By the time it is over, COVID-19 will have been the worse pandemic experienced in the lifetime of virtually anyone who is alive today. The final death toll, and the catastrophic impact it will have had on public health and economies around the world, will be of a magnitude unimaginable only a month or so back. Many aspects of life as we know it will have changed, some permanently.
Given all of this, is it not critically essential that we as a global society develop a set of Lessons Learned, as well as concrete actions moving forward, in order to safeguard against this type of global disaster happening in another “X” number of years? Serious question: Who out there believes the world can afford to experience another pandemic on the scale of COVID-19 (or worse) during any foreseeable future, given the chaos this one has wreaked?
With this in mind, this pandemic should not only be battled and survived, but looked upon as an opportunity.
Mistake after mistake has been made since the very beginning of this outbreak in China. Enough mistakes to go around and still have some left over after everyone has gotten their share. I would believe a comprehensive Lessons Learned analysis would contain enough material to fill several volumes.
Right now, the world is putting out fires. Now is probably not the time to sit down and discuss Lessons Learned, because many of the world’s countries are fighting to preserve the lives of their people, and their way of life. But eventually this will pass, and the danger (and my concern) is that the focus will shift to restoring a semblance of normal life and recuperation, while pushing Lessons Learned to the background. We cannot afford to let that happen.
What are some of the Lessons Learned we can begin with? For that, let’s go back to the beginning of the outbreak.
The outbreak began in China. Putting aside all conspiracy theories (of which there is never a shortage), the accepted fact is that the outbreak began in China. Where was the World Health Organization (WHO) at that time? Granted, China is extremely secretive and guarded about its affairs. Granted, the WHO has no authority to enforce any measures, much less in a country like China. But at some point the problem in China became known. At that point, it should have been the WHO’s responsibility to quickly and forcefully communicate the situation globally, as well as providing clear guidelines for other countries to prepare for a worst-case scenario.
- Lesson #1: Put some “teeth” into the WHO and empower them to communicate effectively, and help to head off future pandemics.
As the outbreak became a pandemic and spread around the globe, it became apparent that some countries were harder hit than others, and some responded and dealt with the crisis better than others. After the pandemic subsides, the countries with the best track records should become case studies to be discussed and emulated by others. A sort of “best practices” exercise for the benefit of all countries.
- Lesson #2: Encourage each country to study how the virus was handled and contained by the countries with the lowest contagion rates, and work (and incentivize them) to implement these.
The only people qualified to discuss virus spread and everything associated with this, are the virologists and related professionals with the qualifications necessary to provide recommendations to governments regarding containment and remediation actions. This group does not include political figures, including heads of state, with no related qualifications but plenty of conflicting interests. In a manufacturing operation, Quality Control does not report to Manufacturing, as that would represent a conflict of interest. The same should hold true for matters of global health during declared pandemics.
- Lesson #3: There should be a clear, independent body of health professionals with the sole mission of providing unimpeded opinion and direction in times of epidemics and pandemics. They should be free of undue influence by outside interests such as government officials or heads of industry.
Ideally it should be the WHO, an agency of the United Nations. It is the logical way to maintain an independent chain of command. Which would bring us back to the importance of Lesson # 1.
Hospitals and laboratories are at the forefront of this, and any pandemic or other health crises. As such, they should always be in the utmost state of preparation including: supplies, procedures, logistics, contingency plans, etc. After COVID-19, it would be inexcusable for hospitals not to have the necessary supplies and equipment to adequately deal with these crises.
Hospital administrations play a key role in making sure their hospitals are up to the task. They should ensure the welfare of their health professionals, who are in turn tasked with maintaining the health of the general public. Logistics should be developed and put in place to ensure equipment, tests, supplies, and others, are available when and where they are needed, in the quantities needed, in cases such as these.
- Lesson #4: It should become mandatory (and auditable) for hospitals to have well-documented and rehearsed procedures and practices to effectively deal with pandemics which can not only overwhelm a hospital, but also put health professionals at risk, thus rendering the hospital less effective.
This subject is obviously too broad to adequately discuss in one blog article. I will continue to write more. But the main point is this… Given the catastrophic magnitude of what we are still experiencing, it will be a colossal undertaking to recover, both in the health and economic aspects of our lives. Yet is imperative that as much energy and focus is devoted to discussing and reacting to the lessons we should have learned, as to the recovery efforts that are sure to come.
Rey Greetings,
I think this virus took many governments buckets surprise. While it is tue that the virus began in China I think it began in a densely populated, low salubrity developing country. This is nature’s way to deal with uncontrollable human density in the globe. Measures should be taken to reduce population in large cities and incentivize economic development out is less populated areas. Also need to invest in pharma independence…..
Hello Esteban, and thank you so much for commenting on this very critical topic. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. Reducing population density in large cities is certainly a desirable path forward, and many modern urban planners agree. Implementing this, however, is not easily done. Perhaps as you said, by incentivizing economic development in less populated areas. Big pharma certainly plays a big role in preventing future pandemics as well. In fact, future articles I plan to write will deal with ways to seek out potential origins of future outbreaks, as well as possible measures to minimize their probabilities of occurrence.
Thanks again for your feedback.