingo. As we know, the NCAA has one thing at the top of it's priority list and it isn't the student/athlete.  |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 9, 2020 11:20:23 GMT -8
yep, bad at messaging and communicating science. A truly, fully, asymptomatic person can spread, but probably isn't. that is because a truly, fully asymptomatic person has a light viral load and stronger body response. But a truly, fully, beginning to end asymptomatic case is not that common. A person not yet showing symptoms, that goes on to show symptoms, is not the set of people they were trying to talk about above, even though most experts would classify them as asymptomatic at the time they infected another. Additionally, people with only mild symptoms are not the population WHO was trying to talk about either. It is becoming a muddled mess of categories between asymptomatic people, mild symptoms, and pre-symptomatic carriers. There aren't a lot of clean lines. |
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Jun 9, 2020 12:13:42 GMT -8
The vulnerable are the folks you identified. But the point is that once a person is carrying the virus they can infect others. Which means if an athlete tests positive, they may have already spread the virus to others and certainly for multiple days after diagnosis can infect others (part of the reason for 14 day quarantine). So while the risk to the health of the athlete is limited, the risk to everyone else in his or her circle is high. Which means that athlete could spread it to someone who could spread it to another person who then have direct contact with a person in the vulnerable population - and that person could be at a much higher risk of death than 0.0199%. I am in fear of the spread. I don't have a large fear that the virus will kill millions of 18 - 40 year old folks. The more you can control the spread, the better the chance to prevent the virus from reaching an at risk person. Excellent post and what those who protest the curve-flattening strategies seem to overlook. Very selfish of them. I'll add this ... there are several strategies that can be employed to reduce risk of spread to vulnerable populations. AND a combination of actions could reduce risk while allowing less direct effect on economic activities. To the original topic, I think it is likely that fans will be allowed in the stands for college football with specific mitigating protocols. I highly doubt the stands will be full in any stadium - and I think that contact tracing will be key to gathering data to assess risk to those that do not attend large gatherings. Fact is that the protests in the streets today may be reflected in high case counts in vulnerable populations in 4 weeks. I don't think massive numbers of hospitalizations will happen in the short term from the phased reopening or protests, but I am convinced that if contract tracing is implemented that good data can be acquired to assist in implementation of targeted mitigation, rather than blanket lock down or stay-at-home orders. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jun 9, 2020 12:16:07 GMT -8
The vulnerable are the folks you identified. But the point is that once a person is carrying the virus they can infect others. Which means if an athlete tests positive, they may have already spread the virus to others and certainly for multiple days after diagnosis can infect others (part of the reason for 14 day quarantine). So while the risk to the health of the athlete is limited, the risk to everyone else in his or her circle is high. Which means that athlete could spread it to someone who could spread it to another person who then have direct contact with a person in the vulnerable population - and that person could be at a much higher risk of death than 0.0199%. I am in fear of the spread. I don't have a large fear that the virus will kill millions of 18 - 40 year old folks. The more you can control the spread, the better the chance to prevent the virus from reaching an at risk person. Who says you’re wrong? The WHO, that’s who. www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.htmlWHO let the dogs out? I don't know about the dogs, but in large part the WHO is responsible for letting the virus get out of China in a big way. I wouldn't completely rely on them when they make new determinations because those determinations may change. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 9, 2020 12:25:42 GMT -8
