candide

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  How do you pay $1.5M and $3.7M in federal taxes as a public servant?  Cue the critics.

No secret! It's been published in his tax returns.

Alternatively, you can read a summary on Fox News website

"The spike in wealth was largely attributed to sales of his 2017 book"

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/joe-biden-tax-returns-2020-election

1 hour ago, genericptr said:

You should do a survey and ask the Thais what they'd think about the plan to import African Muslims, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis into Bangkok until Thais were less than 50% of the population in the capital city. I wonder if they too would be too "ignorant and frightened" to accept this amazing idea but that's what the UK did with London and people are apparently proud of this.

So, if I understand well, it would be better to have European immigrants? ????

2 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

While it can not be denied that the WHO can justifiably be criticized for errors at and over various issues which provide evidence of the need for reforms I wonder how the world  would cope without it?

Perhaps the USA will provide  some clues if it actually proceeds to completely withdraw from it and presumably is denied in all and every which way any access to the  general activities of the WHO including the vast amount of research undertaken in  many many countries?

 

 

 

Most of the WHO activity is directed towards developping countries, so it may not affect much the US. Additionally, the US has much more resources (HHS budget: 1.2 trillion per year) than the WHO (budget: 2.4 billion per year), so it should not be affected by a withdrawal.

The only drawback is that it will likely lose most access to insider's information at the WHO, as it will not have a seat at the executive board anymore, nor in key committees. 

What I describe is public information, I.e. the composition of the board, of the emergency committee, etc....and their role in the decision process. It has also been largely commented in media.

It seems you fail to see my point (or pretend you don't). My point is not to tout the current structure and functioning as ideal and faultless.

My point is that the countries which are significantly present in the WHO organisation participated in the decision-making process. If the WHO failed, as you claim, it means that they failed. Individually, some countries may have disagreed with some decisions. For example, it is possible that the US representative at the board or in committees voted against some decisions or recommendations. However, in this case, the US knew that it should not follow this particular recommendation and why.

Meanwhile..... ????

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Assuming they're all honest, unconflicted Joe's.  Which in this case is one hellavu assumption.

So you assume that the executive board member who has been nominated by the US, failed to represent the interest of his country and/or to properly inform the administration he belongs to (remember he's on the HHS payroll). You may be right, but it's one hellavu assumption! 

1 hour ago, Kinnock said:

We're honoured to have Dr Tedros join our humble forum - as nobody else on the planet could believe this.

Of course, when you are presented facts you cannot refute, you just deflect.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Sounds great in theory.  So where did it all go wrong?

My point is not whether  it sounds great or not.

My point is that all the countries which are involved in WHO committees and boards have participated in the decision-making processs.

It means they have voted decisions made by the WHO.

Let's take the case of the US HHS executive who is representing the US at the board:

- either, in agreement with the HHS, he/she voted for decisions the US now criticises

- or, in agreement with the HHS, he/she voted against it. In this case, being well informed, they were able not to follow this particular recommendations.

So countries like the USA or Australia are complaining about decisions they voted. No one has been "fooled".

1 hour ago, oobar said:

What the world needs are tens of thousands of Charlie Hebdos, publishing daily, hourly.  Overwhelm this anachronistic and hateful ignorance with a tidal wave of satirical exposure.  Let them realize their myths are their own absurdities, which have no more standing in the rest of the world than do other of the much more than abundant religious myths and fairy tales common to mankind.

Provided all religions are targeted and not only the others' religions.

Charly Hebdo's legitimacy is derived from the fact that it has always been satirical about all religions (and the Christian religion much more than others).

Charly Hebdo has never been anti-muslim, anti-immigration, anti-Palestinian, etc... Far from it! It's just been anti-moron. (Of course, it has not been exempt from stupidity either).

6 hours ago, Kinnock said:

So they are useless by design rather than accident.  Still useless.

 

Why do countries support the WHO with huge funds as they are clearly ineffective due to internal politics, external limitations and corruption at the top.

In order to allow the WHO to have intrusive investigation power, it's in theory quite simple. Member States just need to add an addendum to the treaty, allowing the WHO to investigate in their country.

Good luck with convincing countries to sign it, starting with the USA! ????

As concerns it's budget, it's a similar amount as that of a large US hospital, not more.

