The international community’s recent failure to come to a worldwide pandemic accord has left huge holes in our capacity to handle infectious disease emergencies in the future. This failure occurs at a time when there is an increased chance of a pandemic similar to the historic COVID-19 disaster.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has made significant and legally enforceable changes to the current International Health Regulations, marking a significant advancement. Although these changes are a good thing, they are insufficient on their own to handle the complexity of possible pandemics in the future. Government permission is required for these amendments to be implemented, underscoring the necessity of a comprehensive pandemic agreement to support these regulatory reforms.
International attempts to combat cross-border health concerns have a long history; they began with the international sanitary conference in 1851, which was primarily concerned with cholera containment. The goal of later efforts, such as the founding of the World Health Organization in 1946, has been to improve the security of global health. By establishing a global surveillance system and providing contemporary risk assessment techniques for public health emergencies of international importance, the International Health Regulations of 2005 represented a significant milestone.
Even with these improvements, the International Health Regulations proved to be inadequate, especially when it came to dealing with zoonotic illnesses that were changing quickly. Zoonotic diseases provide distinct issues that necessitate extensive and flexible solutions, as they arise from animal viruses infecting humans.
Important modifications to improve pandemic preparedness and response have been brought to light by recent updates to the International Health Regulations. The definition of a “pandemic emergency” will now fall under the larger category of public health emergencies of global concern. Additionally, prevention and preparedness will be prioritized, as will equitable access to medical supplies and funding, risk communication will be improved, and the identification of newly emerging respiratory infections with pandemic potential will be improved.
Nevertheless, a few suggested changes were dropped from the final version. Proponents proposed implementing tactics from the Asia-Pacific area, which effectively utilized elimination measures to impede the spread of COVID-19 and safeguard high-income islands as well as low- and middle-income nations. The changes omitted ideas like stopping zoonotic spillovers from animals and eliminating the problem at its source.
The inability to agree on every suggested amendment highlights the difficulties in international collaboration, especially when it comes to data sharing, vaccine sharing, cheap costs, and accountability. Intense talks and baseless worries about WHO overreach have impeded efforts to come to a comprehensive pandemic accord.
Going forward, nations such as New Zealand can contemplate and possibly express misgivings over some aspects of the suggested modifications. These misgivings, nevertheless, would jeopardize the changes’ cohesion.
One cannot emphasize how urgently more international solidarity and collaboration are needed. Beyond the International Health Regulations, a pandemic agreement might address important improvements, but reaching a consensus is still difficult. Developments have stopped due to differences in wealth and poverty, worries about vaccine availability and cost, problems with data sharing, and misconceptions about WHO’s function.
A safer and more resilient world for current and future generations must be ensured by prioritizing international collaboration and enacting appropriate measures, especially in view of the enormous impact of COVID-19 and the growing risks to global health security.
SOURCE:
MEDICAL DIALOGUES
