How The WHO's Fear of Xenophobia Contributed to the Spread of COVID 19

National and local leaders have been and will continue to be scrutinized, and justly so. But global institutions deserve the same scrutiny, because COVID-19 isn't a national issue; it's a global one. As the virus began to leave China, the world looked to the World Health Organization for guidance. The WHO made some relevant health recommendations, but its inability to see the advantage of closing borders proved essential. Fears of promoting xenophobia may have prevented the WHO from doing the right thing.

On January 30, a WHO committee made some health suggestions, but in hindsight, this one seems critical: "[t]he Committee does not recommend any travel or trade restriction based on the current information available." The WHO reasoned, "Travel restrictions can cause more harm than good by hindering info-sharing, medical supply chains and harming economies." But COVID-19 is spread by traveling, hence the shelter-in-place recommendations. Sure, it already minimally existed in many nations, but what about the greater influx that would follow as world travel continued? Given the proclivity of the virus to spread geometrically, even limiting a few dozen carriers into a nation can have a dramatic impact. Cosmopolitanism reigned when the times required provincialism.

President Trump rejected the WHO's advice with a proclamation on January 31 that restricted travel from China as a means to slow the spread of the virus. As usual, journalists missed the longer-term significance. On the same day Trump announced his partial travel ban, CNN responded with a headline: "As the Coronavirus Spreads, Fear Is Fueling Racism and Xenophobia." Responding to the order, The New York Times focused on merely the economic impact. In an article titled "Trump Administration restricts entry into US from China," the NYT writes, "The travel disruption sent shocks through the stock market and rattled industries that depend on the flow of goods and people between the world's two largest economies." Rather than describe any health benefits, the New York Times emphasized the economic consequences. Why is the stock market spiraling? Trump's policies — in this case, aggressive measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 by restricting entry from China.

One journalist described how the ban directly affected her. A February 3 headline from the Charlotte Observer read: "How Trump's Panicky Coronavirus Travel Ban Cost Me $4,000 in 2 Hours to Save My Job." Lamenting that she was awoken early to a barrage of text messages the morning of the proclamation, the author, as a way to criticize Trump's restrictions, cites Jennifer Nuzzo, epidemiologist with Johns Hopkins, who insisted that "[b]anning travel from China is unlikely to keep the new coronavirus out of the United States, especially as the geographic footprint of the epidemic continues to rapidly expand." Even on the surface, this doesn't seem rational. Yes, banning people from China won't keep the virus out of the United States, but neither will shelter-in-place or social distancing keep it out of Los Angeles and New York. The goal is to curb the spread of the virus. Limiting movement achieves this. How could banning infected people from China to the United States in late January not slow the spread of the virus (albeit not completely stop it)?

Using some logical thought shows this: imagine two societies represented by Italy and Germany. And imagine that 1% of Italy's population has COVID-19 and 0.1% of Germany's population has the virus. How can any rational person argue "since the virus already exists in Germany, it doesn't matter if people from Italy go there"? Of course it matters. Given that scenario, if merely ten thousand people enter Germany, one hundred are likely to carry the virus to Germany and are more likely to encounter and therefore infect a previously uninfected person than had they stayed in Italy. This limits the spread of the virus. Moreover, the main means of traveling from one country to another — trains and airplanes — facilitates the spread due to the close proximity of people in these environments. The mere act of traveling internationally puts more people at risk. This doesn't take expertise in public health. It just takes rational thought.

The WHO never grasped this. It never advocated travel bans. It had one final chance to advocate travel bans on February 29 but refused, although it equivocated. The declaration reads: "WHO continues to advise against the application of travel or trade restrictions to countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks[.] ... However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities" (emphasis added). Some concessions, but a critical opportunity was again missed.

Finally, in mid-March, countries around the world began changing course and aggressively shutting their borders, irrespective of where their leadership fell on the political spectrum. Trump took the lead, restricting travel from Europe on March 11, at least for non-U.S. citizens. (It would have been better if he had done it two weeks sooner.) Initially, the move was criticized. Angela Merkel replied to Trump hours later proclaiming, "We in Germany, in any case, are of the opinion that border closures are not an appropriate response to the challenge." Time Magazine replied on March 12, "'What Is He Afraid Of?' Trump's European Travel Ban Prompts Scorn in China." A March 13 Atlantic headline reads: "The Corona Virus's Xenophobic Problem: As the Coronavirus Spreads across the Globe, so Too Does Racism."

Yet four days after slamming Trump, Merkel closed Germany's borders to most nations. On March 16, even the European Union closed borders for thirty days to slow the coronavirus pandemic. An E.U. commission declared, "In the current circumstances, with the coronavirus now widespread throughout the EU, the external border regime offers the opportunity of concerted action among Member States to limit the global spread of the virus." Technically, the travel ban would have been more effective before the coronavirus was widespread in the E.U. At least there were concessions that closing borders slows the spread of the virus.

Latin American countries agreed. On March 15, Argentina announced that it was closing its borders to all foreigners for at least two weeks. Chile essentially did the same thing the next day. African nations, too, embraced closed borders. On March 15, the Kenyan government announced the suspension of travelers from most Western nations. On March 17, Ghana followed. So did Nigeria on March 18. This wasn't xenophobia or racism. It's means to slow the spread of the virus. If nothing else, it gives more pristine African nations time to prepare. It all makes sense.

There will be a natural tendency of people to criticize their political leaders because, in practice, we are governed by national and local, not global, governments. But COVID-19 is a global issue. The real problem was the WHO. The health organization routinely criticizes xenophobia, and fear of appearing xenophobic may have prevented them from recommending travel restrictions sooner. (Joe Biden accused Trump of xenophobia after Trump restricted travel from China.) Sometimes, humans let beliefs and ideologies cloud rational thought. Closing borders in an attempt to curb the spread of a virus isn't xenophobic. It's smart. Like shelter-in-place (and having more COVID-19 testing kits), none of this would have stopped the spread of the virus, nor could it have been completely applied, but it would have helped — maybe even dramatically.