The highlighted part is a great point. As for the rest, as late as January 14, 2020, the WHO tweeted: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China. They even put the Chinese flag on the post, just for fun. China did not acknowledge that there was human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 until January 20, 2020. Nine days later, Trump had put together a coronavirus response team. Two days after that, Trump instituted a 14-day waiting period for all travel between China and the United States. That day, Biden called the move "hysterical xenophobia and fear mongering." More than two months later, Biden's campaign announced that they had flip flopped and "backed Trump's decision." And to say that the administration failed in anyway is to ignore the way that Congress (especially the House) deliberately tried to hamstring Trump at the exact wrong moment to be helpful to this country. If the intelligence failed, it failed both Congress and the President.We have a hospital in our state that started stockpiling supplies in December because they got wind of (soon to be named) COVID. Sure, they are a shining example of a superstar... They literally are the only one, but it should terrify all of us if a smallish hospital chain of saw what was coming and our entire intelligence community did not. Of course I have no idea what is in our intelligence reports. No clue. All I can say is what the numerous red flags everywhere were saying. And yes I hear you when you are saying "but the WHO only...." but the WHO got all of this wrong as well, and I hate to say it, they got it wrong because China is running WHO now (which is why I oppose de funding them, it is a multinational organization we just officially handed to China...). China had an economic orientated response, with a key strategy of "hide it". related fun fact to throw into this, a report coming out of Harvard is claiming COVID was ramping up in August, based on satellite imaging of hospitals in Wuhan, that who a significant increase of traffic going to the hospitals, and staying elevated. The problem with intelligence is that it is limited. In October, there were daily protests in Hong Kong and Iraq. There was a terrorist attack in Paris. Turkey invaded Syria. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the First Caliph of ISIS, committed suicide during an American raid. Iraqi protests ramped up in November. There started to be protests in Iran, as well. There were multiple terrorist attacks in Mali and Syria. Nine Mexican-American Mormons were massacred, including a 2, 10, 11, and 12 year-old and two eight-month-olds. Six other people were injured, including five children in an attack by Mexican cartel members. North Korea shot off its 13th missile test in a seven-month period. In December, Iraqi protests continued and there was a terrorist attack on the protestors. There were pro-Muslim protests in India. There were multiple terrorist attacks in Somalia. To end the month, pro-Iranian protestors attacked the American Embassy in Iraq. And in all of that, coronavirus continued to spread in China. Hindsight being what it is, you can point to one thing there as the most important, but it is difficult to find that needle in the haystack. A medical facility may be better attuned to growing global health concerns, even if they have much more limited intelligence resources. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is the WHO Director-General thanks in part to China, but it is also thanks to Obama's former Director of the CDC, Tom Frieden, who supported Tedros, as well. Tedros is the first non-doctor Director-General in WHO's history. The real problem with WHO funding is how disproportional it is. Why is the United States contributing 70 times more to WHO than China and then China gets to pick who is in charge of the WHO? On what planet does that make sense? I think that they need to overall funding for the WHO. Or they could just scrap it in favor of a G8 (minus Russia), NATO, or OAS version. But the status quo WHO does not work. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 9, 2020 12:42:19 GMT -8
WHO let the dogs out? I don't know about the dogs, but in large part the WHO is responsible for letting the virus get out of China in a big way. I wouldn't completely rely on them when they make new determinations because those determinations may change. Agreed. But there have been so many errors and missed theories by so many organizations pretty soon there won't be any left to cite! |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 9, 2020 13:03:13 GMT -8
The vulnerable are the folks you identified. But the point is that once a person is carrying the virus they can infect others. Which means if an athlete tests positive, they may have already spread the virus to others and certainly for multiple days after diagnosis can infect others (part of the reason for 14 day quarantine). So while the risk to the health of the athlete is limited, the risk to everyone else in his or her circle is high. Which means that athlete could spread it to someone who could spread it to another person who then have direct contact with a person in the vulnerable population - and that person could be at a much higher risk of death than 0.0199%. I am in fear of the spread. I don't have a large fear that the virus will kill millions of 18 - 40 year old folks. The more you can control the spread, the better the chance to prevent the virus from reaching an at risk person. Excellent post and what those who protest the curve-flattening strategies seem to overlook. Very selfish of them. I guess I look at it differently, and I don't think I'm selfish at all. We were talking about players, and coming back to practice. The way I understand it, every player gets tested when they return. Positive tests are identified and handled accordingly. The players will be around mostly other players and people in their age group, except for coaches, etc. and any business that they would visit which would have to be cleared to be open. Would you rather have 100 plus players all together in this environment, or at their homes interacting with family members, parents, grandparents, their friends, and the same type of business people? Seems to me it would be much safer in school with the much larger percentage of people in the same low age group. Just my opinion of course. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 9, 2020 13:15:18 GMT -8
