Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
2.
Lancet ; 398(10316): 2109-2124, 2021 12 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1598178

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Animals , COVID-19/transmission , China/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Global Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Information Dissemination , International Cooperation , International Health Regulations , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Time Factors , World Health Organization , Zoonoses/virology
7.
PLoS Biol ; 19(10): e3001422, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456048
9.
Curr Opin Infect Dis ; 34(5): 393-400, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1338763

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic is a global catastrophe that has led to untold suffering and death. Many previously identified policy challenges in planning for large epidemics and pandemics have been brought to the fore, and new ones have emerged. Here, we review key policy challenges and lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in order to be better prepared for the future. RECENT FINDINGS: The most important challenges facing policymakers include financing outbreak preparedness and response in a complex political environment with limited resources, coordinating response efforts among a growing and diverse range of national and international actors, accurately assessing national outbreak preparedness, addressing the shortfall in the global health workforce, building surge capacity of both human and material resources, balancing investments in public health and curative services, building capacity for outbreak-related research and development, and reinforcing measures for infection prevention and control. SUMMARY: In recent years, numerous epidemics and pandemics have caused not only considerable loss of life, but billions of dollars of economic loss. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a wake-up call and led to the implementation of relevant policies and countermeasures. Nevertheless, many questions remain and much work to be done. Wise policies and approaches for outbreak control exist but will require the political will to implement them.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Epidemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Epidemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/prevention & control , Animals , Disease Outbreaks/legislation & jurisprudence , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Global Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Workforce/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence
14.
Pharmacol Res ; 166: 105472, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1084633

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has now rapidly spread around the world, causing an outbreak of acute infectious pneumonia. To develop effective and safe therapies for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has become the major global public health concern. Traditional medicine (TM)/herbal medicines (HMs) have been used to treat multiple epidemics in human history, which brings hope for the fight against COVID-19 in some areas. For example, in China, India, and South Korea with traditional medication history and theory, the governments issued a series of guidelines to support TM/HMs in the medication of COVID-19. In contrast, other countries e.g. North American and European governments are typically silent on these practices, unless to warn of possible harm and overselling. Such difference is due to the discrepancy in culture, history and philosophical views of health care and medication, as well as unharmonized policies and standards in the regulation and legalization of TM/HMs among different areas. Herein, we reviewed the responses and scientific researches from seven selected countries on the policies and legalization of TM/HMs to treat COVID-19, and also analyzed the major challenges and concerns to utilize the traditional knowledge and resource.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/therapy , Complementary Therapies/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Approval/legislation & jurisprudence , Global Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicine, Traditional , Plant Preparations/therapeutic use , Healthcare Disparities/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Policy Making
15.
Int J Health Policy Manag ; 9(10): 429-431, 2020 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1068308

ABSTRACT

Political scientists bring important tools to the analysis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly a focus on the crucial role of power in global health politics. We delineate different kinds of power at play during the COVID-19 crisis, showing how a dearth of compulsory, institutional, and epistemic power undermined global cooperation and fueled the pandemic, with its significant loss to human life and huge economic toll. Through the pandemic response, productive and structural power became apparent, as issue frames stressing security and then preserving livelihoods overwhelmed public health and human rights considerations. Structural power rooted in economic inequalities between and within countries conditioned responses and shaped vulnerabilities, as the crisis threatened to deepen power imbalances along multiple lines. Calls for global health security will surely take on a new urgency in the aftermath of the pandemic and the forms of power delineated here will shape their outcome.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , Global Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Power, Psychological , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Politics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL