Latest news with #PandemicAgreement
The Hindu
a day ago
- Health
- The Hindu
Readiness, not panic: on India and COVID-19
The lessons of the past should serve as a good guide, especially the learnings from three years of COVID-19. The country's COVID-19 dashboard has seen some activity in recent weeks, and the total number (since January 2025) of COVID cases is currently at 3961 (as on June 2, 8 a.m.), and the number of deaths recorded as 32. While a figure in 1000s seems a bit alarming, it is still a small number in a country with a population of over 1.4 billion. It is also important to take a look at the full picture. Not all States have had a day-on-day hike in numbers testing positive for COVID, and all hikes are still in the single or low double digits. Also, 2,188 people have been discharged since, underlining what experts have been saying as the curve rose this year: that the variants causing infection now are Omicron subvariants and that they are neither more transmissible nor do they cause worse disease than in the past. While panic and anxiety might be unwarranted, a sense of caution and precautionary approach are advisable, particularly for those with vulnerabilities and co-morbid conditions. Experience from the pandemic is that people with other pre-existing co-morbidities are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 infection. Common comorbidities include hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and kidney diseases, and advancing age (post 60 years). People with these conditions must start masking up in public places, and hand wash regularly. Former World Health Organization Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan has said the recent immunity from the pandemic will stand in good stead, but again, to take possible precautions including giving boosters or vaccine shots, especially to the vulnerable. This is where the government must step in, as COVID vaccines or boosters are not available in most parts of the country, even urban centres. India, a signatory to the World Health Organization Pandemic Agreement, must first ensure that stockpiles of vaccines and diagnostic kits are created and distributed across the country. Both public and private sector hospitals must ensure that health infrastructure — particularly the availability of medical oxygen, adequate beds and health-care personnel — is in a state of readiness. Another scenario that must be avoided at all costs is the deliberate obfuscation of data on true numbers on infections or deaths as during the pandemic. Instead, transparency and efficiency must guide both the Centre and the States, this time, irrespective of how the COVID curve behaves. But panic is not the same as preparedness: one is debilitating, the other is enabling.
The Mainichi
2 days ago
- Health
- The Mainichi
Editorial: With WHO Pandemic Agreement, global cooperation needed to raise its efficacy
Member countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted an agreement at a general meeting that sets forth a response the international community should take in the event of a future pandemic. Multilateral cooperation must be strengthened and measures to protect lives must be advanced. During the coronavirus pandemic, which claimed more than seven million lives, WHO was delayed in its initial response, leaving developing countries unable to secure sufficient vaccine supplies due in part to hoarding by developed nations. The Pandemic Agreement aims to address these shortcomings and create a global environment in which everyone can benefit equally from medical care. Under the initiative, advanced nations support developing countries in securing medicinal products and procuring funds. In exchange for collecting information on pathogens necessary for drug development and providing it to pharmaceutical companies WHO will receive at least 10% of vaccines produced as a donation. These vaccines will then be distributed to developing countries. The detailed design of the system will be finalized over the next year. WHO member states will also work to develop domestic laws to request pharmaceutical firms to supply vaccines. The agreement will take effect upon ratification by 60 countries. The question is how effective the agreement will prove. The United States, a pharmaceutical powerhouse, was absent from the General Assembly after President Donald Trump's administration announced the country's withdrawal from the WHO. Unless major U.S. drugmakers, which led the world in the development of COVID-19 vaccines, participate in the donation program, meaningful results cannot be expected. A system to encourage companies to join the initiative must be established. Washington has also stopped contributing operating funds to WHO, compelling the latter to significantly slash its budgets and undergo restructuring. This is likely to hinder efforts to secure personnel for assisting developing countries. The negotiations, which began in 2022, came to a brink of collapse after the rift between developed and developing nations deepened. Yet, the world has no alternative to WHO as a control tower when a pandemic arrives. It deserves credit that member countries came together and drew up the new rules after extending negotiations by a year amid the U.S. absence. False information over the agreement, such as that WHO will forcibly vaccinate people, became viral worldwide via social media. There is no such clause, and the agreement stipulates that the sovereignty of member states will be respected. Both the WHO and its members should exhaust all efforts to send out correct information. A new pandemic could occur at any time. Countries must take the adoption of the agreement as an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of international cooperation.
Epoch Times
26-05-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
The WHO Pandemic Treaty Was Adopted. What Does It Mean for Canada?
