Learning from the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparing policy responses in Uruguay with 10 other Latin American and Caribbean countries.

A range of public health and social measures have been employed in response to the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Yet, pandemic responses have varied across the region, particularly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, with Uruguay effectively limiting transmission during this crucial phase. This review describes features of pandemic responses which may have contributed to Uruguay's early success relative to 10 other LAC countries - Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago. Uruguay differentiated its early response efforts from reviewed countries by foregoing strict border closures and restrictions on movement, and rapidly implementing a suite of economic and social measures. Our findings describe the importance of supporting adherence to public health interventions by ensuring that effective social and economic safety net measures are in place to permit compliance with public health measures.

How an outbreak became a pandemic: a chronological analysis of crucial junctures and international obligations in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Understanding the spread of SARS-CoV-2, how and when evidence emerged, and the timing of local, national, regional, and global responses is essential to establish how an outbreak became a pandemic and to prepare for future health threats. With that aim, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response has developed a chronology of events, actions, and recommendations, from December, 2019, when the first cases of COVID-19 were identified in China, to the end of March, 2020, by which time the outbreak had spread extensively worldwide and had been characterised as a pandemic. Datapoints are based on two literature reviews, WHO documents and correspondence, submissions to the Panel, and an expert verification process. The retrospective analysis of the chronology shows a dedicated initial response by WHO and some national governments, but also aspects of the response that could have been quicker, including outbreak notifications under the International Health Regulations (IHR), presumption and confirmation of human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2, declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and, most importantly, the public health response of many national governments. The chronology also shows that some countries, largely those with previous experience with similar outbreaks, reacted quickly, even ahead of WHO alerts, and were more successful in initially containing the virus. Mapping actions against IHR obligations, the chronology shows where efficiency and accountability could be improved at local, national, and international levels to more quickly alert and contain health threats in the future. In particular, these improvements include necessary reforms to international law and governance for pandemic preparedness and response, including the IHR and a potential framework convention on pandemic preparedness and response.