![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
As the author, I would like to work to the claims made by Nikkimaria, towards their resolution.
Looking at these, I can see only one-two in each that are particularly problematic. The rest are either statistics or random phrases. They are properly cited. How may I go about resolving this? -- Simfan34 ( talk) 19:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Source | Source text | Article text |
---|---|---|
[1] | On completion it is expected to produce 6,000 megawatts which will make it Africa's largest hydroelectric power plant. It is also expected to have a large reservoir of around 70 billion cubic meters which is scheduled to start filling next year. | ...the dam is expected to produce 6,000 megawatts, which will make it Africa’s largest hydroelectric power plant. The dam is expected to have a reservoir of around 70 billion cubic meters, which is scheduled to start filling in 2014. |
[2] | Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan established an International Panel of Experts to review and assess the study reports of the dam. The panel consists of 10 members; 6 from the three countries and 4 international in the fields of water resources and hydrologic modelling, dam engineering, socioeconomic, and environmental. The panel held its fourth meeting in Addis Ababa in November 2012. It reviewed documents about the environmental impact of the dam and visited the dam site. The panel submitted its preliminary report to the respective governments at the end of May 2013. Although the full report has not been made public, and will not be until it is reviewed by the governments, Egypt and Ethiopia both released details. The Ethiopian government stated that, according to the report, the dam meets international standards and will be beneficial to Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. According to Egyptian government, the report found that the dimensions and size of the dam should be changed. | Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan established an International Panel of Experts to review and assess the study reports of the dam. The panel consists of 10 members; 6 from the three countries and 4 international in the fields of water resources and hydrologic modelling, dam engineering, socioeconomic, and environmental.[14] The panel held its fourth meeting in Addis Ababa in November 2012. It reviewed documents about the environmental impact of the dam and visited the dam site.[15] The panel submitted its preliminary report to the respective governments at the end of May 2013. Although the full report has not been made public, and will not be until it is reviewed by the governments, Egypt and Ethiopia both released details. The Ethiopian government stated that, according to the report, the dam meets international standards and will be beneficial to Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. |
[3] | The unmet need for family planning in Ethiopia has declined, and the contraceptive prevalence rate has doubled in 5 years. Based on the current trends, contraceptive prevalence rates will reach 65% by 2015 by reaching additional 6.2 million women and adolescent girls. | Under Tedros' tenure, the unmet need for family planning in Ethiopia has declined, and the contraceptive prevalence rate has doubled in 5 years. Based on the current trends, contraceptive prevalence rates will reach 65% by 2015 by reaching additional 6.2 million women and adolescent girls |
[4] | The Ministry was somewhat beholden to a donor community that was vertically focused on HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria programs when Tedros first assumed his leadership position with a horizontal, systems-based agenda. With little economic surplus, the country lacked capacity to build its own health systems, and much of the Ethiopian human resources for health had fled the country. | The Ministry was somewhat beholden to a donor community that was vertically focused on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and malaria programs when Tedros first assumed his leadership position with a horizontal, systems-based agenda. With little economic surplus, the country lacked capacity to build its own health systems, and much of the Ethiopian human resources for health had fled the country- for example, there are more Ethiopian doctors in the Chicago metropolitan area than in Ethiopia. |
This ground was one of partnership built on engagement of complementary partners. Tedros brought to the partnership the leadership to sustain focus on the selected agenda, the political acumen to facilitate enabling legislation as needed, and first-hand knowledge of what was needed. President Clinton and the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI) brought to the partnership a commitment to work on Tedros’ priorities and their network, which provided sources money, expertise, and credibility. | This ground was one of partnership built on engagement of equal partners. Tedros brought to the partnership the leadership to sustain focus on the selected agenda, the political clout to facilitate enabling legislation as needed, and first-hand knowledge of what was needed. President Clinton and the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI) brought to the partnership a commitment to assist Tedros’ priorities and their network, which provided sources money, expertise, and credibility.[9] | |
[5] | Morsi’s top aide apologized for the “unintended embarrassment” and his cabinet released a statement promoting “good neighborliness, mutual respect and the pursuit of joint interests without either party harming the other.”... Morsi reportedly believes that is better to engage Ethiopia rather than attempt to force them. | Morsi's top aide apologized for the "unintended embarrassment" and his cabinet released a statement promoting "“good neighborliness, mutual respect and the pursuit of joint interests without either party harming the other.” Morsi reportedly believes that is better to engage Ethiopia rather than attempt to force them |
This is enough to demonstrate that this article is built with a considerable amount of content copied from its sources, which is not permitted under our policies. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and the linked documents.
I am blanking it, because it must be rewritten from scratch if we are to retain it given the pervasive copying throughout. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I debowled the article and removed the vast majority of the factual content beyond basic facts. This should really resolve the copyvio content- it is little more than a stub! -- Simfan34 ( talk) 18:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Should there not be a remark that Adhanom Ghebreyesus proposed just of all Robert Mugabe as a goodwill ambassador for the WHO ?! WTH did he think?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.159.9.27 ( talk) 20:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has removed the section about Robert Mugabe, with an edit summary: "The coverage of Mugabe's nomination as good will is unnecessary as the decision was reversed within 24 hours."
It was actually 4 days, during which time the appointment attracted global condemnation and news coverage, as well as criticism from multiple government bodies. Clearly a significant issue which should remain.
Neil S. Walker (
talk)
10:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Saying there is a petition against Tedros is libel. REMOVE content! Tedros predicted a possible pandemic in 2018 so was VERY prepared!... read this speech he gave and correct article otherwise I'll correct it when I finish work tonight https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/2018/pandemic-free-world/en/ Veryscarymary ( talk) 13:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Before you attempt to "correct" anything, please consider familiarizing yourself with the elements of libel. Or at least the definition of the word. Also, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia editing rules. You won't be "correcting" anything on this page without consensus. 2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 03:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Please advise if the tags can come off this entry after recent edits? At least the one at the top. S T C Jones ( talk) 22:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Tedros Adhanom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link to Soumya Swaminathan in the table listing the WHO office deputies should actually be /info/en/?search=Soumya_Swaminathan_(scientist) and not /info/en/?search=Soumya_Swaminathan 86.96.28.47 ( talk) 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Tedros Adhanom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Taiwanese)) to ((Taiwan))ese 2601:541:4500:1760:355E:D1B0:B8B8:D14D ( talk) 13:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
What on earth is going on here? This article is starting to look like a political hit piece. The accusation that "Tedros overlooked the Chinese government's attempts to suppress information" is backed up by a citation to an article that doesn't mention the WHO or Tedros at all. Incendiary statements like this surely must qualified, and if stated as bare fact must be backed up by some very good citations. -- Tomthepom ( talk) 04:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Can we have some information detailing how he's handling the Coronavirus outbreak? It's become a pandemic now -- as a layman, I don't know if he had any power to stymie its growth, (I do note that there is some controversy about coverups of outbreaks in Ethiopia while he was in charge there..). Is there relevant, qualified commentary that talks about this? 185.125.226.42 ( talk) 10:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect citation in this sentence "He faced significant criticism for what is seen as inadequate handling of the pandemic, including the late declaration of a public health emergency.". The Hill article cited is talks about criticism for a delayed declaration of a "pandemic". There is no such criticism of a delayed declaration of a "public health emergency". Moreover, the link is an opinion piece. I recommend the whole sentence is removed. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.52.122.98 ( talk • contribs)
What is this guy's education? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 ( talk) 05:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It reads that way. Up to the point where he was nominated to be WHO head, anyone would think he walks on water. He doesn’t now, and having entered the Ministry of Health as a member of the Marxist-Leninist TPLF, it’s highly unlikely that he did. Who’s to know whether that fact influences his admiration for Xi. Boscaswell talk 23:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a very worrying tone throughout this article which reads like a political attack on the individual. I want to raise alarm that this content, which is inappropriate, misleading and one-sided, is doing a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation as a source of neutral content. SomewhereInLondon ( talk) 14:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Such comments [of "effusive praise"] sit uneasily with the knowledge that China arrested health workers who first raised the alarm about the outbreak. [1]
"The WHO's message that no, don't anybody panic, keep travel flowing, keep the borders open, and then saying that we support the Chinese government is a mixed message," said Kelley Lee, a professor at Canada's Simon Fraser University who wrote a book on the WHO and co-established the WHO Collaborating Centre on Global Change and Health. [2]
long [called] on countries to take greater action". It only gives Tedros's claim that he had been calling for action. There is no information about what he had been caling for. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
References
It's unsurprising that most criticism currently comes from first world countries many of which tend to be majority white, as these countries have far more international travel leading to a more rapid outbreak. The opinion of the public in African countries will change once they experience vast numbers of deaths in the coming weeks.
