[bjourne]

I can only speak for myself, but the "red flags" that you speak of [1-5] aren't very convincing to me. That there are errors in WHOs data isn't surprising, nor that it needs to make pragmatic decisions in trying to get authoritarian regimes to cooperate. That WHOs guidance sometimes is confusing is what you'd expect from a world-wide organization in large part made up of volunteers run on a relatively tiny budget.

Unless you are an expert in epidemology or international humanitarian politics, I don't think the organization you would form would do a better job than WHO. Therefore I'm not interested in helping you.

If you want to help improve worldwide health then you could enroll in one of its many volunteer programs. That way, you would gain valuable experience in how the organization operates which would help you if you decide to create an alternative.

[PierredeFermat]

I don't think we should just give up to the fact that it's normal to have errors coming from these big Orgs operating at such a sensitive front. Look what some small errors and delays are doing.

If an organisation gets too big to keep its act together, perhaps it's time to make it more decentralized and dynamic (the original proposition).

I also honestly don't think working as a volunteer would really get you to understand how something like the WHO is being actually run.

I'm not an expert (would never say otherwise). But the world is full of experts locked in dogmas and lacks those couragious enough to break free, look stupid and try new things.

[tcbasche]

> perhaps it's time to make it more decentralized and dynamic (the original proposition)

Honestly, what does that even mean? Wouldn't it be even more chaotic?