Despite improved WHO regulations, the world remains ill-prepared for the next pandemic | World News

The recent failure of the international community to reach a global agreement on the pandemic leaves large gaps in our ability to address the next major infectious disease threat.

The risk of another pandemic like Covid – the worst in a century – is growing.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has taken an important step by adopting useful changes to existing legally binding International Health Regulations.

While this progress is cause for celebration, it is not enough. Even if governments approve the revised rules, our best chance of preventing history from repeating itself will be an agreement on the pandemic.

Global responses to health threats that cross borders date back to the 1851 International Sanitary Conference, which focused on measures to limit the spread of cholera. Since then, several initiatives have been undertaken to improve global health security, including the creation of the WHO itself in 1946.

The 2005 International Health Regulations were a major step in this evolution. They ushered in the modern era of risk assessment and created a global surveillance system for international public health emergencies.

Nevertheless, it soon became obvious that new tools had limited capabilities in dealing with the increasingly complex and rapidly changing threat of zoonotic diseases (when an animal pathogen “spills over” to infect humans).

Key changes to the International Health Regulations

Earlier this month, the 194 members of the WHO World Health Assembly adopted by consensus several important amendments to the International Health Regulations, including:

-Adding a definition of “pandemic emergency” to highlight the importance of such events within the broader category of public health emergencies of international concern

-increased emphasis on prevention with particular emphasis on “preparedness”

-strengthening equal access to medical products and finance, with particular emphasis on “equality and solidarity” and a special “coordinating financial mechanism”

– requiring each country to establish a “national authority” to improve the implementation of international health regulations within and between countries

-requiring countries to build basic capacity in the field of “risk communication, including countering disinformation and disinformation”

-and modifying the “decision instrument” to improve the detection of emerging respiratory infections with high pandemic potential.

Proposals that didn’t arrive

Not all proposed changes have been implemented. Some commentators argued for taking into account the experiences of countries in the Asia-Pacific region that have used an elimination strategy to delay the spread of Covid-19, allowing time for the rollout of vaccines and other interventions.

These actions protected both high-income islands (Aotearoa, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan) and low- and middle-income countries in mainland Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Mongolia).

These countries generally achieved lower excess mortality than countries where the pandemic was less controlled. Similarly, the concept of elimination at source (sometimes called containment) is not included in this version.

A number of other potential improvements also did not make it into the final text. These included a focus on preventing the transmission of zoonotic diseases to animals, better sharing of scientific data and samples, and greater accountability.

All WHO member states now have 18 months to consider the proposed changes. They can raise objections to parts they disagree with, although this may weaken the coherence of the proposed changes.

Why we need more global cooperation

A pandemic agreement could address many needed reforms beyond the International Health Regulations.

However, negotiations to reach a global agreement are proving controversial. There were deep divisions between rich and poor countries over the availability and affordability of vaccines, treatments and diagnostics for developing countries. Sharing data on pathogens has also proven problematic.

The negotiations have been further undermined by completely unfounded claims that the WHO will be given the power to impose restrictive measures such as lockdowns and vaccination mandates. It is unclear whether New Zealand’s shift in its negotiating position to focus more on national sovereignty has had an impact on these discussions.

Due to these challenges, the international community has not yet agreed on the text of an agreement on the pandemic. WHO announced the next stages of further negotiations, the start date of which has already passed many years ago.

From threats of war to environmental devastation and pandemics, no country can unilaterally protect its citizens from the most serious common threats to humanity. However, while the need for global solidarity and cooperation is greater than ever, support for many key areas of international law is insufficient.

We owe this to the memory of the more than 27 million people who have died from Covid-19 so far and the growing threats to future generations, so that we do our best to make the world an increasingly safer place.

This story was published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text. Only the headline has been changed.