Vice President Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) on Wednesday took to Facebook to criticize the WHO for adopting two erroneous calculation methods that could have produced misleading information on the COVID-19 pandemic and caused panic.
First, the WHO only looks at the number of confirmed cases and fatalities, without taking into account the population of each nation, resulting in skewed risk assessments for contracting the virus, said Chen, an epidemiologist and public health expert.
Second, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus sowed panic by warning the international community that the fatality rate of COVID-19 is about 3.4 percent, higher than the WHO initially thought.
When the number of confirmed cases in a nation drops, but the number of deaths increases, it should be checked whether its screening method has changed, rather than jumping to the conclusion that the fatality rate has become higher than originally estimated, Chen said.
Tedros’ “reckless conclusion and false alarm” stem from his failure to ascertain whether nations’ screening methodologies have changed, he said.
“Not only has he fallen short to alarm people around the world, he has caused unnecessary panic. He is really good for nothing,” the vice president said.
As for the WHO declaring the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, the move came too late, he said.
Known for his gentle demeanor, Chen’s frustration with Tedros and the WHO made headlines nationwide, but people quickly empathized with him given his medical background.
However, what Taiwanese and a growing segment of the international community fail to empathize with is the WHO’s behavior.
In Taiwan’s battle against COVID-19, one recurring phrase has set the nation apart from the rest of the world and made it an example for many: “pre-emptive action.”
The concept is applied every step of the way, from Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) in early January ordering stricter border control and an ad hoc intergovernmental meeting, an export ban on masks and mask rationing, to banning travelers from China and the strict enforcement of quarantine rules.
From the early stages of the outbreak, the WHO has proven that it is not foreign to the strategy of taking pre-emptive action, as shown by Tedros’ announcement of the official name for the new virus to prevent people from referring to it by names that could stigmatize China.
For months, the WHO seems to have perversely viewed the outbreak through a prism that romanticizes everything China does.
A case in point, WHO technical consultant Maria Van Kerkhove said she was “touched” by China’s actions, as “every person of the population knew what their role was in this outbreak” when asked about the WHO’s repeated remarks that the world could learn from China in fighting the outbreak.
People must not forget the litany of compliments that Tedros has paid to China, including his praise of its “transparency” in providing information on the outbreak, his calls for “gratitude and respect” for China’s efforts to prevent the virus from being exported, and his repeated assurances that the COVID-19 situation was under control in China.
Chen’s criticism of Tedros and the WHO was an understatement, judging by the level of corruption in the UN agency.
The WHO should ask itself whether it has lived up to its values to “engage with everyone honestly and in good faith and hold itself accountable for words and actions.” It should immediately undertake sweeping reforms, starting with the resignation of Tedros, who still has a chance to salvage the last bit of his integrity if he knows when to quit.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS