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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS