The Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022 Olympic Games held during the COVID-19 pandemic: planning, outcomes, and lessons learnt.

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected all mass gatherings for sporting and religious events, causing cancellation, postponement, or downsizing. On March 24, 2020, the Japanese Government, the Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and the International Olympic Committee decided to postpone the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games until the summer of 2021. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the potential creation of a superspreading event that would overwhelm the Tokyo health system was perceived as a risk. Even with a delayed start date, an extensive scale of resources, planning, risk assessment, communication, and SARS-CoV-2 testing were required for the Games to be held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effectiveness of various mitigation and control measures, including the availability of vaccines and the expansion of effective testing options, allowed event organisers and the Japanese Government to successfully host the rescheduled 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games from July 23 to Aug 8, 2021 with robust safety plans in place. In February and March, 2022, Beijing hosted the 2022 Winter Olympic Games as scheduled, built on the lessons learnt from the Tokyo Games, and developed specific COVID-19 countermeasure plans in the context of China's national framework for the plan called Zero COVID. Results from the testing programmes at both the Tokyo and Beijing Games show that the measures put in place were effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19 within the Games, and ensured that neither event became a COVID-19-spreading event. The extensive experience from the Tokyo and Beijing Olympic Games highlights that it is possible to organise mass gatherings during a pandemic, provided that appropriate risk assessment, risk mitigation, and risk communication arrangements are in place, leaving legacies for future mass gatherings, public health, epidemic preparedness, and wider pandemic response.

Retrospective identification of key activities in Uganda's preparedness measures related to the 2018-2020 EVD outbreak in eastern DRC utilizing a framework evaluation tool.

Uganda has engaged in numerous capacity building activities related to outbreak preparedness over the last two decades and initiated additional just-in-time preparedness activities after the declaration of the 2018-2020 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). When Uganda faced importation events related to the DRC outbreak in June-August 2019, the country's ability to prevent sustained in-country transmission was attributed to these long-term investments in preparedness. In order to help prepare countries for similar future scenarios, this analysis reviewed evidence from Uganda's response to the June-August 2019 importation events to identify preparedness activities and capacities that may have enabled Uganda to identify and isolate infected individuals or otherwise prevent further transmission. Content from 143 grey literature documents gathered via targeted and systematic searches from June 6, 2019 to October 29, 2019 and six interviews of key informants were utilized to inform a framework evaluation tool developed for this study. A conceptual framework of Uganda's preparedness activities was developed and evaluated against timelines of Uganda's response activities to the June-August 2019 EVD importation events based on the applicability of a preparedness activity to a response activity and the contribution of the said response activity to the prevention or interruption of transmission. Preparedness activities related to coordination, health facility preparation, case referral and management, laboratory testing and specimen transport, logistics and resource mobilization, and safe and dignified burials yielded consistent success across both importation events while point of entry screening was successful in one importation event but not another according to the framework evaluation tool. Countries facing similar threats should consider investing in these preparedness areas. Future analyses should validate and expand on the use of the framework evaluation tool.

Risk and the Republican National Convention: Application of the Novel COVID-19 Operational Risk Assessment.

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization broadly categorize mass gathering events as high risk for amplification of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread in a community due to the nature of respiratory diseases and the transmission dynamics. However, various measures and modifications can be put in place to limit or reduce the risk of further spread of COVID-19 for the mass gathering. During this pandemic, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security produced a risk assessment and mitigation tool for decision-makers to assess SARS-CoV-2 transmission risks that may arise as organizations and businesses hold mass gatherings or increase business operations: The JHU Operational Toolkit for Businesses Considering Reopening or Expanding Operations in COVID-19 (Toolkit). This article describes the deployment of a data-informed, risk-reduction strategy that protects local communities, preserves local health-care capacity, and supports democratic processes through the safe execution of the Republican National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. The successful use of the Toolkit and the lessons learned from this experience are applicable in a wide range of public health settings, including school reopening, expansion of public services, and even resumption of health-care delivery.

