Potential lessons from the Taiwan and New Zealand health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Approaches to preventing or mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have varied markedly between nations. We examined the approach up to August 2020 taken by two jurisdictions which had successfully eliminated COVID-19 by this time: Taiwan and New Zealand. Taiwan reported a lower COVID-19 incidence rate (20.7 cases per million) compared with NZ (278.0 per million). Extensive public health infrastructure established in Taiwan pre-COVID-19 enabled a fast coordinated response, particularly in the domains of early screening, effective methods for isolation/quarantine, digital technologies for identifying potential cases and mass mask use. This timely and vigorous response allowed Taiwan to avoid the national lockdown used by New Zealand. Many of Taiwan's pandemic control components could potentially be adopted by other jurisdictions.

Comparing COVID-19 pandemic health responses in two high-income island nations: Iceland and New Zealand.

AIMS: We aimed to compare COVID-19 control measures, epidemiological characteristics and economic performance measures in two high-income island nations with small populations, favorable border control options, and relatively good outcomes: Iceland and New Zealand (NZ). METHODS: We examined peer-reviewed journal articles, official websites, reports, media releases and press articles for data on pandemic preparedness and COVID-19 public health responses from 1 January 2020 to 1 June 2022 in Iceland and NZ. We calculated epidemiological characteristics of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as measures of economic performance. RESULTS: Both nations had the lowest excess mortality in the OECD from the start of the pandemic up to June 2022. Iceland pursued a mitigation strategy, never used lockdowns or officially closed its border to foreign nationals, and instead relied on extensive testing and contact tracing early in the pandemic. Meanwhile, NZ pursued an elimination strategy, used a strict national lockdown to stop transmission, and closed its international border to everyone except citizens and permanent residents going through quarantine and testing. Iceland experienced a larger decrease in gross domestic product in 2020 (relative to 2019) than NZ (-8·27% vs. -1·22%, respectively). In late 2021, NZ announced a shift to a suppression strategy and in 2022 began to reopen its border in stages, while Iceland ended all public restrictions on 25 February 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Many of Iceland's and NZ's pandemic control measures appeared successful and features of the responses in both countries could potentially be adopted by other jurisdictions to address future disease outbreaks and pandemic threats.

The potential human health hazard of nitrates in drinking water: a media discourse analysis in a high-income country.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies linking low levels of nitrate in drinking water to colorectal cancer have raised public concerns over nitrate contamination. The aim of this study was to analyze the media discourse on the potential human health hazard of nitrates in drinking water in a high-income country with a large livestock industry: New Zealand (NZ). METHODS: Searches of media sources ("major newspapers") held by the Factiva database for the NZ setting in the five-year period 17 December 2016 to 20 December 2021. RESULTS: The largest number of media items was observed for 2017 (n = 108), the year of a NZ general election, with a notable decrease in 2020 (n = 20) that was likely due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which dominated health media. However, the percentage of these media items with a health focus steadily increased over time, from 11.1% of all articles in 2017 to 51.2% in 2021. The most commonly mentioned health hazard was colorectal cancer, followed by methemoglobinemia. The temporal pattern of media items suggests that the release of scientific studies and scholarly blogs was associated with the publication of subsequent media items. Major stakeholders involved in the discourse included representatives of local and central government, environmental and recreational interest groups, researchers, local residents, agricultural interest groups, and health organizations. Maori (Indigenous New Zealanders) values or perspectives were rarely mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of major newspapers for a five-year period indicated that a wide range of expert comment and opinions were made available to the public and policy makers on the issue of nitrates in water. While many different stakeholder views were captured in the media discourse, there is scope for the media to better report the views of Maori on this topic. There is also a need for articles detailing the health issues to also refer to the environmental, recreational, and cultural aspects of protecting water quality to ensure that the public, policy makers, and regulators are aware of co-benefits.

The 2021 Global Health Security (GHS) Index: Aotearoa New Zealand's improving capacity to manage biological threats must now be consolidated.

