GLOBAL PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS - OR NOT
For many years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has been issuing guidelines for pandemic readiness, particularly related to influenza breakouts. These guidelines are virtually identical to what is required for coronavirus.
The types of documents freely available include
The types of documents freely available include
and many other documents.
An international panel has developed a Global Health Security Index, supported by generous grants from various high-profile foundations. Countries are ranked on 34 indicators based on answers to 140 questions. The indicators are in several groups relating to
The conclusions are that very few countries are prepared for a globally catastrophic biological event. Only 10% of countries showed evidence that senior leaders were committed to improving health security (which in practice has turned out to be the most critical factor).
Top ranking on the index is the USA, which showed 90-100% on
In practice, only two countries showed any real evidence of preparedness for the COVID-19 outbreak, South Korea and Australia. These countries actually did score quite well on the index, though they were not designated as the top performers they turned out to be
South Korea did in fact rank number #9 internationally, though some of the factors that benefited it were not in the indicators set. In the index it scored very well on detection and response, and this is where its strategy really paid off.
Australia ranked #4, mostly since it was also high on detection, which it used to good effect. It had a high rating on several aspects of response, and probably should have rated higher on the remainder. It should have had a higher rating on socioeconomic resilience, and on medical infrastructure which is good. In particular it should have rated highly on national plan execution, as Australia is prone to natural disasters and frequently exercises national and local plans quite forcefully. In fact it had just executed a national bushfire plan and the country was generally primed to be ready for further contingencies. Australia also has had 150 years of experience in quarantining, which turned out to be of importance.
The lesson to be learned is that while many of these indicators held up moderately well in determining which countries were prepared, they failed to predict in the aggregate who would succeed in a real situation. A number of the indicators should be modified in the light of the coronavirus experience, the index should be re-weighted and a few new indicators added.
<Return to Index>
Top ranking on the index is the USA, which showed 90-100% on
- biosafety
- linking public health and security
- risk communication
- trade and travel restrictions
- international commitments
- public health vulnerabilities
In practice, only two countries showed any real evidence of preparedness for the COVID-19 outbreak, South Korea and Australia. These countries actually did score quite well on the index, though they were not designated as the top performers they turned out to be
South Korea did in fact rank number #9 internationally, though some of the factors that benefited it were not in the indicators set. In the index it scored very well on detection and response, and this is where its strategy really paid off.
Australia ranked #4, mostly since it was also high on detection, which it used to good effect. It had a high rating on several aspects of response, and probably should have rated higher on the remainder. It should have had a higher rating on socioeconomic resilience, and on medical infrastructure which is good. In particular it should have rated highly on national plan execution, as Australia is prone to natural disasters and frequently exercises national and local plans quite forcefully. In fact it had just executed a national bushfire plan and the country was generally primed to be ready for further contingencies. Australia also has had 150 years of experience in quarantining, which turned out to be of importance.
The lesson to be learned is that while many of these indicators held up moderately well in determining which countries were prepared, they failed to predict in the aggregate who would succeed in a real situation. A number of the indicators should be modified in the light of the coronavirus experience, the index should be re-weighted and a few new indicators added.
<Return to Index>
Comments
Post a Comment