ABSTRACT
In hindsight, the early response of liberal governments to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was chaotic and generally inefficient. Though one might be tempted to attribute these failures to the incompetence of certain political decision-makers, we propose another explanation. Global threats require a coordinated international response, which is only possible if the threat is perceived in the same way by all, and if government priorities are similar. The effectiveness of the response also relies on massive adhesion of citizens to the measures imposed, which in turn requires trust in government. Our hypothesis is that certain fundamental features of liberalism complicate such global and collective responses: neutrality of the state and primacy of the individual over collective society. Liberalism considers that institutions and public policy must not be designed to favor any specific conception of the common good. That which is best for all is usually determined by a “competition of opinions,” which frequently leads to scientific expertise being considered as only one opinion among many. Liberalism also imposes strict respect for individual freedoms and private interests and tends to reject any form of collectivism or dictate imposed by the common good. In order to solve these structural problems and improve society's management of global threats, we make several proposals, such as the introduction of a minimal and consensual definition of the common good and the promotion of a health policy guided by One Health-like concepts. Overall, our analysis suggests that because political ideologies provide their own definitions of the common good and the place of scientific knowledge in the governance process and can thus affect the response to global threats, they should be urgently taken into consideration by public health experts.
ABSTRACT
[...]que jamais, une politique sanitaire européenne reposant sur un cadre conceptuel scientifique s’avère indispensable pour prévenir et faire face aux futures pandémies tout comme aux conséquences du changement climatique et de la pollution atmosphérique. Dans le cas des épidémies, One Health favorise une politique proactive en surveillant les zones identifiées comme à risque et en régulant l’usage des sols, les conditions d’élevage et de transport des animaux. Pour atteindre cet objectif, comme dans le domaine de la promotion de la santé, le plaidoyer est fondamental : les acteurs de terrain tout comme les associations ont la responsabilité d’informer, d’alerter sur ces sujets et de participer à induire, le plus rapidement possible car le temps nous est compté, un changement de comportement de l’humain face à la nature.
ABSTRACT
Al 1 de mayo del 2021, cerca de 3.2 millones de personas habían fallecido de la COVID-19 y su existencia prolongada (3) e incapacitante, así como el impacto de las medidas de confinamiento y de distanciación sobre la precariedad, la educación y la salud mental, dejan suponer un costo humano considerablemente mayor a mediano y a largo plazo. Esta interdependencia entre salud humana, salud animal y el estado de los ecosistemas es la base del concepto Una Salud (One Health) que hoy constituye el marco conceptual de la estrategia de agencias de salud pública nacionales e internacionales como la OMS, la Organización Mundial de la Salud Animal y la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura. En 1984, Medicina veterinaria y salud humana, obra de uno de los padres de la epidemiología moderna, el veterinario Calvin Schwab, dejaba ya en evidencia la interconexión entre la salud animal y humana.