{"id":7740,"date":"2021-05-19T10:07:24","date_gmt":"2021-05-19T08:07:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/?p=7740"},"modified":"2021-05-19T10:07:26","modified_gmt":"2021-05-19T08:07:26","slug":"an-independent-study-on-the-coronavirus-pandemic-points-the-finger-at-europe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/blog\/2021\/05\/19\/une-etude-independante-sur-la-pandemie-de-coronavirus-pointe-leurope-du-doigt\/","title":{"rendered":"An independent study on the coronavirus pandemic points the finger at Europe"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last May, the World Health Organisation (WHO) General Assembly decided to carry out an independent review of the international response to the coronavirus pandemic. This decision was taken at the request of the United States, amongst others. The US had severely criticised the WHO for not being tough enough on China, where the pandemic began. Now that the final report has been submitted, the criticism seems to be coming back like a boomerang.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former President of Liberia, chaired the commission. They were supported by a panel of 11 experts and dozens of scientists from around the world. Their report, based on scientific evidence, is now available at this website<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pandemic could have been avoided<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of the expert group\u2019s main conclusions is that the coronavirus crisis could have been avoided in several respects. Firstly, it is noted that previous outbreaks of similar viruses were not followed by the necessary preventive measures. Since the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic, at least 11 high-level groups and commissions have set out recommendations in 16 different reports on how to be better prepared for a pandemic. Most of these recommendations were never implemented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, the pandemic could have been prevented had action been taken in time. Unlike some Western politicians, the report does not point the finger at China. The panel notes the speed of communication from the very first days. On 30 December 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission sent two alerts to local hospitals regarding cases of pneumonia of unknown origin, some of which were linked to the Huanan seafood market. A day later, the WHO\u2019s international headquarters was informed via three different channels. On 3 January, an initial technical briefing took place with Chinese scientists and WHO experts, and on 5 January 2021, the World Health Organisation in turn informed its member states of the danger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The medical community in Wuhan swiftly investigated the suspected outbreaks. Although complex, the measures taken succeeded in significantly curbing the spread of the virus. Local researchers quickly developed a test to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, the panel considered that the response could have been even swifter, even during the first few weeks. Information did not always circulate quickly enough, and it was not until 23 January that travel to and from Wuhan was suspended and restrictions on international travel were imposed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The WHO\u2019s response could also have been better. It was not until 30 January that the organisation declared the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak to be a public health emergency of international concern. This is an official procedure that was intended to set off a number of alarm bells within the WHO\u2019s structures, as well as amongst Member States. In their assessment, the committee members consider that the announcement of this international alert phase could have taken place a week earlier. However, at the time, there was still no consensus amongst the experts consulted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, criticism of China and the WHO remains relatively muted. Indeed, the report notes that the main delay in the response to the pandemic did not occur until last February. The panel even refers to a \u00ablost month\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The WHO\u2019s declaration of a public health emergency on 30 January did not have the desired effect amongst Member States. Although it was clear that a highly contagious, unknown virus was spreading across the globe, most countries did not take any action until March, when they observed local transmission and hospitals began to become overwhelmed. Without naming Europe specifically, the panel is clearly highly critical of the countries on our continent. It was during this \u00ablost month\u00bb of February 2020 that the virus spread across the continent from Italy, which acted as a springboard to the rest of the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Top Asian pupils<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The report also analysed how countries have dealt with the pandemic, and identifies three groups. Some countries have managed to contain the pandemic through a strategy combining various public health measures with coherent social and economic support policies. Others have failed to control the virus at all, because they denied its impact and rejected the science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The largest group of countries fell into a third category: an intermediate group. Although our country is not mentioned by name, we can undoubtedly place Belgium in this group. These countries attempted to bring the epidemic under control, but often by taking inconsistent measures. For example, they imposed lockdowns when the number of infections rose too high or when hospitals were at risk of becoming overwhelmed. In practice, however, this proved very difficult due to the constantly changing nature of the pandemic. Contact tracing has been an effective strategy where it has been implemented correctly and swiftly. But where it was rolled out too late, whilst the virus was already circulating widely, it proved inadequate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The panel carried out an in-depth analysis of 28 countries and selected six as exemplary due to their robust and successful approach. It is striking to note that not a single country from Europe or North America features on the list. These are China, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. These countries took