Mpox neglect and the smallpox niche: a problem for Africa, a problem for the world.

Mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) is a zoonotic viral disease endemic in parts of Africa. In May, 2022, the world was alerted to circulation of monkeypox virus in many high-income countries outside of Africa. Continued spread resulted in a WHO declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Although there has been much attention on the global outbreak, most of the focus has been on high-income countries outside of Africa, despite the fact that monkeypox virus has been causing disease in parts of Africa for at least 50 years. Furthermore, the long-term consequences of this event, especially the risk that mpox fills the niche vacated through smallpox eradication, have not been sufficiently considered. The heart of the problem is the historical neglect of mpox in Africa where the disease is endemic, and the actual and potential consequences if this neglect is left uncorrected.

Global and regional governance of One Health and implications for global health security.

The apparent failure of global health security to prevent or prepare for the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for closer cooperation between human, animal (domestic and wildlife), and environmental health sectors. However, the many institutions, processes, regulatory frameworks, and legal instruments with direct and indirect roles in the global governance of One Health have led to a fragmented, global, multilateral health security architecture. We explore four challenges: first, the sectoral, professional, and institutional silos and tensions existing between human, animal, and environmental health; second, the challenge that the international legal system, state sovereignty, and existing legal instruments pose for the governance of One Health; third, the power dynamics and asymmetry in power between countries represented in multilateral institutions and their impact on priority setting; and finally, the current financing mechanisms that predominantly focus on response to crises, and the chronic underinvestment for epidemic and emergency prevention, mitigation, and preparedness activities. We illustrate the global and regional dimensions to these four challenges and how they relate to national needs and priorities through three case studies on compulsory licensing, the governance of water resources in the Lake Chad Basin, and the desert locust infestation in east Africa. Finally, we propose 12 recommendations for the global community to address these challenges. Despite its broad and holistic agenda, One Health continues to be dominated by human and domestic animal health experts. Substantial efforts should be made to address the social-ecological drivers of health emergencies including outbreaks of emerging, re-emerging, and endemic infectious diseases. These drivers include climate change, biodiversity loss, and land-use change, and therefore require effective and enforceable legislation, investment, capacity building, and integration of other sectors and professionals beyond health.

Bridging global health actors and agendas: the role of national public health institutes.

Global health crises require coordination and collaboration among actors and global health agendas including health security, health promotion, and universal health coverage. This study investigated whether national public health institutes (NPHIs) unify agendas and actors, how this can be achieved, and what factors contribute to success. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 public health leaders from 18 countries in six WHO regions between 2019 and 2020. Respondents described how NPHIs bridge agendas reporting five strategies that institutes employ: serving as a trusted scientific advisor; convening actors across and within sectors; prioritizing transdisciplinary approaches; integrating public health infrastructures, and training that builds public health capacity. Findings also revealed five enabling factors critical to success: a strong legal foundation; scientific independence; public trust and legitimacy; networks and partnerships at global, national, and local levels; and stable funding. The Covid-19 pandemic underscores the urgency of securing scientific independence and promoting national institutes' responsiveness to public health challenges.

Diagnostics for COVID-19: moving from pandemic response to control.

Diagnostics have proven to be crucial to the COVID-19 pandemic response. There are three major methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection and their role has evolved during the course of the pandemic. Molecular tests such as PCR are highly sensitive and specific at detecting viral RNA, and are recommended by WHO for confirming diagnosis in individuals who are symptomatic and for activating public health measures. Antigen rapid detection tests detect viral proteins and, although they are less sensitive than molecular tests, have the advantages of being easier to do, giving a faster time to result, of being lower cost, and able to detect infection in those who are most likely to be at risk of transmitting the virus to others. Antigen rapid detection tests can be used as a public health tool for screening individuals at enhanced risk of infection, to protect people who are clinically vulnerable, to ensure safe travel and the resumption of schooling and social activities, and to enable economic recovery. With vaccine roll-out, antibody tests (which detect the host's response to infection or vaccination) can be useful surveillance tools to inform public policy, but should not be used to provide proof of immunity, as the correlates of protection remain unclear. All three types of COVID-19 test continue to have a crucial role in the transition from pandemic response to pandemic control.

SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Vaccines.