22 hours ago, Nout said:

And he boycots Taiwan and and supports a communist dictorship.

Nothing to do with Tedros. Taiwan is not member of the U.N. (voted by the U.N. assembly), and therefore cannot be a member of its organisations such as the WHO. It's a pity but not Tedros' fault.

36 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

I'm speaking from the point of view of a Public Health professional with 40 years experience.  In January WHO should have told the world that we're in for a prolonged period of logarithmic growth in case numbers, and we need to protect the elderly and vulnerable, but everone else needs to keep calm and carry on.  Wear masks, practice social distancing, avoid crowds, but carry on.  Otherwise the world economy will stall, forcing millions into starvation.

As a health professional, you seem to be unaware of how the WHO works and how member countries easily get insider information.

The WHO is employing in its task force specialists which are sent by their member countries and keep contact their national health services. For example, the head of the WHO coronavirus task force was at the same time the head of the French Health Service, and there were Specialists from the US and other countries.

The board of executives, the highest decision-making unit (Tedros never made anything which was not in agreement with the board), is composed of senior executives which are actually employed at a high level by their respective national health organisation.

https://apps.who.int/gb/gov/en/composition-of-the-board_en.html

Who's seating at this board, for example?

A senior executive employed by the US HHS! And also senior executives employed by their German, Australian, Japanese, South Korean, Uk, etc... health services.

It means that these people:

- were aware of any insider information, debate and controversies, doubts, uncertainties, etc.... way beyond official communication by the WHO, and were able to inform their country

- actually voted key decisions made by the WHO (one cannot imagine they did it without consulting their national HS, right?),

- if they voted against them, they could send information about why they voted against and warn their national HS.

So national Health organisations with employees at key position in the WHO, including the US and Australia had access to all available information and participated in key decision making.

1 hour ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

Let those tears flow.  LOL

Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her large family left their Indiana home this afternoon dressed up for a special occasion. Our @GaryGrumbach on the scene for us. Announcement at 5pm at WH for Supreme Court nomination.

A pale consolation to losing elections.....

https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-tight-race-in-ohio-biden-tops-trump-in-nevada-and-pennsylvania

39 minutes ago, Emdog said:

Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer for four years (1992–1996), and as a Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996–2004). During this time he taught courses in due process and equal protection, voting rights, and racism and law.

Obama would be a good choice for SC. One would hope he knows the subject

Trump's likely choice has been a judge for 3 years, reportedly never was in court as a lawyer

I don't know if she's "nice". Who cares how many kids she adopted? If that is criteria, then nominate Angelina Jolie....

That's precisely one if the key reasons why she may be chosen. She's relatively young (48), so she will be able to remain SC Judge for at least 30 years.

5 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

A simple example.

A milk chocolate bar:

Sales price 1 pound sterling net.

 

Imported Ingredients: Milk for 10 pence Chocolate beans for 20 pence.

 

The Milk chocolate bar produced and sold in the UK for £ 1.

 

Then does the UK have a self-sufficiency rate of 70% ????

 

 

The more I think about it, the more it seems to depend about the way it is calculated, in particular about two issues:

- volume vs value. What should be counted? Welsh lamb may be more expensive than Spanish lamb, but from a nutritional  POV it's the same! French cheese may be more expensive than British cheese, one can get as drunk with cheap Polish Vodka as with expensive single malt Scotch whisky. Whether one calculates according to the number of tons or the price value will change all percentages.

- processed versus raw. How does one count a pound of raw carrots vs more expensive preserved carrots or carrot soup? Then comes the issue of the origin of ingredients. As you rightly mention, does a Mars bar count as UK food or as imported because most ingredients are imported?

1 hour ago, Selatan said:

After the revelation that Trump had played down the dangers of the virus, I just couldn't understand why is he still playing the blame game.

It's precisely for this reason that he is playing the blame game.

6 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Bit of a wild assed guess, plus a dash of alarmist misinformation, then double the wild assed guess number and there's the percentage. Easy when it comes to propaganda. The French and Vichy Remainers will love it.

It's not a French source. Business insiders has several versions fr nl uk etc... I just came on the fr site because my vpn was set to French server.

Having said that, the guy from HSBC may be wrong. I cannot tell because I cannot check his methodology.