The 2021 Global Health Security (GHS) Index Report was published on 8 December 2021. With an average country score of 38.9 out of a possible 100 points, global scores are essentially unchanged from 2019. Despite experience with the COVID-19 pandemic, no country is adequately prepared for future biological threats. No country scored above 75.9 and the scores of the bottom 11 States have all fallen since 2019. Aotearoa New Zealand, however, has substantially improved its country score, rising to 13th in the world at 62.5/100. This gain is partly driven by consolidation of capabilities developed and deployed in response to COVID-19. This is promising progress, but a lot more can be done to ensure legacy benefits from the pandemic response, notably through the proposed restructuring of the health system (Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill). In this viewpoint article, we discuss this recent further development of the GHS Index, highlight the global results for 2021, delve into New Zealand's progress, and discuss what more is needed.

Indoor air quality, largely neglected and in urgent need of a refresh

While outdoor air quality is managed under the Resource Management Act 1991, which sets National Environmental Standards for outdoor air, no equivalent legislation exists for indoor air quality. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognises that healthy indoor air is a basic human right, stating that the quality of the air people breathe in buildings is an important determinant of health and wellbeing.3 According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States (US), indoor air pollutant levels are typically two-to-five times higher than outdoor levels, and in some cases exceed outdoor levels of the same pollutants by a 100 times.4 Globally around 2.6 billion people still use solid fuels and kerosene for cooking, and the United Nations notes that indoor and ambient air pollution are the greatest environmental health risk.3 Time spent indoors combined with higher indoor concentrations of pollutants make the health risks associated with poor air quality usually greater indoors than outdoors. While initial public health efforts focused on measures to reduce fomite transmission, such as hand-washing, it is now well-recognised that airborne exposure is the predominant transmission route of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19).6 International consensus on airborne transmission was achieved in part through cutting-edge research conducted by New Zealand experts, but New Zealand health authorities have been slow to apply this key insight beyond border settings.7 It is imperative that national bodies responsible for the control of the pandemic incorporate the importance of airborne transmission to inform an evidence-based strategy and implement a range of highly effective measures that can prevent airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and other respiratory pathogens, including influenza.8-9'1011 The most effective approach to lowering concentrations of indoor air pollutants, including any pathogens that may be in the air, is usually to increase ventilation,12 exchanging polluted indoor air for cleaner outdoor air. Pollutant standards for heating and cooking appliances, particularly for appliances that use unflued gas should also be considered.20 An investment in clean indoor air could bring benefits other than reducing COVID-19 transmission, including reduced sick leave and school absenteeism caused by other respiratory infections, particularly influenza and other allergies.21 Less absenteeism-with associated adverse effect on productivity-could save companies significant costs.22 Furthermore, there is growing evidence that improved ventilation can improve cognitive functioning of workers and students,23 which can improve both wellbeing, sleep and productivity.24 Ventilation can also reduce indoor moisture particularly in homes, which wifi reduce exposure to respiratory allergens and irritants such as dust mites and mould, resulting in reduced incidence of asthma, rhinitis and allergy symptoms.

Association of Simulated COVID-19 Policy Responses for Social Restrictions and Lockdowns With Health-Adjusted Life-Years and Costs in Victoria, Australia.