″Meanwhile, Dr Tedros has warned that the virus is now spreading rapidly in other countries. He highlighted Africa, where he said the virus had reached rural areas. "We are now seeing clusters of cases and community spread in more than 16 countries" on the continent, he said. "We anticipate severe hardship for already overstretched health systems, particularly in rural areas, which normally lack the resources of those in cities."″ [1] 2A02:C7D:7662:BC00:3437:7B65:4B65:D4D ( talk) 23:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Tedros had to be diplomatic with China to get information. The Guardian describes the process and its history with the previous SARS outbreak in detail, China held back information, Teros Adhanom personally flew there and finally got access for WHO to important information, 30 January the WHO declared a public health emergency of international concern and began issuing prescriptions to countries around the world. [8] Trump said there would be no pandemic on January 22, Feb. 10: “I think the virus is going to be — it’s going to be fine.”, Feb. 24 (tweet): “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. … Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”, Feb. 28: “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”, March 9 (tweet): “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!” [9] Supsudelu ( talk) 16:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
2601:18F:4101:4830:4123:F108:D1BB:E331 ( talk) 03:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 2601:18F:4101:4830:4123:F108:D1BB:E331 ( talk) 04:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 2601:18F:4101:4830:4123:F108:D1BB:E331 ( talk) 04:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
This article sanitizes his connection to brutal Marxist regimes and their practices.
Also who sponsored his position to the WHO? That is not mentioned at all. SOmething is being hidden. 24.139.24.163 ( talk) 12:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Why all the criticism of this person was removed? They can only be found in the article history, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tedros_Adhanom&oldid=951129960#Controversies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.67.29.61 ( talk) 19:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This is an unsourced claim on both counts. The current source refers to what seems to be Tedros' public health Master's thesis, which is not even proximate to the field of microbiology.
What are the standards for someone to be "internationally recognized"? It doesn't appear that Tedros Adhanom known for his academic work; if he is merely recognized due to his current appointment in the WHO, a different source would seem to be necessary. 2600:1702:6F0:1690:A58D:83DE:F2C6:7CFF ( talk) 06:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I have just added a template:advertisement message at the top of the article because it is too promotional in tone and substance, often reading like a public relations document, which goes against Wikipedia policy. Many sentences read like the listing of achievements featured in political documents, and rely on a small number of sources, often of political or quasi-political nature, including Tedros himself:
These examples demonstrate a pervasive problem throughout the article, hence the template message. Hopefully the matter can be resolved in a reasonable time frame, given that the article isn't very long and receives a certain amount of attention at the moment. Fa suisse ( talk) 07:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"Emergency Committee of 16 independent experts"decides there's not yet a PHEIC on the 23rd while Adhanom states
"Make no mistake, though, this is an emergency in China;"a week later with 98 cases but no deaths in other countries, the WHO declares a PHEIC. But HaeB the text you've added breaks down these events in a manner that suggests to the reader that the WHO was dragging its feet, and that Adhanom "stated afterwards" something to justify his decisions — insinuations that aren't supported by the sources.
"We call on all countries to implement decisions that are evidence-based and consistent."Your text indicates that Adhanom and the WHO were somehow opposed to public health responses when both these recommendations are based on the International Health Regulations (IHR) instrument of 2005, the text of which was drafted in part by the United States [14]. So readers walk away understanding only half of what Adhanom said and without any explanation of them, likely having a false impression of the rationales behind the WHO's actions.
"Tedros' strategy on China was a more politically strategic one, rather than a critical approach."However, this misrepresents Gostin's statements in the article. Quoting directly:
"His strategy is to coax China to transparency and international co-operation rather than criticising the government."
"I was one of the first to ask him to call a PHEIC. Having said that, it was only a short delay and I don't think the timing had any impact on the trajectory of Covid-19... I do worry quite a bit however that his effusive praise for China could in the long term tarnish the WHO's reputation as a trusted scientific authority willing to speak truth to power."
