> WHO's excuse of not declaring it before was that it didn't reach Antarctica yet

You're going to need to cite a source because there's no chance anyone remotely educated would make that statement.

Following organized, rational procedure is exactly what is needed in times of widespread panic. If the WHO based their decisions such as this one on emotions like fear or intuition then they really would be damaging their credibility. Let's be honest, if countries hadn't been enforcing proper procedures to this point, how likely is it that a label by the WHO would make that much of an impact to governments?

Now, inactive governments may be held accountable of not listening to the WHO. Also, calling it a pandemic 2 weeks ago (or more) would have been perfectly rational.

They didn't base their decision on the observed growth curve. Anyone looking at the data could have called this a pandemic the moment it left Asia.

The WHO and CDC botched this. Because of their messaging a lot of people (the majority of people!) didn't take this virus seriously, and that is going to result in real human lives lost.

Well it's gotta hit Madagascar before it can win

Holy hell! That site still exists? I remember going on there all the time in the early 2000's cause my parents couldn't afford a newer console and our PS2 basically died.

I like to think it's never too soon, most seem to think otherwise.

It's a reference to Plague Inc

Who is your goto authority that has supplanted WHO in healthcare matters?

As in, who do people like you, who claim that WHO's maybe flawed handling of this has erased all of the work they've done in the past, consider the best source of truth in these matters?

They vacillated many weeks and they even claimed they had done away with the term/classification of “pandemic” in favor of some word soup.

My point being: some Internet rando making claims about WHO's credibility is only worth that much.

I got this from OP:

> This should have been done way earlier

Not what you're sayin.

Indeed.

So I read OP's comment as self-contradictory and am still not quite sure what to make of it.

How is OP's comment self-contradictory by saying that WHO lost all credibility by declaring it a pandemic too late?

Credibility is the quality one has when one's statements ought to be believed. OP claims the WHO lacks this quality. OP doesn't illustrate what specific statements the WHO could make that aren't trustworthy; but in the very same comment only quotes a single one from them: the fact that Covid-19 would be a pandemic.

So the only (provided) statement we should disbelieve is that Covid-19 is a pandemic. Which is precisely what OP wanted them to say. Hence the contradiction.

Obviously, this line of reasoning is tenuous, but the initial claim isn't much better, as nothing is said of what it really means for the WHO to have credibility.

I read that comment as an additional armchair semanticist making the strong claim that (exaggeration mine) the WHO should have declared the pandemic before the virus reached their own country.