We have a hospital in our state that started stockpiling supplies in December because they got wind of (soon to be named) COVID. Sure, they are a shining example of a superstar... They literally are the only one, but it should terrify all of us if a smallish hospital chain of saw what was coming and our entire intelligence community did not. Of course I have no idea what is in our intelligence reports. No clue. All I can say is what the numerous red flags everywhere were saying. And yes I hear you when you are saying "but the WHO only...." but the WHO got all of this wrong as well, and I hate to say it, they got it wrong because China is running WHO now (which is why I oppose de funding them, it is a multinational organization we just officially handed to China...). China had an economic orientated response, with a key strategy of "hide it". related fun fact to throw into this, a report coming out of Harvard is claiming COVID was ramping up in August, based on satellite imaging of hospitals in Wuhan, that who a significant increase of traffic going to the hospitals, and staying elevated. The problem with intelligence is that it is limited. In October, there were daily protests in Hong Kong and Iraq. There was a terrorist attack in Paris. Turkey invaded Syria. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the First Caliph of ISIS, committed suicide during an American raid. Iraqi protests ramped up in November. There started to be protests in Iran, as well. There were multiple terrorist attacks in Mali and Syria. Nine Mexican-American Mormons were massacred, including a 2, 10, 11, and 12 year-old and two eight-month-olds. Six other people were injured, including five children in an attack by Mexican cartel members. North Korea shot off its 13th missile test in a seven-month period. In December, Iraqi protests continued and there was a terrorist attack on the protestors. There were pro-Muslim protests in India. There were multiple terrorist attacks in Somalia. To end the month, pro-Iranian protestors attacked the American Embassy in Iraq. And in all of that, coronavirus continued to spread in China. Hindsight being what it is, you can point to one thing there as the most important, but it is difficult to find that needle in the haystack. A medical facility may be better attuned to growing global health concerns, even if they have much more limited intelligence resources. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is the WHO Director-General thanks in part to China, but it is also thanks to Obama's former Director of the CDC, Tom Frieden, who supported Tedros, as well. Tedros is the first non-doctor Director-General in WHO's history. The real problem with WHO funding is how disproportional it is. Why is the United States contributing 70 times more to WHO than China and then China gets to pick who is in charge of the WHO? On what planet does that make sense? I think that they need to overall funding for the WHO. Or they could just scrap it in favor of a G8 (minus Russia), NATO, or OAS version. But the status quo WHO does not work. I have no dog in the WHO fight, but I think we should stick to the facts. Fact check: - Yes there's alot going on around the globe and to keep this less political I'll not comment on all the red-herrings you threw out, but the "needle in the haystack" could have and should have been picked up by the Global Health Security team. The problem is that it was disbanded in 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/10/top-white-house-official-in-charge-of-pandemic-response-exits-abruptly/- WHO director is actually a Doctor. A Phd, but still a doctor and one with extensive experience in public health. - "For the first time in its seventy-year history, the World Health Organization (WHO) will, effective July 1, be led by a nonphysician, an African, and a person from the global South. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia campaigned in an unprecedented election that gave 186 nations equal voice and saw three globetrotting candidates plead their cases. In the past, the director-general of the WHO was selected in a secretive and elite process by the thirty-four members of its executive committee. This year, the entire World Health Assembly voted in three rounds of written, secret ballots; Tedros, as he prefers to be called, emerged victorious on May 23 carrying two-thirds of the votes. Tedros has a PhD in community health and has served as his nation’s minister of health and of foreign affairs..." www.cfr.org/expert-brief/change-guard-who- China picking the WHO director is your opinion, not a fact for which I could find any evidence. Prove me wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 9, 2020 13:19:45 GMT -8