Prof Gostin believes Dr Tedros has become "the symbol of leadership" in the course of the coronavirus crisis. But, he warns, the WHO's "fundamental weaknesses are still there, including pitiful funding."
"So while Dr Tedros may be political, a lot of that political effort seems to be spent reassuring authoritarian, opaque governments, in a bid to get them to work with the WHO to tackle diseases which threaten global health. When it comes to perceiving how that effort may be viewed by governments in Western democracies, his political skills may not be quite so sharp."The BBC's summary is far more accurate and nuanced than ours.
Thank to all for the constructive inputs ! Fa suisse ( talk) 22:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Thucydides411: Please explain how relaying what is directly stated in reliable sources is a "POV" addition. If there are other views to be added to the article, in favor of Tedros'/WHO's response, they should be added and I am not remotely opposed to them. But, simply deleting sourced data (that I carefully attempted to keep neutral, and stuck to the sourcing) doesn't seem proper. Is there a resolution we can come to here? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The bit about many individuals closely familiar with the WHO, comes directly from this line in the WSJ story:
Many people who work, or have worked, with the organization, and who study its operations, say that in not declaring a global health emergency earlier, the agency gave too much weight to China’s concerns that the move would damage its economy and its leadership’s image. By praising China’s response effusively, the WHO is compromising its own epidemic response standards, eroding its global authority, and sending the wrong message to other countries that might face future epidemics, they say.
I also included multiple sources that covered the Der Spiegel story on the BND report, including the NY Post. Cherrypicking Taiwan News is highly a highly dubious way to claim this hasn't been covered. But if it's more sources you need, here you go: Indian Express, Asia Times, Daily Telegraph, The Week, Global Times (a Chinese publication even), Associated Press (do they also have an axe to grind?), Times of India, and the WHO itself. Those were able to be located within a search of less than 5 minutes. It is highly clear to anyone impartial that those are more than enough sources to include this in the article. It would be different if the BND report had only made an accusation about the WHO, but it specifically made allegations (that have been widely reported) about Tedros himself. I continue to believe this needs to be included, impartially with both sides (accusation and denials) given weight. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I would ask you to present sources that show that "the countervailing, dominant position in the global health community" have been "opposing travel restrictions" (especially considering that almost every nation, including China's close ally Russia, implemented broad travel restrictions in response to the pandemic).There is a contradiction between what the global public health community says about travel restrictions and how countries actually respond to pandemics. The International Health Regulations (2005) strongly discourage travel restrictions, and require all travel restrictions to be grounded in scientific evidence. The Lancet published a letter by public health experts on 13 February 2020 that explained how travel restrictions imposed by many countries violate the IHR: [16]. This is the context of the WHO's statements about travel restrictions. Tedros' and the WHO's statements were completely in line with the IHR - and that fact is widely acknowledged in the public health community. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Coffee: I'm willing to work with you to improve the section on CoVID-19, which I think is in a pretty sorry state right now. I think some of the criticism of the WHO and Tedros Adhanom should certainly be discussed. I think, however, that the section should focus on a general overview of the actions and statements of Tedros and the WHO, and the criticisms should be presented in context (e.g., the International Health Regulations' rules on travel restrictions, which, although violated by many countries, were the basis for the WHO's recommendations). I can't do that much today, but I can work over the next few days on this. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Coffee: I agree with Coffee and decided to separate sections so that criticism and praise are not overlapping.@ Thucydides411: you just reverted his NPOV commit without coming to a concensus here. Is this an edit war? PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 23:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Thucydides411: How would you deal with a situation where there is appearance of a concerted effort to preserve the status quo? Who would you need to contact in order to address such a problem? Thanks! PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 01:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I just changed a small bit because it was assuming that all African leaders approved Tedros, when only two did. And I don't think that the president of the AU spoke for all of the African leaders. I want to remind you that Morocco is not a member of the African Union. Please discuss before reverting. Maybe we could say that AU leaders did spoke for him. Rephrasing this sentence. But as I wrote it now, it is true. PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I reverted my edit, I found out that Morocco had rejoined the AU in 2017. I must admit that my AU knowledge was limited. I wanted to talk more about the POV issue. @ Darouet: @ Thucydides411: can you please re-state why do you think the german intelligence report and the multiple sources that Coffee can be seen as a point of view? From what I see, the requirement for criticism is pretty high, with the only criticism having