Importance: Countries have varied enormously in how they have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from elimination strategies (eg, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan) to tight suppression (not aiming for elimination but rather to keep infection rates low [eg, South Korea]) to loose suppression (eg, Europe, United States) to virtually unmitigated (eg, Brazil, India). Weighing the best option, based on health and economic consequences due to lockdowns, is necessary. Objective: To determine the optimal policy response, using a net monetary benefit (NMB) approach, for policies ranging from aggressive elimination and moderate elimination to tight suppression (aiming for 1-5 cases per million per day) and loose suppression (5-25 cases per million per day). Design Setting and Participants: Using governmental data from the state of Victoria, Australia, and other collected data, 2 simulation models in series were conducted of all residents (population, 6.4 million) for SARS-CoV-2 infections for 1 year from September 1, 2020. An agent-based model (ABM) was used to estimate daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and time in 5 stages of social restrictions (stages 1, 1b, 2, 3, and 4) for 4 policy response settings (aggressive elimination, moderate elimination, tight suppression, and loose suppression), and a proportional multistate life table (PMSLT) model was used to estimate health-adjusted life-years (HALYs) associated with COVID-19 and costs (health systems and health system plus gross domestic product [GDP]). The ABM is a generic COVID-19 model of 2500 agents, or simulants, that was scaled up to the population of interest. Models were specified with data from 2019 (eg, epidemiological data in the PMSLT model) and 2020 (eg, epidemiological and cost consequences of COVID-19). The NMB of each policy option at varying willingness to pay (WTP) per HALY was calculated: NMB = HALYs × WTP - cost. The estimated most cost-effective (optimal) policy response was that with the highest NMB. Main Outcome and Measures: Estimated SARS-CoV-2 infection rates, time under 5 stages of restrictions, HALYs, health expenditure, and GDP losses. Results: In 100 runs of both the ABM and PMSLT models for each of the 4 policy responses, 31.0% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, 56.5% of hospitalizations, and 84.6% of deaths occurred among those 60 years and older. Aggressive elimination was associated with the highest percentage of days with the lowest level of restrictions (median, 31.7%; 90% simulation interval [SI], 6.6%-64.4%). However, days in hard lockdown were similar across all 4 strategies. The HALY losses (compared with a scenario without COVID-19) were similar for aggressive elimination (median, 286 HALYs; 90% SI, 219-389 HALYs) and moderate elimination (median, 314 HALYs; 90% SI, 228-413 HALYs), and nearly 8 and 40 times higher for tight suppression and loose suppression, respectively. The median GDP loss was least for moderate elimination (median, $41.7 billion; 90% SI, $29.0-$63.6 billion), but there was substantial overlap in simulation intervals between the 4 strategies. From a health system perspective, aggressive elimination was optimal in 64% of simulations above a WTP of $15 000 per HALY, followed by moderate elimination in 35% of simulations. Moderate elimination was optimal from a GDP perspective in half of the simulations, followed by aggressive elimination in a quarter. Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulation modeling economic evaluation of estimated SARS-CoV-infection rates, time under 5 stages of restrictions, HALYs, health expenditure, and GDP losses in Victoria, Australia, an elimination strategy was associated with the least health losses and usually the fewest GDP losses.

Modelling SARS-CoV-2 disease progression in Australia and New Zealand: an account of an agent-based approach to support public health decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: In 2020, we developed a public health decision-support model for mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Australia and New Zealand. Having demonstrated its capacity to describe disease progression patterns during both countries' first waves of infections, we describe its utilisation in Victoria in underpinning the State Government's then 'RoadMap to Reopening'. METHODS: Key aspects of population demographics, disease, spatial and behavioural dynamics, as well as the mechanism, timing, and effect of non-pharmaceutical public health policies responses on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in both countries were represented in an agent-based model. We considered scenarios related to the imposition and removal of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the estimated progression of SARS-CoV-2 infections. RESULTS: Wave 1 results suggested elimination of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was possible in both countries given sustained public adherence to social restrictions beyond 60 days' duration. However, under scenarios of decaying adherence to restrictions, a second wave of infections (Wave 2) was predicted in Australia. In Victoria's second wave, we estimated in early September 2020 that a rolling 14-day average of <5 new cases per day was achievable on or around 26 October. Victoria recorded a 14-day rolling average of 4.6 cases per day on 25 October. CONCLUSIONS: Elimination of SARS-CoV-2 transmission represented in faithfully constructed agent-based models can be replicated in the real world. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Agent-based public health policy models can be helpful to support decision-making in novel and complex unfolding public health crises.

