Search

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]

Combating threats of infectious diseases has been increasingly framed as a global shared responsibility for a multi-actor framework of states, international organisations and nongovernmental actors. However, the outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) has shown that this governance framework has not been able to limit the spread of this virus, despite the normative and legislative changes to global disease control. By unbundling the concept of responsibility, this article will assess how global shared responsibility may have failed because accountability does not fall on any one state or stakeholder, highlighting an inherent weakness in the global disease governance regime. The paper concludes that a move towards multiple responsibilities may prove a more effective mechanism for ensuring global health security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]