Excellent post and what those who protest the curve-flattening strategies seem to overlook. Very selfish of them. I guess I look at it differently, and I don't think I'm selfish at all. We were talking about players, and coming back to practice. The way I understand it, every player gets tested when they return. Positive tests are identified and handled accordingly. The players will be around mostly other players and people in their age group, except for coaches, etc. and any business that they would visit which would have to be cleared to be open. Would you rather have 100 plus players all together in this environment, or at their homes interacting with family members, parents, grandparents, their friends, and the same type of business people? Seems to me it would be much safer in school with the much larger percentage of people in the same low age group. Just my opinion of course. I don't think you can limit peoples contact to only the team. Ideally yes, but in practicality kind of hard. Anyway, my comment was more about the general publics response to curve flattening measures and not being able to get haircuts. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 9, 2020 13:29:07 GMT -8
I guess I look at it differently, and I don't think I'm selfish at all. We were talking about players, and coming back to practice. The way I understand it, every player gets tested when they return. Positive tests are identified and handled accordingly. The players will be around mostly other players and people in their age group, except for coaches, etc. and any business that they would visit which would have to be cleared to be open. Would you rather have 100 plus players all together in this environment, or at their homes interacting with family members, parents, grandparents, their friends, and the same type of business people? Seems to me it would be much safer in school with the much larger percentage of people in the same low age group. Just my opinion of course. I don't think you can limit peoples contact to only the team. Ideally yes, but in practicality kind of hard. Anyway, my comment was more about the general publics response to curve flattening measures and not being able to get haircuts. Not to pick a nit, but that's not what I said. I believe most people were complaining about not being able to work than getting a haircut, but that's fine. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 9, 2020 13:35:15 GMT -8
I don't think you can limit peoples contact to only the team. Ideally yes, but in practicality kind of hard. Anyway, my comment was more about the general publics response to curve flattening measures and not being able to get haircuts. Not to pick a nit, but that's not what I said. I believe most people were complaining about not being able to work than getting a haircut, but that's fine. I was replying and quoted Green85, not you. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 9, 2020 13:55:25 GMT -8
We have a hospital in our state that started stockpiling supplies in December because they got wind of (soon to be named) COVID. Sure, they are a shining example of a superstar... They literally are the only one, but it should terrify all of us if a smallish hospital chain of saw what was coming and our entire intelligence community did not. Of course I have no idea what is in our intelligence reports. No clue. All I can say is what the numerous red flags everywhere were saying. And yes I hear you when you are saying "but the WHO only...." but the WHO got all of this wrong as well, and I hate to say it, they got it wrong because China is running WHO now (which is why I oppose de funding them, it is a multinational organization we just officially handed to China...). China had an economic orientated response, with a key strategy of "hide it". related fun fact to throw into this, a report coming out of Harvard is claiming COVID was ramping up in August, based on satellite imaging of hospitals in Wuhan, that who a significant increase of traffic going to the hospitals, and staying elevated. The problem with intelligence is that it is limited. In October, there were daily protests in Hong Kong and Iraq. There was a terrorist attack in Paris. Turkey invaded Syria. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the First Caliph of ISIS, committed suicide during an American raid. Iraqi protests ramped up in November. There started to be protests in Iran, as well. There were multiple terrorist attacks in Mali and Syria. Nine Mexican-American Mormons were massacred, including a 2, 10, 11, and 12 year-old and two eight-month-olds. Six other people were injured, including five children in an attack by Mexican cartel members. North Korea shot off its 13th missile test in a seven-month period. In December, Iraqi protests continued and there was a terrorist attack on the protestors. There were pro-Muslim protests in India. There were multiple terrorist attacks in Somalia. To end the month, pro-Iranian protestors attacked the American Embassy in Iraq. And in all of that, coronavirus continued to spread in China. Hindsight being what it is, you can point to one thing there as the most important, but it is difficult to find that needle in the haystack. A medical facility may be better attuned to growing global health concerns, even if they have much more limited intelligence resources. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is the WHO Director-General thanks in part to China, but it is also thanks to Obama's former Director of the CDC, Tom Frieden, who supported Tedros, as well. Tedros is the first non-doctor Director-General in WHO's history. The real problem with WHO funding is how disproportional it is. Why is the United States contributing 70 times more to WHO than China and then China gets to pick who is in charge of the WHO? On what planet does that make sense? I think that they need to overall funding for the WHO. Or they could just scrap it in favor of a G8 (minus Russia), NATO, or OAS version. But the status quo WHO does not work. Tedros was elected 5 months after Tom Frieden left his post in January of 2017. The US officially backed David Nabarro for the position and cast their vote for him. Frieden publicly defended Tedros about the cholera scandal, and offered implied support of him, but he never really publicly campaigned on his behalf and certainly not as a representative of the US. If you read his op ed, it is fairly lukewarm at best. The WHO director is a somewhat democratically elected position, Tedros won 133 of 185 votes. By somewhat, I mean there is nothing stopping the background geopolitics from influencing who a state votes for. Tedros is a puppet to China, that you can criticize him for. He has to be, China has hugely powerful influence over his home country of Ethiopia. As for being the first non-doctor, well that is pedantic. he isn't a medical doctor, but he is a PhD researcher. Between you and me, I have a real big problem with OHA hiring a previous pediatrician as the state epidemiologist and not, you know, an actual epidemiologist. You don't have to be a medical doctor to know things about health, and sometimes the people that know the most, and make the biggest breakthroughs are not MDs, but other kinds of researchers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 13:57:40 GMT -8
The vulnerable are the folks you identified. But the point is that once a person is carrying the virus they can infect others. Which means if an athlete tests positive, they may have already spread the virus to others and certainly for multiple days after diagnosis can infect others (part of the reason for 14 day quarantine). So while the risk to the health of the athlete is limited, the risk to everyone else in his or her circle is high. Which means that athlete could spread it to someone who could spread it to another person who then have direct contact with a person in the vulnerable population - and that person could be at a much higher risk of death than 0.0199%. I am in fear of the spread. I don't have a large fear that the virus will kill millions of 18 - 40 year old folks. The more you can control the spread, the better the chance to prevent the virus from reaching an at risk person. Excellent post and what those who protest the curve-flattening strategies seem to overlook. Very selfish of them. Then again it’s very selfish of those as risk that don’t give a crap about people out of work because perhaps they are retired or work for the state and have a paycheck coming in or don’t want to take the proper precautions with their at risk family members or themselves. Just shut down society to protect me , I will be fine and I don’t give a sh..t about anyone else. Cuts both ways |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 9, 2020 14:32:13 GMT -8
The problem with intelligence is that it is limited. In October, there were daily protests in Hong Kong and Iraq. There was a terrorist attack in Paris. Turkey invaded Syria. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the First Caliph of ISIS, committed suicide during an American raid. Iraqi protests ramped up in November. There started to be protests in Iran, as well. There were multiple terrorist attacks in Mali and Syria. Nine Mexican-American Mormons were massacred, including a 2, 10, 11, and 12 year-old and two eight-month-olds. Six other people were injured, including five children in an attack by Mexican cartel members. North Korea shot off its 13th missile test in a seven-month period. In December, Iraqi protests continued and there was a terrorist attack on the protestors. There were pro-Muslim protests in India. There were multiple terrorist attacks in Somalia. To end the month, pro-Iranian protestors attacked the American Embassy in Iraq. And in all of that, coronavirus continued to spread in China. Hindsight being what it is, you can point to one thing there as the most important, but it is difficult to find that needle in the haystack. A medical facility may be better attuned to growing global health concerns, even if they have much more limited intelligence resources. