Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

The Conversation logo

It wouldn’t make much sense to sack the fire service during a forest fire, yet that’s effectively what US President Donald Trump has done by suspending funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) in the middle of a pandemic. The WHO is by no means perfect, but undermining the world’s only global public health agency does not serve US interests.

The US is the biggest contributor to the 194-member WHO, providing around US$400 million (£322 million) annually, which makes up about a fifth of the budget. The organisation has been asked to do more with less for decades and is already in a fairly perilous financial situation.

Although the move is characteristically shortsighted, this time Trump’s decision was premeditated. On April 10, he hinted that US funding would be withdrawn, adding: “We’re looking at it very, very closely … we’ll have a lot to say about it.”

The following week he confirmed the suspension of funding and blamed the WHO for “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of coronavirus”. He argued that the organisation had been too slow to investigate the outbreak and had been complicit in China’s suppression and misreporting of cases.

Read the full article on The Conversation website, written by Luke Allen, GP Academic Clinical Fellow in Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences

Oxford is a subscribing member of The ConversationFind out how you can write for The Conversation.

Similar stories

What’s your sound barrier? New study finds nearly one in five people in the UK find everyday sounds intolerable

Researchers from King’s College London and University of Oxford have shown that 18.4 per cent of the general UK population report that certain sounds, such as loud chewing, and repetitive sniffing, cause a significant problem in their lives. The condition is known as misophonia.

Misophonia: nearly one in five UK adults have the condition causing extreme reactions to certain sounds

Many of us have sounds that we find to be annoying. But for some people, certain sounds actually trigger extreme reactions.

Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer

An analysis of data by researchers at the Nuffield Department of Population Health’s Cancer Epidemiology Unit has shown that use of progestogen-only hormonal contraceptives is associated with a 20-30% higher risk of breast cancer. The results are published in PLOS Medicine.

Viewing self-harm images on the internet and in social media usually causes harm, according to new review

Clinical researchers have reviewed the international research evidence regarding the impact of viewing images of self-harm on the internet and in social media.

Can humans hibernate?

Illuminating new TEDx Talk from Professor of Sleep Physiology Vladyslav Vyazovskiy

Athena Swan Gold Award success for Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences

The award reflects the Department’s commitment to representation, progression and success for all. It acknowledges the innovative policies and practices developed across the department and the detailed action plans for improvement.