When any video starts off with "bigging up" all of the participants & their amazing & oh so wonderful qualifications; to pontificate about the bleedingly, blindingly chuffing obvious. For over an hour FFS?!
My off switch activates the moment the great big fcukoff fancy doodle, all singing, mega bucks, microphone on it's gymnastic stand, holder, hoves into view!
Apart from that, you posted an article from James Roguski to whom I replied on his substack. He insists we need to focus on draft amendments to IFR rather than proposed new treaty. I disagree. The goals of new treaty need to be approved before quibbling over amendments to IFR which are clearly stated in Zero draft to be an essential instrument of implementation of the goals outlined in the as yet unapproved treaty. They are trying to put cart before horse and Roguski seems to be fine with that. We need to push to change timing so that amended IFR is re-scheduled for approval AFTER amended treaty is approved. Or better, at same time, with amended IFR as annex - in which case both are bound to fail. It would be good if Kathryn Watt or Sasha Latypova took over from Roguski on this issue. I'm sure the man means well but he's totally ineffectual - a bit like the technocracy guy Patrick Wood. I drop off even with double speed. Sorry if this is off point but there seems no other way to reply to cross-poster.
I hear you. There is a bureaucratic process under way that is not aligned with any democratic process. International treaties are legally binding - this is work around by egomaniacs to bypass the democratic process. No international treaty should be signed unless it is subject to parliamentary scrutiny - in this case, no-one at the table campaigned on any of the amendments.
One of the key points buried within the processes of both the IHA and Pandemic Treaty is that the WHO becomes the "clearer" of supply and demand for all treatment protocols. So injections could be ordered by the WHO to be made in China and supplied to the US or masks from India to Pakistan or test kits from the US to Russia. The US could be denied injections if the WHO deems that Egypt has a greater need. Local areas - deprived areas - within any country could be denied treatments or have restrictions imposed by the WHO because the WHO deems some other local area in some other country has a greater need.
It is simply not logistically possible to "optimize" any WHO response.
I get triggered big time.
When any video starts off with "bigging up" all of the participants & their amazing & oh so wonderful qualifications; to pontificate about the bleedingly, blindingly chuffing obvious. For over an hour FFS?!
My off switch activates the moment the great big fcukoff fancy doodle, all singing, mega bucks, microphone on it's gymnastic stand, holder, hoves into view!
I hear that - it is very close to Rahm Emmanuel's "Never let a crisis go to waste"
Some interesting comments under the interview
Yes. I would say anti-semitic, i wonder if the commenters have read Wilhelm Marr.
Apart from that, you posted an article from James Roguski to whom I replied on his substack. He insists we need to focus on draft amendments to IFR rather than proposed new treaty. I disagree. The goals of new treaty need to be approved before quibbling over amendments to IFR which are clearly stated in Zero draft to be an essential instrument of implementation of the goals outlined in the as yet unapproved treaty. They are trying to put cart before horse and Roguski seems to be fine with that. We need to push to change timing so that amended IFR is re-scheduled for approval AFTER amended treaty is approved. Or better, at same time, with amended IFR as annex - in which case both are bound to fail. It would be good if Kathryn Watt or Sasha Latypova took over from Roguski on this issue. I'm sure the man means well but he's totally ineffectual - a bit like the technocracy guy Patrick Wood. I drop off even with double speed. Sorry if this is off point but there seems no other way to reply to cross-poster.
I hear you. There is a bureaucratic process under way that is not aligned with any democratic process. International treaties are legally binding - this is work around by egomaniacs to bypass the democratic process. No international treaty should be signed unless it is subject to parliamentary scrutiny - in this case, no-one at the table campaigned on any of the amendments.
One of the key points buried within the processes of both the IHA and Pandemic Treaty is that the WHO becomes the "clearer" of supply and demand for all treatment protocols. So injections could be ordered by the WHO to be made in China and supplied to the US or masks from India to Pakistan or test kits from the US to Russia. The US could be denied injections if the WHO deems that Egypt has a greater need. Local areas - deprived areas - within any country could be denied treatments or have restrictions imposed by the WHO because the WHO deems some other local area in some other country has a greater need.
It is simply not logistically possible to "optimize" any WHO response.
I'd never heard of him. Sounds like he mellowed with age all the same.