the necessary measures very quickly thanks to a centralised management structure. Their success can be attributed to the speed with which they acted whenever new infections emerged, thanks to the rapid tracing of contacts and the isolation of infectious patients. Social and economic support measures ensured that the measures were properly implemented. Furthermore, they succeeded in effectively engaging the public in health policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientific progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The report highlights impressive scientific advances made possible by public funding and the sharing of information. By 2 January 2020, the Wuhan Institute of Virology already had the first description of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, and less than 10 days later, the virus\u2019s complete genome had already been shared with scientists around the world. International scientific journals made research on COVID-19 available free of charge. Scientific websites made scientific findings more accessible than ever before, and open-source tools facilitated the sharing of information amongst scientists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, this individual stance taken by scientists and certain institutions stands in stark contrast to that of some governments and big business. This is particularly evident in the field of vaccines. \u00abEveryone agrees that vaccinating one\u2019s own population alone is not enough to end the pandemic, but we are failing to put this rhetoric into practice,\u00bb notes the panel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The COVAX initiative, which was intended to ensure a wider global distribution of vaccines, has been severely underfunded. C-TAP, another WHO initiative aimed at knowledge-sharing, has been supported (on paper) by 41 countries. After a year, it has still not received any cooperation whatsoever from vaccine manufacturers. There is no global inventory of vaccine production capacity, and the production of raw materials, vials and syringes is also subject to chaos and a \u2018every man for himself\u2019 mentality. In this area, there is little question of collaboration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ending the pandemic and preventing the next one<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The title of the report, \u00abCOVID-19: Make It The Last Pandemic\u00bb, reflects the experts\u2019 optimism about the future. This pandemic could have been prevented, and future pandemics can be too. That is why the report contains numerous recommendations. International cooperation is essential in this regard, and a strong and independent WHO is central to this. This runs counter to the trend of recent decades, during which the WHO has become a pawn in the hands of private interests (for example, through funding from the Gates Foundation) and geopolitical power struggles, such as the rivalry between the United States and China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But first and foremost, the current pandemic must be brought under control. To this end, the group has drawn up three urgent recommendations which it will put forward to the WHO General Assembly later this month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Firstly, the panel calls on wealthy countries to make one billion doses of vaccine available to the COVAX platform by 1 September this year, and more than two billion by the middle of next year. Secondly, vaccine-producing countries are urged to make patent licences available and share their knowledge on a voluntary basis. If this does not happen within three months, intellectual property rights on patents must be waived, willingly or by force. Thirdly, the G7, the group comprising the world\u2019s seven most powerful countries, must immediately commit to providing more than 10 billion dollars in support for WHO initiatives aimed at developing and supplying vaccines, treatments and technologies against COVID-19, and at strengthening health systems in poor countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the time being, official reactions to the report have been extremely lukewarm. It remains to be seen what the response will be when it is presented to the WHO General Assembly at the end of the month. It is easy to imagine which delegations will roll their eyes in annoyance at that point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Published on 18 May 2021 on In solidarity<\/a> <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

See also:<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

What can we learn from China\u2019s experience in the fight against the coronavirus?<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last May, the World Health Organisation (WHO) General Assembly decided to commission an independent evaluation of the international response to the coronavirus pandemic. Their report, based on scientific evidence, is now available.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":7738,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"En mai dernier, l'Assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de l'Organisation mondiale de la Sant\u00e9 (OMS) a d\u00e9cid\u00e9 de proc\u00e9der \u00e0 une \u00e9valuation ind\u00e9pendante de la r\u00e9ponse internationale \u00e0 la pand\u00e9mie coronavirus. Leur rapport, bas\u00e9 sur des preuves scientifiques, est maintenant disponible.","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"Une \u00e9tude ind\u00e9pendante sur la pand\u00e9mie de coronavirus pointe l\u2019Europe du doigt","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[203,208,214,530,527,529,216,531,528,215],"pays":[],"class_list":["post-7740","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-geen-onderdeel-van-een-categorie","tag-china-fr","tag-chine","tag-coronapandemie-fr","tag-etude","tag-europa-fr","tag-europe","tag-oms","tag-pandemie-de-coronavirus","tag-studie-fr","tag-who-fr"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7740","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7740"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7740\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7738"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7740"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7740"},{"taxonomy":"pays","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vivasalud.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pays?post=7740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}