The author's book, Ronald Reagan: An Intellectual Biography can be purchased here. His Twitter account is here.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/04/the_real_covid_19_culprit_the_who.html#ixzz6JJn513L3 Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I think this was done on PURPOSE to bring down our President and our THRIVING COUNTRY!

As Minister of Health in ethiopia 2005-202, WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus,was able to form a close relationship with prominent figures including former American president Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.[19]

SOURCE Clintnfoundatiion.org
Press Release: Clinton Foundation and Ethiopia Sign Agreement to Expand HIV/AIDS Partnership

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
PRESS RELEASE
Collaboration Will Strengthen and Improve National Care and Treatment for HIV/AIDS.
The Clinton Foundation today signed an agreement with the government of Ethiopia to partner in scaling up Ethiopia’s national plan to combat HIV/AIDS. The Clinton Foundation will provide technical expertise and programmatic assistance to support the expansion of the national care and treatment program, particularly for children and people in rural areas living with HIV/AIDS.

As part of the Pediatric Initiative, launched in spring of 2005, the Clinton Foundation will accelerate care and treatment for Ethiopian children living with HIV/AIDS, providing a donation of pediatric anti-retroviral medicines (ARVs) for over 1000 children for one year and directly providing programmatic support to pediatric programs. The Foundation will also support programs in rural areas of Ethiopia, where so many are HIV+, but few have access to treatment.

“I’m extremely pleased that my Foundation has expanded its partnership with the government of Ethiopia,” said President Clinton about the agreement. “Ethiopia has made tremendous strides to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and working together we can ensure that the benefits of low-cost antiretroviral medicines reach even more of the people who desperately need them.”

“The support from Clinton Foundation is coming at a time when we are scaling up our fight against HIV/AIDS very aggressively in all three fronts: prevention, treatment and care and support,” said Dr. Tedros Adhanom, the Minister of Health of Ethiopia. “The agreement with the Clinton Foundation is also unique in that it includes capacity building of the health system which is very crucial in sustaining the fight as indicated in our strategic plan. I would like to use this opportunity to thank President Clinton for his commitment to fight HIV/AIDS.”

Ethiopia has been a member of the Clinton Foundation procurement consortium since August 2004. The procurement consortium comprises over 50 countries in the developing world with access to the Clinton Foundation’s reduced prices for anti-retroviral drugs and diagnostic testing supplies. Ethiopia is the sixth African country in which the Clinton Foundation will have a permanent team.

In addition to helping scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and rural programs, the Foundation has agreed to assist the government in four other areas: a hospital management initiative, support to strengthen health care management at all levels of government, laboratory planning and expansion of lab services, and supply chain logistics.

Approximately 1.5 million Ethiopians, or 4.4 percent of the total population, are living with HIV/AIDS. An estimated 95,000 are children. The Ethiopian government has responded strongly to the national AIDS crisis, declaring HIV a national emergency in 2001. Since then, the government has introduced a reduced-cost ARV program and expanded their treatment plan with an initiative to provide ARVs to all infected Ethiopians. More than 22,000 patients are currently accessing essential anti-retroviral drugs free of charge, with a national target of 100,000 patients on treatment by the end of 2006.

# # #

Learn more about our work at http://www.clintonfoundation.org/about, on Facebook at Facebook.com/ClintonFoundation and on Twitter @ClintonFdn.

MORE ON DO-GOOD CLINTON GLOBALISM HERE
https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+foundation+ethiopia&rlz=1CAPPDO_enUS771US771&oq=clinton+foundation+ethiopia&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.8998j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=

Would this be considered xenophobiaphobia?

How The WHO’s Fear of Xenophobia Contributed to the Spread of COVID 19

It was more like the fear of their Chinese benefactors.

For sure........

Mongolia closed its border with China on Jan 27. Right now, Mongolia is not allowing anyone to travel to the country. Mongolian travel agents are offering virtual tours of the country (I get emails from them).

Mongolia has only had 16 cases of Covid-19.

Looks like the travel restrictions elsewhere were not implemented quickly enough.

Follow the Money!

If was deliberate and a concerted effort Im sure, the fog is lifting and the pointers are all pointing in the same direction

“Fears of xenophobia” - would that then be Xenophobiaphobia?

Was it ‘fear of xenophobia’ or hatred of God, Christendom, and white people?

Oh, The Irony of the Mongolians not letting Chinese into their country.

This has been the latest version of the communist coup d’etet to destroy Trump and overthrow our Constitutional Republic.

The only silver lining is the traitors have publicly outed themselves...as if there was any doubt. who they are and what they are doing

Really?? It would not surprise me in the least if China was working with the DEMOCRATS!

It’s a given the d’rats are partners with the ChiComs to overthrow America.

DNC = CPUSA = CCP = NAZI = KKK = satan/muzzoidism

WHO = ChiCom stooges

I think this was done on PURPOSE to bring down our President and our THRIVING COUNTRY!

I constantly think this. Way too many coincidences and coordination by the Chicoms,global cabal and American left and many on the "right". At any rate,mission accomplished thus far. The left is in the next phase to blame President Trump for it ALL and rig the election through mail in balloting/ballot harvesting with true domestic/foreign election influence by the usual suspects. Wake up people this sh*t is real.

The head of WHO is a radical Communist, and he was just looking out for the Communist leaders of China.

It’s not their fear of anything other than the CCP

“I think this was done on PURPOSE to bring down our President and our THRIVING COUNTRY!”

Amd it’s a communist org.