Association of Simulated COVID-19 Policy Responses for Social Restrictions and Lockdowns With Health-Adjusted Life-Years and Costs in Victoria, Australia

This economic evaluation determines the optimal policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria, Australia, using a net monetary benefit approach for policies ranging from aggressive elimination and moderate elimination to tight suppression and loose suppression. Key Points Question What has the least health losses and is the most cost-effective of 4 policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic (aggressive elimination, moderate elimination, tight suppression, and loose suppression) in the state of Victoria, Australia? Findings In this simulation modeling economic evaluation of health losses and costs from COVID-19 policy responses, aggressive elimination was the most cost-effective from a health system perspective in 64% of simulations above a willingness to pay of $15 000 per health-adjusted life-years, followed by moderate elimination in 35% of simulations. Moderate elimination was most cost-effective from a gross domestic product (GDP) perspective (ie, including GDP losses in addition to health expenditure) in half of the simulations, followed by aggressive elimination in a quarter. Meaning While there is considerable uncertainty in outcomes for all 4 policy responses, the 2 elimination options appear to be the most optimal from both health system and health plus GDP perspectives. Importance Countries have varied enormously in how they have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from elimination strategies (eg, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan) to tight suppression (not aiming for elimination but rather to keep infection rates low [eg, South Korea]) to loose suppression (eg, Europe, United States) to virtually unmitigated (eg, Brazil, India). Weighing the best option, based on health and economic consequences due to lockdowns, is necessary. Objective To determine the optimal policy response, using a net monetary benefit (NMB) approach, for policies ranging from aggressive elimination and moderate elimination to tight suppression (aiming for 1-5 cases per million per day) and loose suppression (5-25 cases per million per day). Design, Setting, and Participants Using governmental data from the state of Victoria, Australia, and other collected data, 2 simulation models in series were conducted of all residents (population, 6.4 million) for SARS-CoV-2 infections for 1 year from September 1, 2020. An agent-based model (ABM) was used to estimate daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and time in 5 stages of social restrictions (stages 1, 1b, 2, 3, and 4) for 4 policy response settings (aggressive elimination, moderate elimination, tight suppression, and loose suppression), and a proportional multistate life table (PMSLT) model was used to estimate health-adjusted life-years (HALYs) associated with COVID-19 and costs (health systems and health system plus gross domestic product [GDP]). The ABM is a generic COVID-19 model of 2500 agents, or simulants, that was scaled up to the population of interest. Models were specified with data from 2019 (eg, epidemiological data in the PMSLT model) and 2020 (eg, epidemiological and cost consequences of COVID-19). The NMB of each policy option at varying willingness to pay (WTP) per HALY was calculated: NMB = HALYs × WTP − cost. The estimated most cost-effective (optimal) policy response was that with the highest NMB. Main Outcome and Measures Estimated SARS-CoV-2 infection rates, time under 5 stages of restrictions, HALYs, health expenditure, and GDP losses. Results In 100 runs of both the ABM and PMSLT models for each of the 4 policy responses, 31.0% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, 56.5% of hospitalizations, and 84.6% of deaths occurred among those 60 years and older. Aggressive elimination was associated with the highest percentage of days with the lowest level of restrictions (median, 31.7%;90% simulation interval [SI], 6.6%-64.4%). However, days in hard lockdown were similar across all 4 strategies. The HALY losses (compared with a scenario without COVID-19) were similar for aggressive eliminatio (median, 286 HALYs;90% SI, 219-389 HALYs) and moderate elimination (median, 314 HALYs;90% SI, 228-413 HALYs), and nearly 8 and 40 times higher for tight suppression and loose suppression, respectively. The median GDP loss was least for moderate elimination (median, $41.7 billion;90% SI, $29.0-$63.6 billion), but there was substantial overlap in simulation intervals between the 4 strategies. From a health system perspective, aggressive elimination was optimal in 64% of simulations above a WTP of $15 000 per HALY, followed by moderate elimination in 35% of simulations. Moderate elimination was optimal from a GDP perspective in half of the simulations, followed by aggressive elimination in a quarter. Conclusions and Relevance In this simulation modeling economic evaluation of estimated SARS-CoV-infection rates, time under 5 stages of restrictions, HALYs, health expenditure, and GDP losses in Victoria, Australia, an elimination strategy was associated with the least health losses and usually the fewest GDP losses.

