WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty - what's your view on this?

[pansiesinmygarden]

Just that, really.

After all we've been through over the last 3 years, it's surprising this has not been given much visibility in MSM

Do you think a referendum should take place before we commit ourselves to such major supranational commitments?

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9550/

Apathy or paranoia because of rampant misinformation spreaders all over internet and on social media sites like Mumsnet?

Gee whiz, excuse us for being cynical about claims by randoms on the Internet.

Where is the disinformation? Please explain This is being discussed in Parliament.

I think your understanding is skewed.

The Treaty principally concerns

"alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment"

That's not relinquishing control of any part of day-to-day life

Are you also going to call for UK to withdraw from other international treaty obligations which require things like sharing information on technical and controls on trade of certain items?

The WHO pandemic treaty is a terrible idea. If it passes, then functionally we might as well give up on the idea of liberal democracy, because we will have entered a new chapter of rulership and governance.

The WHO, an unelected body, will be able to override constitutions and laws to impose lockdown, mandates, forced quarantining and surveillance not just when a pandemic is declared, but even when there is just potential for an emergency.

we can say goodbye to the hard won fundamental rights we expect in a liberal democracy, like freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, bodily autonomy etc. These will become privileges instead of rights, granted conditionally by a supra-national organisation which is not accountable to the citizenry.

As others have noted, the WHO is largely funded by private companies now. There have been whistleblowers who have spoken out about the influence private funders have over WHO policy.

I don’t know how people cannot see how chilling this is.

An unelected body will be able to override the constitutions and laws of nation states.

It doesn't seem to be exchange of information only. There are several other angles which could be problematic if dictated centrally

Take the following, for example. An unelected supranational body could state how the UK uses land and what for.

The Parties will identify and integrate into relevant pandemic prevention and preparedness plans interventions that address the drivers of the emergence and re-emergence of disease at the human-animal-environment interface, including but not limited to climate change, land use change, wildlife
trade, desertification and antimicrobial resistance

Full draft below

https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf

No that's not what it means!

Climate change and land use means tackling things like deforestation and the encroachment into animal habitats and the consequent increased risk of zoonosis

It does not go anywhere near telling a government how specific land must be used.

Are you seeing abrogation of our participation in climate change treaties too? For they cover the same areas

Climate change and land use means tackling things like deforestation and the encroachment into animal habitats and the consequent increased risk of zoonosis

It does not go anywhere near telling a government how specific land must be used

I don't see your point. It could absolutely 'go anywhere near' telling a country how it should use its land

@meditrina It does not go anywhere near telling a government how specific land must be used.

it mentions interventions to address drivers of disease, including climate change and land use.

so it certainly doesn’t rule out telling governments how to manage land. That’s the point, really. The wording is so vague and open-ended, it’s impossible to guess how it could be applied in the future. Which is all the more reason to put a stop to it, until there is better clarification of terms and scope, at the very least.

How do you think you or your family would have fared during Covid if the UK had been forced to surrender vaccine lots to other countries?

Or companies like AZ forced to give up intellectual property rights or profits? The AZ vaccine might not have been developed in the first place

What about people who for whatever reason could not take a preferred vaccine (e.g. Pfizer due to allergies) and needed an alternative? Would this be coordinated by supranational bureacrats too?

It's a really bad idea. Cooperation absolutely, mandates, no

Are you seeing abrogation of our participation in climate change treaties too?

These seem to be already causing problems in terms of access to affordable fuel for many nations and negative economic consequences (e.g. the Netherlands). So I'm not sure what the best way forward would be

But handing over power to an unelected supranational body seemingly ruled by corporations does not appear to be the answer

How do you think you or your family would have fared during Covid if the UK had been forced to surrender vaccine lots to other countries?

UK was one of the biggest contributors to COVAX. If everyone was asked to join in, proportional to the size of their economy, our contribution would probably go down.

AZ was selling covid vaccine at cost to developing countries anyhow, so there wouldn't be any difference from their POV. IIRC, they were also assisting in development of industrial infrastructure for vaccine manufacture.

The treaty does not cover national level decisions about who gets which vaccine or on what schedule. It's at the level of international co-operation to promote reasonably fair access for every country regardless of economic strength.

The treaty does not cover national level decisions about who gets which vaccine or on what schedule.

The treaty will most certainly impact national level decisions about not just vaccines, but literally any other measure related to potential public health emergencies. That’s the point. The amendments are so sweeping and vague that anything that might constitute a potential (ie speculative) threat to public health will fall under WHO jurisdiction, and the WHO will no longer issue guidance but edicts, which member states must follow in spite of national laws and constitutions.

Or else.

I don’t think people understand how bonkers the treaty actually is. To the point where if the proposed amendments are accepted, I wonder how they would even be enforceable (and would rather not find out!)

This analysis is the best I’ve seen which not only provides context for the WHO both past and present, but a break-down of each proposed amendment, and its implications.

It’s madness. Utter madness.

How do you think you or your family would have fared during Covid if the UK had been forced to surrender vaccine lots to other countries?

My family would have been Fine, since you ask. All 30 first cousins, their spouses, the living 9 uncles & aunts, their spouses & grandkids, too, my kids, my kids' 2nd cousins & a handful of grandchildren, my inlaws AND my elderly parents.

Have fun spreading your paranoia.

AZ was selling covid vaccine at cost to developing countries anyhow, so there wouldn't be any difference from their POV. IIRC, they were also assisting in development of industrial infrastructure for vaccine manufacture

They did this voluntarily. They were not forced. It's very different

It could force our government not to ignore pandemic preparedness exercises, and decide not to do things such as keeping a stock of PPE...