Explainer Following three years of negotiations, the World Health Organization (WHO) has formally adopted a legally binding agreement aiming to improve member countries' pandemic preparedness and response. The Pandemic Agreement requires Canada to carry out actions like strengthening disease surveillance, improving its health-care system and supply chain for pandemic-related health products, and ensuring drug manufacturers set aside vaccines and therapeutics for developing countries. The treaty does not give the WHO the power to direct Canada to carry out measures like travel bans, lockdowns, or vaccine mandates. The agreement also allows for Canada to back out of it two years after it officially comes into force. The treaty was adopted on May 20, with 124 countries voting in favour, including Canada. No countries formally objected to the pandemic treaty, but 11 countries abstained from voting. Some of the countries that abstained from the vote, like the United States and Slovakia, have publicly criticized the pact. U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued Related Stories 5/22/2025 5/20/2025 The United States had also gone a step further to disengage from the WHO, starting the process to formally leave the organization shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January. The pandemic pact will Requirements The pandemic treaty The new treaty calls for countries to adopt a 'One Health Approach,' which involves recognizing that human health is 'closely linked and interdependent' with the health of the wider environment and ecosystems. It calls for a multi-sectoral approach to preventing and responding to pandemics while contributing to sustainable development. By signing the agreement, Canada agrees to strengthen its pandemic surveillance and develop a national plan that coordinates sectors such as health, agriculture, and the environment to detect infectious diseases. Canada also agrees to strengthen and maintain a 'resilient' health-care system, reinforce its supply chains for pandemic-related health products, improve national health information systems in accordance with its laws, and provide 'decent work and a safe and healthy environment' for essential workers during pandemics. The agreement also requires Canada to strengthen public health literacy and provide timely and accurate information around pandemics and public safety. It calls for the country to use regulatory measures to respond to 'substandard and falsified pandemic-related health products' during pandemics. The pandemic treaty also requires drug manufacturers to sign legally binding contracts with the WHO to allocate up to 20 percent of their vaccines, therapeutics, and tests to the organization during a pandemic, which would then be distributed to developing countries. The agreement says each country should avoid maintaining stockpiles of pandemic-related health products that 'unnecessarily exceed the quantities anticipated to be needed' for their own purposes. The pandemic agreement also establishes a 'Conference of the Parties' that will examine how the agreement is being implemented and review its functioning every five years. All countries will periodically report to this governing body on how it is implementing the Pandemic Agreement, and it may, in response, adopt measures to help the countries meet their obligations. The Issue of Authority The Pandemic Agreement notes that it does not give WHO the authority to control or dictate how the countries carry out their laws. It also does not allow it to 'impose any requirements that parties take specific actions,' such as banning travellers, implementing lockdowns, or imposing vaccine mandates. While the agreement states that all the countries agree on the need to refrain from taking actions that adversely affect their preparedness and response to pandemics, it states that the countries have the right to 'implement health measures in accordance with their relevant national law and obligations under international law.' The agreement states that two years after entering into the Pandemic Agreement, any country may withdraw from it by giving written notice to the organization. While the WHO was at the forefront of the global response to COVID-19, its authority in a future pandemic could be weakened after the United States began the 12-month process of withdrawing from the organization in 2025. In 2023, the United States provided the WHO with $1.28 billion in funding, or around 12 percent of its budget. The Canadian government has been supportive of the Pandemic Agreement from the beginning of the process. Canada was one of the WHO member states that agreed in December 2021 to launch an intergovernmental negotiating body to develop the agreement. Reactions in Canada There has been some opposition to the pandemic treaty in Canada, mainly coming from Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis. Lewis repeated her concerns about 'health sovereignty' after the treaty was signed, saying that there are red flags in the agreement that should have received more scrutiny and oversight by Parliament. 'Our national sovereignty must be protected, and never compromised. It is something I will always defend,' Lewis The Public Health Agency of Canada The federal government has said it has engaged with various sectors to ensure the agreement reflects Canadian priorities, noting it has consulted with the private sector, academic experts, indigenous organizations, and provincial and territorial governments. Editor's note: This article was updated on May 24, to add new comments by Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis.
Medscape
26-05-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Italy Abstains From WHO Pandemic Pact: Sovereignty or Unity?
