Lawrence GostinGeverifieerd account

Not sure saying 'This tool doesn't work in this setting' is equivalent to throwing out PHEICs. It does, though, acknowledge that PHEICs don't always do what they were intended to do — which everyone has known for awhile now.

And of course PHEIC is only a small part of the IHR. The most important parts are articles 5 and 13, and annex 1a, in conjunction with article 44. In my view.

Art. 5-13 certainly. Art. 43 is other *essential* element to balance preventing int. spread of disease while preventing unnecessary disruption to int. traffic & trade. WHO has, until recently, focused on 1st half of object & purpose of IHR while ignoring 2nd part

How is @WHO meant to "prevent"? They tell countries not to enact travel or trade restrictions. Countries do it anyway. During West Africa, the Director General was told off - literally - by one donor country (not the US) because WHO questioned its visa restrictions.

Wrt travel advisories and border measures, we should do more to improve the political environment around decision-making, including by improving cross-sector communications. We can make it easier to do the "right" thing. Right now, it is too easy to do the "wrong" thing.

It’s also the case that @WHO has the authority under IHR to ‘name & shame’ countries that do wrong thing, but DG Chan refused. Still waiting to see if @DrTedros is prepared to use IHR as countries intended in 2005.

The WHO called out at least one country in 2014. Wasn't Dr. Chan who did it, but a country (and I think it was more than one) was/were asked to justify travel restrictions by WHO. Was told, effectively, to suck eggs, I believe.

Yes, I believe you Helen. But as China experienced during SARS, Office of DG has weight. Brundtland took a no prisoners approach & called out misbehaviour when it occurred, *esp* after Dr Urbani died. RIP. @DrTedros has to take same approach. Or we all pack bags & go home.