World Health Organisation criticises UK reopening and says it's 'too early to talk about freedom'

[UndercoverToad]

The WHO has taken a strong stance against England's plans for reopening over the last few days, and a spokesperson has used perhaps some of the strongest words yet.

Dr David Nabarro, the WHO's special envoy on COVID-19, said the "pandemic is advancing ferociously around the world" and "I don't think we've anywhere near got through the worst of it".

Asked about the government's switch to personal responsibility, he told Radio 4's Today programme: "All this doesn't quite fit with the position that was taken by Britain, along with other nations, some months ago when there was a real effort to try to prevent large numbers of people getting the disease, partly because of the risk of death and partly because of the recognition of the risk of long COVID.

"It's necessary to be unequivocal on this particular challenge. What does urging caution mean? It's important that everybody knows the best possible advice on how to prevent themselves being infected.

"I accept that vaccination has changed the nature of the equation in the UK but quite honestly from any point of view it's too early to be talking about massive relaxation or freedom when the outbreak curve is on such a sharp ascent.

"Yes, relax, but don't have these mixed messages about what's going on. This dangerous virus hasn't gone away, it's variants are coming back and are threatening those who have already been vaccinated - we have to take it seriously."

@bluetongue

I’m not in the UK so not fully up to speed as to where vaccination is at.

Has everyone 18 and over had a chance to be double jabbed? If not, then I think the reopening is too early. Ideally I think everyone 12 and over should have the chance to be vaccinated. I’d be pretty pissed if I was I my 20’s and wasn’t eligible yet before the summer wave started.

No - I would think everyone who is keen has had a first jab by now, but second jabs (which are important for Delta) are still some way off for under 30s. Of course they will mostly be fine, but if huge numbers of people are off work that also causes problems.

I'm nearly 40 and have bought my second jab forward to 8.5 weeks on Thursday, but it was hard to find somewhere to get it and I know they have limited supply. I have a child in nursery and feel like a sitting duck at the moment.

It's not going to help the economy if we open up everything, cases go up like they have in the Netherlands, and then we have to have another lockdown because the NHS can't cope.

Have they questioned all the other countries that have fully reopened? I haven't seen anything.

87% have had the first vaccine, 66% the second. We've spent not far off 18 months under lockdown. Many of us have worked right through caring for people, in shops and distribution centres etc and keeping all the essential services going, none of which can be done from home. How long do some people want it to go on for and why? Is it the drama, the comfort of staying at home, what? We can't live like this forever and there's no need to.

Great from who, he's really pinned it down, what the hell does cautious mean!
Different things to different people, I work with people who think it's all stuff and nonsense and to be honest from their pov, age, health family risks etc I can see why they don't fear covid like I do!!

I work in a hospital and I'm afraid that many many staff are currently off sick with Covid despite being doubly vaccinated. We are all completing yellow cards but this is not being widely reported. Deaths and hospitalisations maybe down in comparison but people are still unwell enough to feel dreadful and need at least a week off work and the virus is spreading rapidly.
That's on top of staff having to isolate because children are being sent home from school in their droves (I am in the north east).
Staff are being prepared for deployment again - we are absolutely sick of this never ending cycle of shit.

and yes - why it is always us they comment on?

It gets irritating that other countries (US as a prime example) do what they like and no comment is passed but when the UK does anything the whole world seems to have an opinion!
WHO is too politicised for me to take very seriously now.

@TheDailyCarbunkle, we’ll that’s a philosophical question, and one that can be answered by thinking of Rousseau’s general will, which in very simple terms states that while each individual has his or her own particular will that expresses what is best for him/her (ie not wanting to wear a mask), the general will expresses what is best for the society as a whole. It’s not a collection of individual wills but the common good. In a pandemic, that would be preserving lives and keeping the virus under control as much as possible through vaccination and other measures.

In terms of education, schools and other educational settings should be absolutely prioritised in a pandemic over individual rights such as someone’s inalienable right to travel. I work in higher education and my son attends school. It’s in the best interests of society for obvious reasons that these things should continue at the expense of other restrictions such as international travel and wearing masks. We’re back to having the debate we had last summer about keeping pubs shut in order to keep schools open. One thing is clear is that Johnson’s libertarian ideology will inevitably inhibit the freedom of both adults and children.

Your third point isn’t really relevant to the pandemic, but is extremely relevant to the very difficult debate we will have about climate change.

Could the WHO persuade the UN to have Mr Johnson in the International Criminal Court for his inactions? His inactions have caused more deaths than happened in Srebenica (apologies if I offend anyone by mentioning the deaths that occurred there).

I actually have a third question:
Imagine a policy that until everyone had all the basics they need - good food, decent accommodation, good healthcare, quality education - no one in the country could have any disposable income - all disposable income had to go to the collective good. So everyone can have a certain basic amount to survive and no more. That would save a lot of lives. Would you be in favour?

This is an excellent question.

We tacitly accept that there is a limit to what we can be asked to do for the (subjectively defined) 'collective good'. You only have to look at how many people - not just in Britain - vote for governments who want to lower taxes, something which will likely cost lives.

Why is it only with Covid that people are asked to make sacrifices indefinitely 'for the common good'? Do those who love to accuse others of being 'selfish' act in a selfless way in aspects of their lives which have nothing to do with Covid? I very much doubt it.

we’ll that’s a philosophical question, and one that can be answered by thinking of Rousseau’s general will, which in very simple terms states that while each individual has his or her own particular will that expresses what is best for him/her (ie not wanting to wear a mask), the general will expresses what is best for the society as a whole. It’s not a collection of individual wills but the common good. In a pandemic, that would be preserving lives and keeping the virus under control as much as possible through vaccination and other measures.

It wasn't really a 'phlosophical' question.

@TheDailyCarbunkle asked if you would be in favour of all 'disposable' income being held by the state to distribute to those in need. For the common good.

Would you be in favour?

@IloveSooty424 I agree with you wholeheartedly.

The WHO aren't perfect but have actual experience of pandemic reponse, including of other coronaviruses. They and their technical teams have worked across multiple situations and draw on global expertise in public health. They have had their legs cut off by crap funding, nationalism etc but they are the experts in this, over multiple diseases and contexts. Unlike most of our political leaders who know south of FA.

Christ knows what we should do now - but where we've been just jaw droppingly awful is in early containment. The WHO has been pretty clear on that and decent leaders have listened.

In the UK, we've bought in to a bullshit fake dichotomy between health and economy when actually early action would have saved both. We should have been more careful about our borders with regards to the Delta variant, and have properly paid isolation when we only had a few cases. And we've now done this nonsense repeatedly.

Oh and whatever we do now - suggesting that masks aren't mandatory in public spaces certainly looks a lot like saying "don't worry how tired you are when you drive" "don't worry about the speed limit". You make your choice, and the next person is screwed by you. Surely it's fair enough to legislate for actions that harm other people? Don't get it. No wonder the WHO thinks we are talking nonsense.

The power of individualism

“Loving freedom” is hard to measure, but it’s related to the concept of individualism. This cultural trait emphasises personal freedom and standing out, and celebrates individual success. Its opposite is collectivism, which accentuates the embeddedness of individuals in a group and stresses the need to support and learn from the social environment.

The foundational work on individualism was done by the Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede. He developed a framework to compare different cultures along six dimensions. These are: how individualist or collectivist a society is, how indulgent it is, what its attitudes towards power and change are, how it deals with uncertainty, and how masculine or feminine its values are.

Within this framework, individualism versus collectivism has turned out to be the most robust and persistent contrast between different cultures. However, on Hofstede’s scale, present-day Germany and Italy are both individualist societies, even if the UK and US top the scale. Johnson’s view of Italy and Germany seems to be stuck in the 1930s.

The threat of tropical disease may be the basis of why some societies are more individualistic than others.
The roots of these cultural values can be linked to historic patterns of disease intensity across societies. In areas where the threat of infectious disease was higher, such as the tropics, societies developed to be more collectivist to counter those threats. Low levels of interaction with strangers, which characterise collectivist societies, served as an important defence against infection. In contrast, individualistic societies had more diverse social networks and less reliance on stable patterns of social interaction, making contagion more likely.

Importantly, these cultural traits still have real-world impacts today. They don’t just shape social norms, but also drive economic behaviour, for example. Research shows having a more individualistic culture leads to more innovation and growth, because such societies attach higher social status to innovators.

But there are also drawbacks. While individualistic societies may have an edge in fostering radical innovation, Hofstede argues they are at a disadvantage when it comes to rapid collective action and coordination. This is because people there are encouraged to have different views, speak their mind, and question and debate decisions. Building the consensus needed for policies to work may take longer.

I just think as an individualistic society, who put an individualistic leader in power - we have, and will continue to have - a very high death toll.