something like 5 sources and the AU praise having only one. I think we should be removing this praise as there seems to be a lack of references compared to the criticism stated just before it. I think that, for now, we should at least put some space between those paragraphs because it looks like a counter argument when placed directly after which might be seen as a POV when placed that way. Also, can you tell me why the AU argument is not seen as a POV from the AU. I think it very much is, making your POV argument pretty weak. Please comment PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 20:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Include it See my thoughts Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, here [18]. @ Coffee: do you agree with me? We should start defining the concensus now. If Coffee agrees, it makes two of us against @ Thucydides411: because Darouet did not include any argument in this page. I also think that if the article passes on Talk:COVID-19 pandemic it makes it automatically legit here, a global concensus being reached. PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Include. I also think that the information from the German and United States intelligence services about the phone call between Tedros and Xi Jinping should be included. David A ( talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I was told that there is a discussion here regarding something that we talked about in the main COVID-19 epidemic page. Here are some articles regarding allegations from German and United States intelligence agencies:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1187877.shtml
https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-cia-believes-china-tried-stop-who-alarm-pandemic-1503565
David A ( talk) 20:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
"connection between Tedros and the CCP"is getting into WP:BLP violation territory, don't you think? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Tedros Adhanom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "On January 23, 2019, the WHO stated the novel coronavirus did not yet rise to the level of an international emergency, but that the organization was closely tracking the virus' evolution" to "On January 23, 2020, the WHO stated the novel coronavirus did not yet rise to the level of an international emergency, but that the organization was closely tracking the virus' evolution" Na gomes5 ( talk) 22:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The scientific journal
Nature has been a great resource to consult on coronavirus in the past few months, and since they host significant news and opinion sections that reflects the views of scientists internationally, I decided I'd see what they've been writing about the WHO director general. I think this is important in the context of a pandemic: sticking closer to
WP:MEDRS and avoiding
WP:MEDPOP that may "often convey wrong or misleading information about health care
."
Besides containing a bio [19] that can help us clean up earlier sections of this article that I suspect are highly redundant, Nature also has dozens of articles mentioning Tedros and a news timeline that references him repeatedly [20].
a step it reserves for events that pose a risk to multiple countries and that requires a coordinated international response.Nature explains that the WHO's decision is based on a convening of a committee of experts meant to respond to the crisis, and then cites Tedros.
“This is an evolving and complex situation,” WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a press conference after the meeting.
“At this time there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China,” said WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “That doesn’t mean it won't happen.” The WHO committee that considered whether to declare a global emergency — the agency’s highest level of alarm — met for two days before issuing its verdict. The panel decided against the declaration in part because the virus’s rate of spread between humans remains unknown.According to the WHO and Tedros, this decision is based on the lack of known human-to-human transmission outside China. Tedros adds,
“For now, it appears limited to family groups and health workers caring for infected patients,” Tedros said.
The organization’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said his main concern was that the outbreak could spread to countries with fragile health systems.Nature explains why a PHEIC was not declared earlier:
The WHO considered declaring the coronavirus a global emergency last week, but ultimately decided against the move. At that time, only one country outside China — Vietnam — had confirmed person-to-person transmission of the virus within its borders.The article then relates Tedros' praise of China in handling the outbreak:
Tedros praised China for its handling of the outbreak, and recommended against restricting international trade with, and travel to, the country. “This declaration is not a vote of no confidence in China,” he said. “This is the time for solidarity, not stigma.”Nature writes that experts consider the WHO's actions so far to have been correct:
Alexandra Phelan, a global-health lawyer at Georgetown University in Washington DC, praised Tedros’s decision and message. “Historically, a PHEIC is seen as an alert to all countries,” she says. “But this focus on countries with weak health systems highlights the obligation of wealthier countries with stronger health systems to help them prepare for potential cases.”
WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus spoke about the importance of developing candidate therapeutics and easy-to-apply diagnostics for identifying active, asymptomatic and resolved infections... Tedros encouraged research into preventing the transmission of zoonotic diseases — which originate in animals — to stem future outbreaks of this type.
“It’s too early to tell if this new reported decline will continue,” he said. “Every scenario is still on the table.”