Blocking the human common beta subunit of the GM-CSF, IL-5 and IL-3 receptors markedly reduces hyperinflammation in ARDS models.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is triggered by various aetiological factors such as trauma, sepsis and respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A virus. Immune profiling of severe COVID-19 patients has identified a complex pattern of cytokines including granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and interleukin (IL)-5, which are significant mediators of viral-induced hyperinflammation. This strong response has prompted the development of therapies that block GM-CSF and other cytokines individually to limit inflammation related pathology. The common cytokine binding site of the human common beta (ßc) receptor signals for three inflammatory cytokines: GM-CSF, IL-5 and IL-3. In this study, ßc was targeted with the monoclonal antibody (mAb) CSL311 in engineered mice devoid of mouse ßc and ßIL-3 and expressing human ßc (hßcTg mice). Direct pulmonary administration of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) caused ARDS-like lung injury, and CSL311 markedly reduced lung inflammation and oedema, resulting in improved oxygen saturation levels in hßcTg mice. In a separate model, influenza (HKx31) lung infection caused viral pneumonia associated with a large influx of myeloid cells into the lungs of hßcTg mice. The therapeutic application of CSL311 potently decreased accumulation of monocytes/macrophages, neutrophils, and eosinophils without altering lung viral loads. Furthermore, CSL311 treatment did not limit the viral-induced expansion of NK and NKT cells, or the tissue expression of type I/II/III interferons needed for efficient viral clearance. Simultaneously blocking GM-CSF, IL-5 and IL-3 signalling with CSL311 may represent an improved and clinically applicable strategy to reducing hyperinflammation in the ARDS setting.

Predicting future default on the Covid-19 bounce back loan scheme: The £46.5 billion question

The UK has had a commitment to loan guarantee schemes since 1981 when it introduced the Small Firms Loan Guarantee (SFLG) scheme to address access to debt finance issues for smaller firms. Over the last 40 years, its support has been unwavering, and in the Covid-19 crisis, it once again turned to loan guarantees as a means of supporting smaller firms through the crisis-induced slump in trading activities. Of its three core Covid-19 guarantee schemes, the Bounce Back Loan (BBL) scheme was the most numerous with 1,531,095 loans issued amounting to a total of £46.5bn in lending. The BBL scheme provided a 100% capital guarantee on loans between £2,000 and £50,000, and firms were allowed to borrow up to 25% of their trading income, with a fixed interest rate of 2.5% of which the first years interest was paid by the government to the lending bank. Our findings suggest that the government losses may range between £7bn and £12bn depending on the underlying assumptions;however, we estimate Covid-19 guarantee schemes may have protected 118,639 businesses and 1,117,849 jobs. Looking to the future, we suggest that a new loan guarantee is justified that more resembles the former SFLG than the restrictive Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) as more than one million small businesses will be heavily indebted and unable to borrow to invest in future growth opportunities. This would support the ?levelling-up? agenda and help prevent a post-Covid-19 low investment?low growth scenario.

Failures of quarantine systems for preventing COVID-19 outbreaks in Australia and New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES: To identify COVID-19 quarantine system failures in Australia and New Zealand. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Observational epidemiological study of travellers in managed quarantine in Australia and New Zealand, to 15 June 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of quarantine system failures, and failure with respect to numbers of travellers and SARS-CoV-2-positive travellers. RESULTS: We identified 22 quarantine system failures in Australia and ten in New Zealand to 15 June 2021. One failure initiated a COVID-19 outbreak that caused more than 800 deaths (the Victorian "second wave"); nine lockdowns were linked with quarantine system failures. The failure risk was estimated to be 5.0 failures per 100 000 travellers passing through quarantine and 6.1 (95% CI, 4.0-8.3) failures per 1000 SARS-CoV-2-positive travellers. The risk per 1000 SARS-CoV-2-positive travellers was higher in New Zealand than Australia (relative risk, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-4.2). CONCLUSIONS: Quarantine system failures can be costly in terms of lives and economic impact, including lockdowns. Our findings indicate that infection control in quarantine systems in Australia and New Zealand should be improved, including vaccination of quarantine workers and incoming travellers, or that alternatives to hotel-based quarantine should be developed.