On May 20, 2025, member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the world's first Pandemic Agreement with 124 votes in favour and 11 abstentions. The landmark decision by the 78th World Health Assembly culminates in more than 3 years of intensive negotiations launched by governments in response to the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and driven by the goal of making the world safer from and more equitable in response to future pandemics. During the vote in Geneva, Italy abstained along with 10 other countries, including Iran, Singapore, Russia, Israel, Poland, and Slovakia. The Italian government justified its choice by emphasising the need to protect national sovereignty, despite Italy being one of the main advocates of the initiative after the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the countries that voted in favour, the final version of the agreement already included explicit clauses to safeguard national autonomy: The WHO cannot impose decisions on governments regarding lockdowns or other health measures. A Partial Surprise This news was not entirely unexpected. During the first plenary discussion on the draft of the Pandemic Agreement in 2024, the Italian Minister of Health Orazio Schillaci, stated that there were too many critical points. 'We expect the redefinition of a clear roadmap, allowing adequate time to reach a consensus that Italy considers ratifiable, including the necessary improvements to guarantee health for all,' Schillaci had noted at that time. After another year of negotiations, Italy kept its stance: 'With today's abstention, Italy intends to reiterate its position regarding the need to reaffirm the States sovereignty in addressing public health matters,' read a statement from the Health Ministry. 'We appreciate,' the statement reads, 'that this principle has been included in the text of the Pandemic Agreement. We also welcome that, in announcing the conclusion of the negotiations, the WHO specified that the Pandemic Agreement does not entitle the WHO to direct, order, alter, or prescribe national laws or policies or mandate States to take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers impose vaccinations or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns. We also believe that the agreement shall be implemented in full respect of the principles of proportionality and protection of fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data and individual freedom. Keeping in mind these principles, Italy looks forward to continuing working together with other WHO member States to define the remaining pending issues, which, in our view deserve further investigation.' However, the conclusion is negative: 'Holding these principles, Italy hopes to continue to collaborate with other WHO member states to define the outstanding issues that, in our opinion, deserve further investigation.' When explicitly asked by the press about outstanding issues, the minister did not give an answer. The choice was entirely political is confirmed by the statements of Marco Lisei, senator of Fratelli d'Italia and president of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the management of the COVID emergency, who stated that. 'Italy, even on the front of health prophylaxis strategies, has finally returned to play a role no longer as a gregarious but as a protagonist in the international forum, and this episode proves it.' He acknowledged that the text has now improved thanks to Italy's interventions, but still not enough. It was right to abstain, also in view of upcoming appointments and negotiations. On the other side, there is the voice of the opposition: 'The choice to abstain on the global pandemic plan promoted by the WHO is very serious. The Meloni government decides to isolate the country to follow the denialist and anti-scientific sirens. No lesson from COVID, rather a closure in the face of the reasons of science and the need to coordinate strategies, resources, and research at a global level,' said Chiara Braga, Democratic Party leader (PD) in the Chamber of Deputies. Beatrice Lorenzin, vice president of the PD senators and former Health Minister, called it 'an incomprehensible and anti-historical choice.' A Success for WHO The WHO Pandemic Agreement is a crucial step in restoring the WHO's leadership after years of uncertainty, worsened by the disengagement of the United States during the Trump Administration. The WHO Pandemic Agreement is the second international legal agreement negotiated under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, the first of which is the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, adopted in 2003 and came into force in 2005. The WHO's financial situation also shows signs of improvement as member states pledged at least $170 million in additional funding to support the Fourteenth General Programme of Work, which aims to save up to 40 million lives over the next 4 years. In addition, member states approved a 20% increase in fixed quotas, setting the budget for 2026-2027 at $4.2 billion. This follows a similar planned increase for 2024-2025. Agreement The agreement aims to strengthen the world's ability to prevent and respond to pandemics, based on the principles of 'equity, solidarity, transparency, and respect for human rights.' It is designed to be operational during and between pandemics, ensuring ongoing and structured preparedness. Equity is central to this agreement. It acknowledges that unequal access to vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in serious and lasting consequences. The new agreement requires signatory countries to ensure equitable access to pandemic health products, to facilitate 'local and regional production' in developing countries, to promote the transfer of technology and know-how, and, finally, to ensure 'transparent benefit sharing' arising from research on pathogens. It also launches a process to draft and negotiate a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing system (PABS) through an Intergovernmental Working Group. According to the agreement, pharmaceutical manufacturers participating in the PABS will play a key role in ensuring equitable and timely access to pandemic-related health products. At least 20% of the real-time production of safe, quality, and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics must be allocated to the system, including 10% as a donation and the rest at affordable prices. The agreement also established a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network coordinated by the WHO to ensure rapid, safe, and equitable access to health products in emergency settings. Mechanisms will be put in place to identify logistical barriers, estimate supply and demand, manage international stocks, and facilitate supplies, with particular attention paid to the most vulnerable countries. Health Systems and Funding The text includes measures to improve the 'resilience of national health systems,' strengthen local healthcare and primary care, invest in healthcare personnel, and improve regulatory and surveillance abilities. It also promotes the one-health approach, which integrates human, animal, and environmental health to prevent pandemics. Additionally, a financial coordination mechanism will be established to ensure predictable and sustainable resources, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. The mechanism also aligns with the requirements outlined in the International Health Regulations (2005). The agreement provides for the establishment of a Conference of the Parties, which will oversee implementation, update guidelines, coordinate financial mechanisms, and assess the effectiveness of the agreement every 5 years. Each partner state is required to submit periodic reports on progress made. Implications for Italy Italy's absence from the list of signatory countries does not automatically mean complete disengagement. However, it could exclude Italy from participating in the multilateral governance of the new system. This may limit priority access to international stockpiles during emergencies and reduce opportunities for structured scientific and financial cooperation with other member states. The medical and scientific communities have reacted promptly. Walter Ricciardi, MD, MPH, MSc, a former scientific advisor to the Italian Minister of Health and an advocate of the agreement, said, 'A choice that has no scientific or public health explanation. Just look at the bad company we voted with.' 'There is no denying that this pandemic agreement is a significant step forward. I do not know what really underlies the decision to opt out. But as a doctor and a public health representative, it is a decision that leaves me very perplexed,' noted Franco Locatelli, MD, Head of the Department of Paediatric Haematology at Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital in Rome, Italy, and former president of the Higher Council of Health.
