The “Pandemic” designation wasn’t appropriate back then because it just wasn’t a pandemic at that time. They very clearly said it was on its way to becoming one.
I’m starting to suspect this griping about the WHO is somehow motivated. People tend not to be this willfully stupid unless politics are involved.
@glitchc is right though! He said “national emergency” and in January the only nation impacted was China ;)
(Even though it was obvious to anyone with half a brain in January that this thing was going to spread and become a global problem in no time... and that the WHO said as much, too.)
Everyone serious knew it was coming in January. Once it's declared a pandemic, it's already arrived. People have to stop pretending that "no one could have known". Everybody knew. We were all yelling about it at the time.
We have to wait for evidence (numbers) before declaring it a pandemic. Cooler heads must prevail. Plus, Roche would not have been able to obtain a 24 hour approval turnaround without the official declaration of emergency.
You mentioned the lack of a declared pandemic in response to a statement that the need for tests was clear in January. Now you mention the need for "numbers" (i.e., positive tests) in the same context. I think you're getting it backwards. A widely available test was essential for establishing that it was a pandemic. We all need to keep cool heads, but we don't need to make excuses or pretend that the lack of tests in the U.S. was the result of prudence and good sense. We could have responded faster. Our national policy isn't dictated by the WHO. It was a failure. If waiting for the WHO to declare a pandemic held back our response, we shouldn't have waited. If we needed a national emergency declared earlier in order to respond correctly, we should have declared it.
Why are people like this? Everyone knew more testing (the subject at hand) was needed. The second the first case was detected in the US (January 22) there was instant coverage of the inability of people in Seattle to get tests. And there were no tests. And there remained no tests. And only now, as the US clusters have started to spread out of control, are we seeing a significant acceleration in test availability (c.f. the linked article, about quick approval for a new test mechanism). And we know this wasn't impossible, because many nations (South Korea, Taiwan, Japan) got this right and managed extensive testing.
Why are people resistant to this argument? We. Fucked. Up. It's maybe not productive to argue about recriminations at this point, but if so it's even worse to try to excuse it away or pretend that it didn't happen. It was a terrible mistake, and right now it looks like lots of people are going to die because of it.
Billions is a high ask; almost nobody has the kinds of capital needed to do that, and even for those that do, a highly levered bet that hundreds of thousands of people are going to die is pretty slimy. Lots of people (including me) did sell substantial amounts of stock before mid-February to ensure we have money available.
I guess you're getting downvoted because of your tone, but I think you're essentially right. selling off a bunch of stock in expectation of a looming crisis is a choice that leaves your buyers holding the bag when it strikes. it's not fundamentally different than using leverage, options, or whatever exotic investment tool you fancy. people ascribe an arbitrary moral difference between selling to prevent losses and more active investing to seek a profit. in both cases people are making a bet on the outcome of an uncertain event. some will win and some will lose.
regardless, moves made by a small private investor don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. just don't panic sell.
Shorting the market in January and February would've been more of a bet on government inaction than a bet on any inherent characteristics of the virus.
Many predicted large epidemics in multiple countries, but the CDC/FDA testing fiasco, or the lackluster response in EU wasn't easy to predict.
I agree with OP that "everyone should stop pretending that 'no one could have known'". The probability of having a large epidemic in each country was significant, definitely above 2%. That number alone would've warranted ramping up production of test kits and sanitary supplies, building fever clinics, doing emergency drills, and setting up some data sharing infrastructure between healthcare providers. Most developed countries didn't do any of that.