Potential impact of COVID-19 related unemployment on increased cardiovascular disease in a high-income country: Modeling health loss, cost and equity.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of health loss and health sector economic burdens in high-income countries. Unemployment is associated with increased risk of CVD, and so there is concern that the economic downturn associated with the COVID-19 pandemic will increase the CVD burden. AIMS: This modeling study aimed to quantify potential health loss, health cost burden and health inequities among people with CVD due to additional unemployment caused by COVID-19 pandemic-related economic disruption in one high-income country: New Zealand (NZ). METHODS: We adapted an established and validated multi-state life-table model for CVD in the national NZ population. We modeled indirect effects (ie, higher CVD incidence due to high unemployment rates) for various scenarios of pandemic-related unemployment projections from the NZ Treasury. RESULTS: We estimated the potential CVD-related heath loss in NZ to range from 23,300 to 36,900 health-adjusted life years (HALYs) for the different unemployment scenarios. Health inequities would be increased with the per capita health loss for Maori (Indigenous population) estimated to be 3.7 times greater than for non-Maori (49.9 vs 13.5 HALYs lost per 1000 people). The estimated additional health system costs ranged between (NZ$303 million [m] to 503m in 2019 values; or US$209m to 346m). CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic could cause significant health loss, increase health inequities from CVD, and impose additional health system costs in this high-income country. Prevention measures should be considered by governments to reduce this risk, including additional job creation programs and measures directed towards the primary prevention of CVD.

Estimating the impact of control measures to prevent outbreaks of COVID-19 associated with air travel into a COVID-19-free country.

We aimed to estimate the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks associated with air travel to a COVID-19-free country [New Zealand (NZ)]. A stochastic version of the SEIR model CovidSIM v1.1, designed specifically for COVID-19 was utilised. We first considered historical data for Australia before it eliminated COVID-19 (equivalent to an outbreak generating 74 new cases/day) and one flight per day to NZ with no interventions in place. This gave a median time to an outbreak of 0.2 years (95% range of simulation results: 3 days to 1.1 years) or a mean of 110 flights per outbreak. However, the combined use of a pre-flight PCR test of saliva, three subsequent PCR tests (on days 1, 3 and 12 in NZ), and various other interventions (mask use and contact tracing) reduced this risk to one outbreak after a median of 1.5 years (20 days to 8.1 years). A pre-flight test plus 14 days quarantine was an even more effective strategy (4.9 years; 2,594 flights). For a much lower prevalence (representing only two new community cases per week in the whole of Australia), the annual risk of an outbreak with no interventions was 1.2% and had a median time to an outbreak of 56 years. In contrast the risks associated with travellers from Japan and the United States was very much higher and would need quarantine or other restrictions. Collectively, these results suggest that multi-layered interventions can markedly reduce the risk of importing the pandemic virus via air travel into a COVID-19-free nation. For some low-risk source countries, there is the potential to replace 14-day quarantine with alternative interventions. However, all approaches require public and policy deliberation about acceptable risks, and continuous careful management and evaluation.

Optimizing Island Refuges against global Catastrophic and Existential Biological Threats: Priorities and Preparations.

Human civilization is vulnerable to global catastrophic biological threats and existential threats. Policy to mitigate the impact of major biological threats should consider worst-case scenarios. We aimed to strengthen existing research on island refuges as a mitigating mechanism against such threats by considering five additional factors as well as recent literature on catastrophic risks and resilience. We also analyzed the performance of potential refuge islands during early phases the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a composite indicator (scored from 0-1) based on 14 global macroindices, we present analysis supporting Australia (0.71), New Zealand (0.64), and Iceland (0.58) as the leading candidate island nation refuges to safeguard the survival of humanity and a flourishing technological civilization from the threat of a catastrophic pandemic. Data from the COVID-19 pandemic supports this finding where islands have performed relatively well. We discuss the persisting weaknesses of even the best candidate refuges and the growing literature describing what preparations such a refuge should ensure to enhance resilience. Refuge preparations by Australia and New Zealand, in particular, may additionally provide some immunity against winter-inducing catastrophes such as global nuclear war. Existing disaster resilience frameworks such as the Sendai framework could be worded to mandate preventive measures against global catastrophic and existential threats. The issue of island refuges against certain global catastrophic risks should be raised at relevant international political summits.