Kuwait Times
22-05-2025
- Health
- Kuwait Times
After quitting WHO, US urges others to ‘consider joining us'
As WHO adopts pandemic accord, chief says all theories on table as to how COVID spread began GENEVA: The UN health agency on Tuesday adopted a landmark Pandemic Agreement on tackling future health crises, struck after more than three years of negotiations sparked by the COVID-19 crisis. The accord aims to prevent the disjointed response and international disarray that surrounded the COVID-19 pandemic, by improving global coordination and surveillance, and access to vaccines, in any future pandemics. The World Health Organization's decision-making annual assembly adopted the plan on Tuesday at its Geneva headquarters. 'It's an historic day,' WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told AFP after the vote. US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr on Tuesday branded the World Health Organization bloated and moribund, and urged other countries to 'consider joining us' in creating new institutions instead. In a video message to the World Health Assembly — the WHO's decision-making body — Kennedy said the UN agency was under undue influence from China, gender ideology and the pharmaceutical industry. Kennedy's comments were broadcast hours after WHO adopted the pandemic accord, the text of which was finalized by consensus last month, following multiple rounds of tense negotiations. The United States pulled out of those talks, following US President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw his country from the WHO, a process that takes one year to complete. 'The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our member states to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement,' Tedros said in a statement. 'The agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. 'It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during COVID-19.' 'Political interference' The United States has traditionally been the WHO's largest donor. Washington's departure, and its refusal to pay its membership fees for 2024 and 2025, has left it reeling financially. 'The WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat, entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest and international power politics,' Kennedy said in a message to the assembly. 'I urge the world's health ministers and the WHO to take our withdrawal from the organization as a wake-up call. 'We've already been in contact with like-minded countries and we encourage others to consider joining us.' Kennedy, a noted vaccine sceptic, said the United States wanted to free international health cooperation 'from the straight-jacket of political interference by corrupting influences'. 'We don't have to suffer the limits of a moribund WHO. Let's create new institutions or revisit existing institutions that are lean, efficient, transparent and accountable,' he said. Kennedy also said that too often the WHO's priorities had 'increasingly reflected the biases and the interests of corporate medicine'. 'Too often it has allowed political agendas like pushing harmful gender ideology to hijack its core mission,' he added. 'Undue influence' from China Kennedy said while the United States had been the WHO's top donor, China had 'exerted undue influence' to serve its own interests. He said the WHO had suppressed reports of human-to-human transmission of COVID, then 'worked with China to promote the fiction that COVID originated from bats or pangolins rather than from Chinese government-sponsored research at a biolab in Wuhan'. Trump's administration has embraced the so-called lab leak theory. Kennedy said global cooperation on health was still critically important to him and to Trump. 'But it isn't working very well under the WHO, as the failures of the COVID era demonstrate,' he said. Kennedy said the WHO Pandemic Agreement, adopted Tuesday by the assembly, 'will lock in all of the dysfunctions of the WHO pandemic response. We're not going to participate in that. We need to reboot the whole system.' A March 2021 WHO-Chinese joint report into COVID's origins said the most likely hypothesis was that the virus jumped from bats to humans via an intermediate animal. But little further progress has been made. WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has long said all theories remain on the table as to how the COVID-19 pandemic began. In his speech to the assembly on Tuesday, Tedros said: 'The pandemic has ended, but we still don't know how it started.' 'Understanding how it did remains important, both as a scientific imperative and as a moral imperative', for the sake of the millions killed. Chinese Vice Premier Liu Guozhong told the assembly that Beijing had been 'responsible and constructive on the matters of COVID' and 'any attempts to smear China ... will prove futile'. — Agencies