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is the WHO Director-General thanks in part to China, but it is also thanks to Obama's former Director of the CDC, Tom Frieden, who supported Tedros, as well. Tedros is the first non-doctor Director-General in WHO's history. The real problem with WHO funding is how disproportional it is. Why is the United States contributing 70 times more to WHO than China and then China gets to pick who is in charge of the WHO? On what planet does that make sense? I think that they need to overall funding for the WHO. Or they could just scrap it in favor of a G8 (minus Russia), NATO, or OAS version. But the status quo WHO does not work. I have no dog in the WHO fight, but I think we should stick to the facts. Fact check: - Yes there's alot going on around the globe and to keep this less political I'll not comment on all the red-herrings you threw out, but the "needle in the haystack" could have and should have been picked up by the Global Health Security team. The problem is that it was disbanded in 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/10/top-white-house-official-in-charge-of-pandemic-response-exits-abruptly/- WHO director is actually a Doctor. A Phd, but still a doctor and one with extensive experience in public health. - "For the first time in its seventy-year history, the World Health Organization (WHO) will, effective July 1, be led by a nonphysician, an African, and a person from the global South. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia campaigned in an unprecedented election that gave 186 nations equal voice and saw three globetrotting candidates plead their cases. In the past, the director-general of the WHO was selected in a secretive and elite process by the thirty-four members of its executive committee. This year, the entire World Health Assembly voted in three rounds of written, secret ballots; Tedros, as he prefers to be called, emerged victorious on May 23 carrying two-thirds of the votes. Tedros has a PhD in community health and has served as his nation’s minister of health and of foreign affairs..." www.cfr.org/expert-brief/change-guard-who- China picking the WHO director is your opinion, not a fact for which I could find any evidence. Prove me wrong. You have four bullet-pointed "Fact check" points. I will address them in order. First bullet-point. Your article is from the Washington Post, which I do not subscribe to. Your terms are inexact, so it is difficult to figure out what you are getting at. Rear Admiral R. Timothy Ziemer, who is mentioned in the article, was the Senior Director for Global Health Security and Biodefense. The Global Health Security and Biodefense team operated in 31 countries, but one of those countries that it definitively did not operate was China, so the idea that they would have been helpful in identifying and working on a front-line disease to stop a disease in China seems far-fetched to the point of being ridiculous in my opinion. Second and third bullet-points. Semantics. Fun! Everyone who has a doctorate is not a doctor. I have a doctorate, but I cannot call myself a doctor. (There are actually rules against it.) As for Tedros, he has a PhD in Community Health from the University of Nottingham (tied with OHSU as the 152nd-best University in the World). As he is in medical politics and not academia, I do not believe that he should be called "doctor." But that is my opinion. You can call Tedros doctor, if you would like. Extensive public experience? Seriously? Starting in 1986, Tedros was a member of the Derg, the Communist leaders of Ethiopia. When the USSR began pulling out of Africa, the Derg made way for the Ethiopian People's Democratic Movement. Tedros joined one of its component parts, the authoritarian Tigray People's Liberation Front (the craziest of the crazies). Its insignia is below:  Tedros was appointed to head the Tigray Regional Health Bureau in 2001 and was appointed a State Minister for Health in 2003. While Ethiopia has had democratic elections since the 80s, elections have only been "free" since the middle of the 2000s. In that time, the only national party in Ethiopia and the only regional party in Tigray has been the Marxist-Leninists. In 2005, he took over as the Minister of Health for all of Ethiopia. He then transitioned out of Health to Foreign Affairs in 2012. In 2017, he ran hist first election for the right to serve as Director-General of the WHO. Tedros did very well in Africa and, thanks to China and Russia, some former nations of the Russian Federation and East and Southeast Asia. America, England, and their allies backed Dr. David Nabarro to no avail. China, in particular, was seen as pivotal in rallying support for Tedros, and Tedros has been very deferential to China, since he was elected. |
|