“The increasing signs of transmission outside China show that the window of opportunity we have for containing this virus is narrowing,” he said.The WHO holds a press briefing where Tedros announces that COVID-19 is not yet a pandemic, a decision supported by Mike Ryan, the WHO emergencies program director.
“Using the word pandemic now does not fit the facts, but it may cause fear,” said WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “For the moment, we are not witnessing the uncontained global spread of this coronavirus, and we are not witnessing large-scale severe disease or death,” said Tedros. “Does this virus have pandemic potential? Absolutely. Are we there yet? From our assessment, not yet.”
efforts to contain and slow down the spread of the virus have failed, which has proved to be untrue in China, Singapore and other regions.Infectious disease researcher Nigel McMillan states
The WHO is being overly cautious in not declaring a pandemic.According to Nature,
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO, said at the briefing that most cases were linked and could still be traced to known contacts or clusters, with no evidence of the virus spreading freely in communities. “As long as that is the case, we still have a chance of containing this virus, if robust action is taken to detect cases early, isolate and care for patients and trace contacts,” said Tedros.
“WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction,” said Tedros... “Describing the situation as a pandemic does not change WHO’s assessment of the threat posed by this coronavirus. It doesn’t change what WHO is doing, and it doesn’t change what countries should do,” he said. “Pandemic is not a word to use lightly or carelessly. It is a word that, if misused, can cause unreasonable fear, or unjustified acceptance that the fight is over, leading to unnecessary suffering and death.”Tedros adds that the crisis will affect every sector of society, and that all people must be involved in stopping the virus.
The spread of the new coronavirus could soon become unstoppable, say scientists who are concerned about a rapid surge in the number and size of outbreaks outside China. Some are even muttering the p-word: pandemic.The article describes the virus' spread so far, new measures that may be needed, and reiterates the WHO's reasoning in not declaring a pandemic at this point.
But other scientistsincluding Harvard professor Marc Lipsitch argue a pandemic has arrived.
“Whatever WHO says, I think the epidemiological conditions for a pandemic are met,” says Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. “Under almost any reasonable definition of pandemic, there’s now evidence of it happening.”A CDC director, Nancy Messonnier, says of impending community spread in the US,
“It’s not so much of a question of if this will happen in this country any more but a question of when this will happen.Lipsitch and other scientists agree that China's containment measures have been successful, but Lipsitch and Ben Cowling, an epidemiologist from Hong Kong, fear these measures won't be feasible in other countries with fewer resources. Nature writes,
The WHO’s decision to hold off describing the global outbreaks as a ‘pandemic’ was based in part on data showing that infections in China had peaked between 23 January and 2 February and that control measures, such as the partial lockdown of cities including Wuhan, where the virus originated, had worked to prevent new cases.David Heymann, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, states that "way too much" emphasis is being placed
“...on a pandemic. I think what’s important is a basic understanding of outbreaks and how to deal with them.”
alarming levels of inactionby governments in what should be the effort to stop the spread of COVID-19. Tedros states:
"There’s been so much attention on one word. Let me give you some other words that matter much more, & that are much more actionable: Prevention. Preparedness. Public health. Political leadership. And most of all, People.”
aggressively test, track and isolate as many cases of COVID-19 as possible.Nature adds that
no government can match the WHO’s cumulative on-the-ground experience — and lessons learnt — in dealing with outbreaksand criticizes the US and UK for failing to conduct testing. Nature then quotes Tedros.
It is rare for the WHO to criticize member countries that are among its largest donors, but director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was unequivocal when he said last week: “The idea that countries should shift from containment to mitigation is wrong and dangerous.” He added: “You can’t fight a virus if you don’t know where it is. That means robust surveillance to find, isolate, test and treat every case, to break the chains of transmission.” This week, he reiterated the point: “The most effective way to prevent infections and save lives is breaking the chains of transmission. And to do that, you must test and isolate. You cannot fight a fire blindfolded. And we cannot stop this pandemic if we don’t know who is infected.”
