>But even then, it is better to have them within, collaborating on their terms, than to leave them outside, in which case it would be even harder to get any information out of them.
I tend to agree with this sentiment, however I'm always on the fence as to if acting on no new information is better than acting on false or misleading information. If you can't trust the source the data is almost worthless. Anyways, that's for self reported information. Getting any direct access to gather independent information I'd say is nearly always valuable unless it's also targeted with disinformation campaigns.
> I'm always on the fence as to if acting on no new information is better than acting on false or misleading information.
Yeah, neither is good.
> If you can't trust the source the data is almost worthless.
It’s worse than worthless, because you are expecting disinformation. Though to be fair you can also get disinformation from sources you trust...
> Getting any direct access to gather independent information I'd say is nearly always valuable unless it's also targeted with disinformation campaigns.
That’s why it’s good to have inspectors. But even then, there are limits. Inspectors usually cannot go anywhere they please (otherwise nobody would sign that treaty), so it’s always possible to hide things from them.
Our governments have also the right to be critical when reading reports, particularly based on data from untrustworthy countries. We elect them to do their job, and that job involves quite a bit of critical thinking when dealing with other countries. They also have experts and often scientific cooperation agreements that can complement the WHO.
So yes, the WHO is imperfect. Perfecting it is quite difficult without causing countries to drop out, and countries should not be reliant on only one source anyway.
The problem is that the WHO appears to have more legitimacy and authority than they do. I have no problem with the WHO existing and doing their job but we have to accept they are bound by international politics. In developed countries we should rely on local medical bodies first.
That is definitely a problem; it tends to be seen either as the saviour of humanity or as a globalist evil. It is not perfect and not a substitute for proper public health policies.
I tend to agree with this sentiment, however I'm always on the fence as to if acting on no new information is better than acting on false or misleading information. If you can't trust the source the data is almost worthless. Anyways, that's for self reported information. Getting any direct access to gather independent information I'd say is nearly always valuable unless it's also targeted with disinformation campaigns.