Search

WHO has determined a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) seven times, and beyond this nomenclature declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), and through their operationalisation in the joint external evaluation (JEE), governments are urged to create suitable legislation to be able to enact a response to a public health emergency. Whether the pandemic declaration had a greater effect than a PHEIC in encouraging goverments to act, however, remains conjecture, as there is no systemic analysis of what each term means in practice and whether either has meaningful legal implications at the national level. We undertook a legal scoping review to assess the utilisation of PHEIC and pandemic language within national legislation in 28 WHO member states. Data were collected from national websites, JEE reviews, COVID Analysis and Mapping of Policies Tool, Natlex, and Oxford Compendium of National Legal Responses to COVID-19. We found that only 16% of countries have any reference to the PHEIC in national legislation and 37·5% of countries reference the term pandemic. This finding paints a weakened picture of the IHR and PHEIC mechanisms. Having such legalese enshrined in legislation might enhance the interaction between WHO determining a PHEIC or declaring a pandemic and resulting action to mitigate transnational spread of disease and enhance health security. Given the ongoing negotiations at WHO in relation to the amendments to the IHR and creation of the pandemic accord, both of which deal with this declaratory power of the PHEIC and pandemic language, negotiators should understand the possible implications of any changes to these proclamations at the national level and for global health security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across multiple pandemics, global health governance institutions have struggled to secure the compliance of states with international legal and political commitments, ranging from data sharing to observing WHO guidance to sharing vaccines. In response, governments are negotiating a new pandemic treaty and revising the International Health Regulations. Achieving compliance remains challenging, but international relations and international law research in areas outside of health offers insights. This Health Policy analyses international relations research on the reasons why states comply with international law, even in the absence of sanctions. Drawing on human rights, trade, finance, tobacco, and environmental law, we categorise compliance mechanisms as police patrol, fire alarm, or community organiser models. We show that, to date, current and proposed global health law incorporates only a few of the mechanisms that have shown to be effective in other areas. We offer six specific, politically feasible mechanisms for new international agreements that, together, could create compliance pressures to shift state behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policies and public health efforts have not addressed the gendered impacts of disease outbreaks.[1] The response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears no different. Although sex-disaggregated data for COVID-19 show equal numbers of cases between men and women so far, there seem to be sex differences in mortality and vulnerability to the disease.[2] Emerging evidence suggests that more men than women are dying, potentially due to sex-based immunological[3] or gendered differences, such as patterns and prevalence of smoking.[4] However, current sex-disaggregated data are incomplete, cautioning against early assumptions. Experience from past outbreaks shows the importance of incorporating a gender analysis into preparedness and response efforts to improve the effectiveness of health interventions and promote gender and health equity goals. [Extracted from the article]

The authors comment on their study on the effect of civil-military cooperation during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa by conducting interviews with various people including health care workers, between February and September 2015. Topics cited include programs that worked and failed in Liberia and Sierra Leone, the role of the military during global health crises and the controversy of incorporating civil-military cooperation in health as a regular activity.

The article addresses the association of gender bias with the poor global health of women. Topics discussed include under-representation of women in leadership, decision making, and senior research roles; initiatives such as Women in Global Health for gender balance in workplaces; and feminist research agenda that can advance gender equality in global health.

Pandemics such as COVID-19 are gendered with regard to who is infected, who dies, who provides care, who is secured against violence and economic change, and who leads and makes decisions.[1] Vaccines are no different and there is a need to address male bias in vaccine development to make women safe from deadly diseases.[2] For example, clinical trials that are not done in both men and women can raise adverse outcomes during implementation due to sex-based differences in immunological response.[3] The excitement and awe at the speed of COVID-19 vaccine development and delivery needs to be attentive to the social and political dynamics in which the vaccine is delivered - women's work and their security are at the heart of this. As has been seen during COVID-19 thus far, violence against health-care workers exists[11] and might be amplified over access to the finite resource of COVID-19 vaccines. Graph Debate over COVID-19 vaccines has rightfully focused on discovery and development, vaccine hesitancy, and equitable access. [Extracted from the article]

A letter to the editor is presented regarding provision of resources to the World Health Organization (WHO) by its member states so that WHO can continue to be a global health leader after the 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in west Africa.