“We cannot stop this pandemic if we don’t know who is infected,” he said. “You cannot fight a fire blindfolded.”
for months has guided the world in how to tackle the deadly coronavirus.Nature notes that in the past, the WHO has sometimes been accused of acting either too slowly, or of overstating risks, during past epidemics. But Nature notes that in this case, it began its emergency response to COVID-19 the day after being informed of the pneumonia case cluster on 31 December. Nature notes that while the WHO issued many important guidances and has led critical programs to respond to COVID-19 since that time, the US has not followed the WHO's recommendations, even after "pleading" from WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Nature writes,
But the Trump administration chose not to follow the WHO’s advice. Instead, influential lawmakers have been calling for an investigation into the WHO’s actions, claiming that the agency was too slow to sound the alarm and too deferential to the Chinese government. At the same time, they are implicating the WHO in wider questions being directed at China’s government. These include that China could have acted more quickly to lock down in the days after the first outbreak, and that public officials withheld important information. Such questions must be asked of China, but they are not for the WHO — which acts at the behest of governments — to answer. And they are not reasons to de-fund the agency.
@ Coffee, Thucydides411, and Sdkb: My recommendation is that whatever sources we cite, this section of the article follow the overall framework and editorial outlook of the journal Nature. The journal has written a lot about the WHO and Tedros' responses to the COVID-19 crisis and I think it's fair to say that their perspective will approximate that of scientific and medical professionals globally. - Darouet ( talk) 15:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-chief-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-may-face-genocide-charges-2fbfz7sff Any idea where to best put this into the article? "An American economist nominated for the Nobel peace prize has called for the head of the World Health Organisation to be prosecuted for genocide over his alleged involvement in directing Ethiopia’s security forces." Mbsyl ( talk) 23:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is Ghebreyesus omitted in the lemma? There is no reason. A lot of other national versions do not do this. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 06:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Much of the career chapters contain way too much about what he urged, wanted, promoted, asked, .... it's tiring. After a while, it felt like a pushing self-advert. - How about focus only on what he actually achieved ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.213.133.10 ( talk) 21:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
There also appears to be evidence that he is responsible for a cover up around Covid, essentially a puppet to China. None of this is reflected in the article https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-the-who-and-the-power-grab-that-fuelled-a-pandemic-3mt05m06n Simonadams ( talk) 20:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I think some brief discussion or explanation of Tedros's name Ghebreyesus is required in this article. Every item listed in the section Selected works and publications, with three exceptions, is credited as "Ghebreyesus, Tedros Adhanom". The three exceptions all refer to him as "Adhanom, Tedros", and none use "Tedros" as his proper patronymic. This situation is confusing to readers who consistently find the name "Ghebreyesus" associated with the WHO or Covid in current news articles. Milkunderwood ( talk) 07:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Ethiopians commonly use their fathers' given names as patronymics after their own, e.g. Abiy Ahmed means Abiy, the son of Ahmed. Sometimes their father's father's name appears in third place, but this style is usually for official documents; only in rare circumstances would Ethiopians adopt their grandfather's name as a last name for common usage. ... Ethiopians, especially in the West, will frequently adopt their own transliteration scheme for styling themselves, that does not always correspond to any of the various schemes employed by linguists. Whenever proper names become notable under such ad hoc spellings, they should be preferred as the most common searchable term.If his published works use the "G" name, then clearly he has adopted that style. Whatever he might be called by his friends and family would be irrelevant for a Wikipedia article where he would be known for his notability, not his home life. Platonk ( talk) 23:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Citation #2 is his Public Health PhD thesis about the relationship between Malaria and dams, not a citation that supports the claim that he is a biologist. Two years ago, this page referred to him as a "microbiologist" which I pointed out back then is also wrong. 2603:8080:6C02:FEE2:840B:E220:E11C:92E7 ( talk) 03:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Tedros' public health Master's thesis, which is not even proximate to the field of microbiologysounds like nitpicking. Current content is
degree in immunology of infectious diseases from the University of London in 1992... a Doctor of Philosophy in community health from the University of Nottingham for research on the effects of dams on malaria transmission in the Tigray region.Sounds kind of like the description from Microbiology and Medical microbiology articles. Do you have some personal beef with the subject? Platonk ( talk) 17:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@ HeinzMaster: You added at least three sections of duplicate content to this article. I reverted it all rather than picking through it with a fine toothed comb. Please work with what is already there in the article. Having content duplicated in two places — verbatim — is not acceptable. If some of your edit is novel, then please add that back in. Platonk ( talk) 07:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)