That’s all we need… a load of people suing their governments. This is after they got the biggest (by far) redistribution of taxpayer funds in history.
Peter wrote:
That’s all we need… a load of people suing their governments. This is after they got the biggest (by far) redistribution of taxpayer funds in history.
The Government or society may see the pay outs as a sop, but that would not be correct. The amounts are of course unprecedented, targeted, and have not directly benefited some member’s of society.
These payments should make no difference to any Government’s accountability, which is surely fundamental to our belief in democracy. If Government’s are to interfere in people’s freedom, then, I think the guiding principle, must be that interference is justified in some way for the overall benefit of society.
As to this particluar case I think it is a difficult balancing act. I am inclinded to support a light touch. There are many drugs we can all buy and take for which the harm may well out weigh the benefit – but that is often a very difficult judegment call, and also a very complicated call. Clearly there are drugs that are overtly dangereous and rightly should be banned. There are drugs that in some settings may do more good than harm. Inevitably, almost all drugs have some side effects. As we all know, based on medical science, tobacco should probably have been banned a long time ago, but, as with any recreational drug, there will be those that argue not everyone suffers its consequence, and people should be free to take any substance they wish, especially if Government has done all it can to make sure people are aware of the risks.
It seems to me therein lies the challenge. I am inclinded to feel in this instance the Government should make it clear, that based on current science there is no evidence this drug is effective in this setting, and there are some side effects, but, never the less, the drug has been approved, and I am not sure it is within the remitt of a Government to therefore make it illegal to prescribe the drug. Should of course it be prescribed by a medical practioner it then falls to the Courts to establish whether the medical practioner was culpable, and, perhaps, that is how it should be? Does banning the drug work to the overall beneift of society – I doubt in this case it would. Arguably banning tobacco would, for example, fulfill this test far more effectively.
The FDA has reversed it decision and now is allowing its use by practitioners and not limiting it to only hospitalized patients.
I thought it had reversed its decision to allow the use of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID i.e. the FDA has now withdrawn the emergency approval for the use of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID. Have I missed something?
Malibuflyer wrote:
It is simply fake news that “WHO told everyone to keep traveling around based on what they were told by the CCP” even if Chienes governement had lied to them (for which there is also no evidence).
Is it
Tweet from WHO "
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🇨🇳. pic.twitter.com/Fnl5P877VG — World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) January 14, 2020"the AP reported leaked internal documents from China being aware of this beforehand and holding back information. Link
In Feb Tedros said "There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade. "
Or there is also the internal WHO meeting information that came out that they were frustrated by china witholding important information Link
I mean it’s not as if they arrested whistleblowing doctors for warning people, or ordered labs to destroy samples. Oh wait, they did….
There are many steps we’ve since learned that could have vastly reduced the severity of the pandemic we’ve received if not stopped it altogether. But surely we can only learn all the lessons possible if we actually know what went on and what they did, not a fabricated story from China who are known to just doctor numbers to suit.
Malibuflyer wrote:
rring that to Covid: Unless you work in a lvl 4 facility, for exactly the very same reason it is completely irrelevant for you what happened in the lvl 4 facility in Wuhan or not.What happens here is only the blame game – because here is nobody who could learn anything from this!
I dont think so.
The trouble will always be that as soon as you limit those people who “you” think it is relevant, you start to excercise control over transparency – and then it is no longer transparant.
In the UK Sage wanted to do this – but there decision ulitmately effected millions of people. Government’s of all complexions would love to do this – from time to time, or all the time.
The police forces love the idea, as do the chemical companies when there effluent pollutes and ruins the lives of thousands of people.
History has shown that whenever you decide what limits to place on democracy the outcome is rarely good. The cost, yes is the blame game, its the press scrutinising, agnosing and sensationalising every news story, but what price freedom, what price to challenge what democracy really means. If it means anything, it is to give the court of mankind the right to challenge, question and scrutinise what is done in our names, and, by definition there will be times you dont like the outcome for all sorts of reasons. That is the price we must pay, otherwise we slide into a regime where someone else decides what is good for us, and what isnt.
As to my and your analogy, no one wants to see a pilot blamed, intimidated made a scapegoat even, but the very fact that the outcome of the investigation is ultimately transparent is our best defence, because without that you can bet society will continue to blame the pilot – the tendency is that when the we know the truth nearly everyone lays off, even when the pilot may well have been a little at fault, but at least we acknowledge that human factors may also have played there part.
.. and maybe just when the blame game doesnt go away despite compelling evidence to the contrary, our shoulders must remain broad. It is like politics – what do you mean you jumped into that cauldron, but now think it is unfair you have got burnt, I would rather that, than our politicans sitting in their ivory towers unaccountable for their actions.
I would rather China be transparent, hold their heads high, take whatever flack comes their way, justified or otherwise, than shirk from their responsibilites of accountability and transparency. Unfortuantely of this particualr regime the former seems to have become the accepted way of doing business. It is a path to destruction of the rest of the world or them – time will tell which, or possibly both.
The WHO are a total waste of space.
Their task is to tell 3rd World countries how to get people to put on condoms, etc.
They cannot be critical of anybody else they lose participation.
China will prob99 get away with it. Best thing anyone can do is stop buying stuff made there. Hmmm that includes Apple phones! Buy Samsung…
Peter wrote:
Buy Samsung…
So why exactly do you like Vietnamese government better than Chinese?
Malibuflyer wrote:
Vietnamese government
Samsung is not from Vietnam, but from South Korea :-) just nitpicking a little
Indeed.
I think in the fullness of time there will be changes. It is just too early to tell. China is not really cheap like it was say 10-20 years ago. Throw in the stuff I have written about previously (30 day sea transit, payment up front, etc) and the advantage is disappearing.
At the individual user level, people obviously won’t stop buying Iphones, and at the cheap end (e.g. buying moulded cables) there is no choice since nobody else makes the stuff, but there will be some corporate strategy re-evaluation in between the two ends. For example at work I am looking at buying PCBs from S Korea.
