scholarly journals The global viralization of policies to contain the spreading of the COVID-19 pandemic: Analyses of school closures and first reported cases

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0248828
Author(s):  
José Ignacio Nazif-Muñoz ◽  
Sebastián Peña ◽  
Youssef Oulhote
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
International Health ◽  
School Closure ◽  
World Health ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
School Closures ◽  
Standard Deviation Increase ◽  
First Case ◽  
Health Organization

Background On January 30th 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a international health emergency due to the unprecedented phenomenon of COVID-19. After this declaration countries swiftly implemented a variety of health policies. In this work we examine how rapid countries responded to this pandemic using two events: the day in which the first case of COVID-19 was reported, and first day in which countries used school closure as one of the measures to avoid outbreaks. We also assessed how countries’ health systems, globalization, economic development, political systems, and economic integration to China, Republic of Korea and Italy increased the speed of adoption. Methods We compiled information from multiple sources, from December 31st 2019 to June 1st 2020, to trace when 172 countries reported their first COVID-19 case and implemented school closure to contain outbreaks. We applied cross-national Weibull survival analysis to evaluate the global speed of detection of first COVID-19 reported cases and school closure. Results Ten days after WHO declared COVID-19 to be an international emergency, relative to seven days from this declaration, countries were 28 (95% CI: 12–77) times more likely to report first COVID-19 cases and 42 (95% CI: 22–90) times more likely to close schools. One standard deviation increase in the epidemic security index rises the rate of report first cases by 37% (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.37 (95% CI: 1.09–1.72) and delays the adoption for school closures by 36% (HR 0.64 (95% CI:0.50–0.82). One standard deviation increase in the globalization index augments the adoption for school closures by 74% (HR 1.74 (95% CI:1.34–2.24). Conclusion After the WHO declared a global emergency, countries were unprecedently acting very rapidly. While countries more globally integrated were swifter in closing schools, countries with better designed health systems to tackle epidemics were slower in adopting it. More studies are needed to assess how the speed of school closures and other policies will affect the development of the pandemic.

scholarly journals The global viralization of policies to contain the spreading of the COVID-19 pandemic: analyses of school closures and first reported cases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Ignacio Nazif-Muñoz ◽  
Sebastián Peña ◽  
Youssef Oulhote
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
School Closure ◽  
World Health ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
School Closures ◽  
Standard Deviation Increase ◽  
First Case ◽  
Health Organization

AbstractBackgroundWith the exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries swiftly implemented a variety of health policies. In this work we examine how rapid countries responded to this pandemic using two events: the day in which the first case of COVID-19 was reported, and first day in which countries used school closure as one of the measures to avoid outbreaks.MethodsWe compiled information from multiple sources, from December 31st 2019 to June 1st 2020, to trace when 172 countries reported their first COVID-19 case and implemented school closure to contain outbreaks. We applied cross-national Weibull survival analysis to evaluate the global speed of detection of first COVID-19 reported cases and school closure. We also assessed how countries’ health systems, globalization, economic development, political systems, and economic integration to China, Republic of Korea and Italy increased the speed of adoption.ResultsTen days after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 to be an international emergency, countries were 28 (95% CI: 12,77) times more likely to report first COVID-19 cases and 42 (95% CI: 22,90) times more likely to close schools. One standard deviation increase in the epidemic security index rises the rate of report first cases by 37% (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.37 (95% CI: 1.09,1.72) and delays the adoption for school closures by 36% (HR 0.64 (95% CI:0.50,0.82). One standard deviation increase in the globalization index augments the adoption for school closures by 74% (HR 1.74 (95% CI:1.34,2.24).ConclusionAfter the WHO declared a global emergency, countries were unprecedently acting very rapidly. While countries more globally integrated were swifter in closing schools, countries with better designed health systems to tackle epidemics were slower in adopting it. More studies are needed to assess how the speed of school closures and other policies will affect the development of the pandemic.

WHO Emergency Powers for Global Health Security

2019 ◽  
pp. 152-186
Author(s):  
Christian Kreuder-Sonnen
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Pandemic ◽  
International Health ◽  
H1n1 Influenza ◽  
World Health ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Emergency Powers ◽  
First Case ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Emergency Measures

Chapter 6 analyzes two consecutive cases of exceptionalism in the World Health Organization (WHO). In the first case study, it explains how the WHO’s assumption of emergency powers in the 2003 SARS crisis led to their legal normalization. To confront the SARS outbreak, the WHO resorted to unprecedented emergency measures infringing on states’ sovereignty. Building on arguments of functionality, the WHO managed to create a broad consensus on the general appropriateness of such measures. They were thus enshrined in the new International Health Regulations in 2005 and came to their first reuse in the second case: the adoption of emergency powers during the H1N1 influenza “pandemic” in 2009. Due to a very mild course of the outbreak, however, this time it incited a societal backlash against the WHO. The emergency measures were delegitimized as excessive and futile, forcing the WHO to accept a procedural containment of its emergency powers.