Viral variants of concern may emerge with dangerous resistance to the immunity generated by the current vaccines to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Moreover, if some variants of concern have increased transmissibility or virulence, the importance of efficient public health measures and vaccination programs will increase. The global response must be both timely and science based.

Pandemic diseases preparedness and response in the age of COVID-19-a symposium report.

For years, experts have warned that a global pandemic was only a matter of time. Indeed, over the past two decades, several outbreaks and pandemics, from SARS to Ebola, have tested our ability to respond to a disease threat and provided the opportunity to refine our preparedness systems. However, when a novel coronavirus with human-to-human transmissibility emerged in China in 2019, many of these systems were found lacking. From international disputes over data and resources to individual disagreements over the effectiveness of facemasks, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed several vulnerabilities. As of early November 2020, the WHO has confirmed over 46 million cases and 1.2 million deaths worldwide. While the world will likely be reeling from the effects of COVID-19 for months, and perhaps years, to come, one key question must be asked, How can we do better next time? This report summarizes views of experts from around the world on how lessons from past pandemics have shaped our current disease preparedness and response efforts, and how the COVID-19 pandemic may offer an opportunity to reinvent public health and healthcare systems to be more robust the next time a major challenge appears.

Fragmented health systems in COVID-19: rectifying the misalignment between global health security and universal health coverage.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed enormous strain on countries around the world, exposing long-standing gaps in public health and exacerbating chronic inequities. Although research and analyses have attempted to draw important lessons on how to strengthen pandemic preparedness and response, few have examined the effect that fragmented governance for health has had on effectively mitigating the crisis. By assessing the ability of health systems to manage COVID-19 from the perspective of two key approaches to global health policy-global health security and universal health coverage-important lessons can be drawn for how to align varied priorities and objectives in strengthening health systems. This Health Policy paper compares three types of health systems (ie, with stronger investments in global health security, stronger investments in universal health coverage, and integrated investments in global health security and universal health coverage) in their response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and synthesises four essential recommendations (ie, integration, financing, resilience, and equity) to reimagine governance, policies, and investments for better health towards a more sustainable future.

COVID-19-Zoonosis or Emerging Infectious Disease?

The World Health Organization defines a zoonosis as any infection naturally transmissible from vertebrate animals to humans. The pandemic of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 has been classified as a zoonotic disease, however, no animal reservoir has yet been found, so this classification is premature. We propose that COVID-19 should instead be classified an "emerging infectious disease (EID) of probable animal origin." To explore if COVID-19 infection fits our proposed re-categorization vs. the contemporary definitions of zoonoses, we reviewed current evidence of infection origin and transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 virus and described this in the context of known zoonoses, EIDs and "spill-over" events. Although the initial one hundred COVID-19 patients were presumably exposed to the virus at a seafood Market in China, and despite the fact that 33 of 585 swab samples collected from surfaces and cages in the market tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, no virus was isolated directly from animals and no animal reservoir was detected. Elsewhere, SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in animals including domesticated cats, dogs, and ferrets, as well as captive-managed mink, lions, tigers, deer, and mice confirming zooanthroponosis. Other than circumstantial evidence of zoonotic cases in mink farms in the Netherlands, no cases of natural transmission from wild or domesticated animals have been confirmed. More than 40 million human COVID-19 infections reported appear to be exclusively through human-human transmission. SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 do not meet the WHO definition of zoonoses. We suggest SARS-CoV-2 should be re-classified as an EID of probable animal origin.

Serology testing in the COVID-19 pandemic response.

The collapse of global cooperation and a failure of international solidarity have led to many low-income and middle-income countries being denied access to molecular diagnostics in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Yet the scarcity of knowledge on the dynamics of the immune response to infection has led to hesitation on recommending the use of rapid immunodiagnostic tests, even though rapid serology tests are commercially available and scalable. On the basis of our knowledge and understanding of viral infectivity and host response, we urge countries without the capacity to do molecular testing at scale to research the use of serology tests to triage symptomatic patients in community settings, to test contacts of confirmed cases, and in situational analysis and surveillance. The WHO R&D Blue Print expert group identified eight priorities for research and development, of which the highest is to mobilise research on rapid point-of-care diagnostics for use at the community level. This research should inform control programmes of the required performance and utility of rapid serology tests, which, when applied specifically for appropriate public health measures to then be put in place, can make a huge difference.