Lessons Learned From a Large Cross-Border Field Simulation Exercise to Strengthen Emergency Preparedness in East Africa, 2019.

Field simulation exercises (FSXs) require substantial time, resources, and organizational experience to plan and implement and are less commonly undertaken than drills or tabletop exercises. Despite this, FSXs provide an opportunity to test the full scope of operational capacities, including coordination across sectors. From June 11 to 14, 2019, the East African Community Secretariat conducted a cross-border FSX at the Namanga One Stop Border Post between the Republic of Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania. The World Health Organization Department of Health Security Preparedness was the technical lead responsible for developing and coordinating the exercise. The purpose of the FSX was to assess and further enhance multisectoral outbreak preparedness and response in the East Africa Region, using a One Health approach. Participants included staff from the transport, police and customs, public health, animal health, and food inspection sectors. This was the first FSX of this scale, magnitude, and complexity to be conducted in East Africa for the purpose of strengthening emergency preparedness capacities. The FSX provided an opportunity for individual learning and national capacity strengthening in emergency management and response coordination. In this article, we describe lessons learned and propose recommendations relevant to FSX design, management, and organization to inform future field exercises.

The value proposition of the Global Health Security Index.

Infectious disease outbreaks pose major threats to human health and security. Countries with robust capacities for preventing, detecting and responding to outbreaks can avert many of the social, political, economic and health system costs of such crises. The Global Health Security Index (GHS Index)-the first comprehensive assessment and benchmarking of health security and related capabilities across 195 countries-recently found that no country is sufficiently prepared for epidemics or pandemics. The GHS Index can help health security stakeholders identify areas of weakness, as well as opportunities to collaborate across sectors, collectively strengthen health systems and achieve shared public health goals. Some scholars have recently offered constructive critiques of the GHS Index's approach to scoring and ranking countries; its weighting of select indicators; its emphasis on transparency; its focus on biosecurity and biosafety capacities; and divergence between select country scores and corresponding COVID-19-associated caseloads, morbidity, and mortality. Here, we (1) describe the practical value of the GHS Index; (2) present potential use cases to help policymakers and practitioners maximise the utility of the tool; (3) discuss the importance of scoring and ranking; (4) describe the robust methodology underpinning country scores and ranks; (5) highlight the GHS Index's emphasis on transparency and (6) articulate caveats for users wishing to use GHS Index data in health security research, policymaking and practice.

An analysis of International Health Regulations Emergency Committees and Public Health Emergency of International Concern Designations.

INTRODUCTION: Nine events have been assessed for potential declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). A PHEIC is defined as an extraordinary event that constitutes a public health risk to other states through international spread and requires a coordinated international response. The WHO Director-General convenes Emergency Committees (ECs) to provide their advice on whether an event constitutes a PHEIC. The EC rationales have been criticised for being non-transparent and contradictory to the International Health Regulations (IHR). This first comprehensive analysis of EC rationale provides recommendations to increase clarity of EC decisions which will strengthen the IHR and WHO's legitimacy in future outbreaks. METHODS: 66 EC statements were reviewed from nine public health outbreaks of influenza A, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, polio, Ebola virus disease, Zika, yellow fever and coronavirus disease-2019. Statements were analysed to determine which of the three IHR criteria were noted as contributing towards the EC's justification on whether to declare a PHEIC and what language was used to explain the decision. RESULTS: Interpretation of the criteria were often vague and applied inconsistently. ECs often failed to describe and justify which criteria had been satisfied. DISCUSSION: Guidelines must be developed for the standardised interpretation of IHR core criteria. The ECs must clearly identify and justify which criteria have contributed to their rationale for or against PHEIC declaration. CONCLUSION: Striving for more consistency and transparency in EC justifications would benefit future deliberations and provide more understanding and support for the process.