Organization of restrictive quarantine measures to prevent especially dangerous infections

2020 ◽  
pp. 6-11
Author(s):  
Petr Ilyin
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
International Health ◽  
World Health ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
Entire History ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Former Ussr ◽  
Health Regulations

Especially dangerous infections (EDIs) belong to the conditionally labelled group of infectious diseases that pose an exceptional epidemic threat. They are highly contagious, rapidly spreading and capable of affecting wide sections of the population in the shortest possible time, they are characterized by the severity of clinical symptoms and high mortality rates. At the present stage, the term "especially dangerous infections" is used only in the territory of the countries of the former USSR, all over the world this concept is defined as "infectious diseases that pose an extreme threat to public health on an international scale." Over the entire history of human development, more people have died as a result of epidemics and pandemics than in all wars combined. The list of especially dangerous infections and measures to prevent their spread were fixed in the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted at the 22nd session of the WHO's World Health Assembly on July 26, 1969. In 1970, at the 23rd session of the WHO's Assembly, typhus and relapsing fever were excluded from the list of quarantine infections. As amended in 1981, the list included only three diseases represented by plague, cholera and anthrax. However, now annual additions of new infections endemic to different parts of the earth to this list take place. To date, the World Health Organization (WHO) has already included more than 100 diseases in the list of especially dangerous infections.

scholarly journals Progression and Trends in Virus from Influenza A to COVID-19: An Overview of Recent Studies

Viruses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1145
Author(s):  
Hakimeh Baghaei Daemi ◽  
Muhammad Fakhar-e-Alam Kulyar ◽  
Xinlin He ◽  
Chengfei Li ◽  
Morteza Karimpour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza A ◽  
H1n1 Virus ◽  
World Health ◽  
H1n1 Pandemic ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
First Case ◽  
Influenza A H1n1 ◽  
The World ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Health Organization

Influenza is a highly known contagious viral infection that has been responsible for the death of many people in history with pandemics. These pandemics have been occurring every 10 to 30 years in the last century. The most recent global pandemic prior to COVID-19 was the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. A decade ago, the H1N1 virus caused 12,500 deaths in just 19 months globally. Now, again, the world has been challenged with another pandemic. Since December 2019, the first case of a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infection was detected in Wuhan. This infection has risen rapidly throughout the world; even the World Health Organization (WHO) announced COVID-19 as a worldwide emergency to ensure human health and public safety. This review article aims to discuss important issues relating to COVID-19, including clinical, epidemiological, and pathological features of COVID-19 and recent progress in diagnosis and treatment approaches for the COVID-19 infection. We also highlight key similarities and differences between COVID-19 and influenza A to ensure the theoretical and practical details of COVID-19.

scholarly journals How Loud and Clear Rung the Alarm Bell: The Communication Efforts of WHO on the Beginning of COVID-19 Outbreak

2021 ◽  
pp. 002073142110249
Author(s):  
Huriye Toker
Keyword(s):  
Risk Communication ◽  
International Development ◽  
International Health ◽  
Well Being ◽  
World Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
News Releases ◽  
The Media ◽  
Credible Information ◽  
Health Organization

As seen clearly from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health is an important foreign policy and diplomatic issue connected with security, economic well-being, and international development. According to risk communication researchers, effective, transparent, and timely information sharing is the most important tool after vaccines for responding to pandemics. This study aims to start a scholarly discussion on the risk communication efforts of the World Health Organization (WHO) during the COVID-19 outbreak. We analyzed WHO’s communication efforts during the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the leading international health organization, WHO was responsible for providing rapid, up-to-date, and credible information for the public and the media. The selected research items were 42 news releases and statements provided by WHO between December 31, 2019, and March 30, 2020. These were subjected to qualitative and quantitative content analyses using the NVivo 12 qualitative analysis software program for coding. The data were coded under 6 variables (date of publication, topics, frequency, wording of the COVID-19 outbreak, sourcing, and themes of the releases). While 54.7% of WHO's communications were devoted to the COVID-19 outbreak, more than half were not issued until March. That is, instead of early risk communication and clear warnings about the outbreak, WHO acted overcautiously, preferring messages related to solidarity and cooperation during the most devastating pandemic of the 21st century.

Triage Management, Survival, and the Law in the Age of Ebola

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick M Burkle ◽  
Christopher M Burkle
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
International Health ◽  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Population Based ◽  
World Health ◽  
Economic Stability ◽  
Budget Cuts ◽  
The Public ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Health Organization

AbstractLiberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea lack the public health infrastructure, economic stability, and overall governance to stem the spread of Ebola. Even with robust outside assistance, the epidemiological data have not improved. Vital resource management is haphazard and left to the discretion of individual Ebola treatment units. Only recently has the International Health Regulations (IHR) and World Health Organization (WHO) declared Ebola a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, making this crisis their fifth ongoing level 3 emergency. In particular, the WHO has been severely compromised by post-2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) staffing, budget cuts, a weakened IHR treaty, and no unambiguous legal mandate. Population-based triage management under a central authority is indicated to control the transmission and ensure fair and decisive resource allocation across all triage categories. The shared responsibilities critical to global health solutions must be realized and the rightful attention, sustained resources, and properly placed legal authority be assured within the WHO, the IHR, and the vulnerable nations. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;0:1-6)

Public Health Control Measures in Response to Global Pandemics and Drug Resistance

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (S2) ◽  
pp. 49-56
Author(s):  
Polly J. Price
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Communicable Disease ◽  
International Health ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
World Health ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
List Type ◽  
Resistant Disease ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
Health Organization

These teaching materials explore the specific powers of governments to implement control measures in response to communicable disease, in two different contexts:The first context concerns global pandemic diseases. Relevant legal authority includes international law, World Health Organization governance and the International Health Regulations, and regulatory authority of nations.The second context is centered on U.S. law and concerns control measures for drug-resistant disease, using tuberculosis as an example. In both contexts, international and domestic, the point is to understand legal authority to address public health emergencies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document