"87% have had the first vaccine, 66% the second."
That's only adults, so it's not enough. If you follow Lawrence Gilder on Twitter, he gives daily figures for everything, including weekly rolling averages, and a comparison with the same day a week ago.
As of yesterday, the percentages vaccinated in the UK were:

Total First Doses: 45,923,721 [68.46%]
Total Second Doses: 34,872,131 [51.98%]

So we're still a long way off target.

David Nabarro was the one who advised countries to 'copy Sweden' wasn't he?

Maybe he is the one giving mixed messages

fortune.com/2020/08/31/sweden-covid-response-who-official-death-rate/

"Dr. David Nabarro, speaking in a radio interview with Magic Talk in New Zealand, said, “For all countries, the real approach we’ve got to aim for is through behavior that’s adopted everywhere.”

Nabarro said the key to a sustainable coronavirus strategy is trust, and pointed to Sweden as a case in point. The Nordic nation imposed far fewer restrictions on movement than others, and instead relied on Swedes to act responsibly and embrace the guidelines laid out by the country’s health authorities."

Nabarro described a lockdown as “a blunt instrument” that “really bites into the livelihoods of everybody, particularly poorer people and small businesses.”

I am generally a 'think positive' person. I also think that a point has come where something needs to change because we cannot continue to allow livelihoods to go down the drain, people to be dying of preventable illnesses other than covid, maternity and antenatal care to continue to be shocking or schooling to be so terribly disrupted.

But. I do think throwing caution to the wind is a mistake. Allowing mass events, nightclubs, unlimited numbers indoors - basically super spreader events- almost unlimited international travel, no masks, is a recipe for disaster especially when children are not vaccinated.

There is still a medium to be struck, and need for caution. The science community is well behind that. Boris however has gone nuclear and I predict (and I hope to be wrong) that we'll have a 'normal' summer, followed by a throughly disrupted autumn and winter with more school closures and more lockdowns whatever they say about 'irreversible' steps. Local lockdowns first in hotspots which will turn into Tiers Mark 2. A new variant will appear and if it's a vaccine evading one we're back at square 1, only this time we'll be in a worse position because we've already (economy wise and human wise) lost so much.

And I'm no lockdown lover. Far from it. I don't want my child out of school and I never ever want to homeschool again!

@UndercoverToad

I just think as an individualistic society, who put an individualistic leader in power - we have, and will continue to have - a very high death toll.

We are often said to be this and yes we are in terms of the spectrum, without judgement so are US and Aus

But we still do have a high uptake of the vaccine and a lot of that is to do with people bothering for others as well as themselves. Especially younger people.

Also we have complied to high level over last year and a half without much enforcement

I think we’re a bit too quick on the individualistic/ selfish front

So much sacrifice so far

Imagine a policy that until everyone had all the basics they need - good food, decent accommodation, good healthcare, quality education - no one in the country could have any disposable income - all disposable income had to go to the collective good. So everyone can have a certain basic amount to survive and no more. That would save a lot of lives. Would you be in favour

Excellent question @TheDailyCarbunkle

And i agree with @IcedPurple answer.

Why is it only with Covid that people are asked to make sacrifices indefinitely 'for the common good'? Do those who love to accuse others of being 'selfish' act in a selfless way in aspects of their lives which have nothing to do with Covid? I very much doubt it

@MercyBooth - there is no such thing as a selfless act. Altruism is ultimately for selfish reasons.

A collective response is the correct response to Covid. The countries that have managed this worldwide are not suffering from huge mental health problems/a very high death toll.

@MarshaBradyo have we complied?? Sort of. But our response has always been reactive rather than proactive. And the government have focussed on trying to save the economy/individualism - rather than listening to the science.

@MarshaBradyo the vaccines aren’t the be all and end all. Yes - we secured them and the roll out has been excellent. But their effectiveness won’t last forever - and we will be faced with new mutations.

@UndercoverToad

A collective response is the correct response to Covid. The countries that have managed this worldwide are not suffering from huge mental health problems/a very high death toll. *@MarshaBradyo* have we complied?? Sort of. But our response has always been reactive rather than proactive. And the government have focussed on trying to save the economy/individualism - rather than listening to the science.

No we saw high compliance and you can see the effect on massive drops in case numbers in lockdown 1 and 2, although each time it probably drops slightly

And no to individualistic otherwise my dc wouldn’t have been learning in front of a screen for two terms and businesses suffering, although helped by funding

Western democratic culture is based on individualist principles. We can’t realistically expect thousands of years of cultural norms overturned in the space of a year or so.