![]() |
By ringisei
on 09 Apr 2008 8:01 AM Haloscan Comments Closed |
The shocking assassination of Benazir Bhutto was not the only news of global significance to come out of Pakistan in the final days of 2007; the World Health Organization reported that the first ever case of human infection by the H5N1 avian flu virus had been confirmed in Peshawar.
Last week's World Health Day has its focus is on protecting health from climate change. However this post revisits the still current (but out of the news cycle) theme of World Health Day 2007 - international health security. It gives a broad overview of the current state of preparedness against the threat of pandemic disease. It then goes on to suggest that while progress has been made at the level of individual states, more can be done to enhance an overlooked aspect: going beyond coordination and moving towards the building of a transnational element into domestic preparedness programs.
Current State of Preparedness
It is unsurprising that the state of preparedness varies widely across the many nation-states of the world; it is also unsurprising that wealthier states are better prepared in all aspects, ranging from planning to pharmaceutical stockpiling, from public health infrastructure to nationally integrated continuity and rapid response systems. The World Bank-UNSIC Third Global Progress Report on Avian Flu Activities & State of Pandemic Preparedness (PDF) as well as the WHO's Dr David Nabarro (The Global State of Influenza Pandemic Preparedness, 10 Jan 2008) have noted these trends, acknowledge that progress has been made, collated best practices and lessons learnt thus far as well as identified priorities such as keeping a close eye on animal to human infection.
Borderless Threat, National Programs
Last year PM Lee spoke about the need for greater cooperation and collaboration, more openness and transparency, as well as translating actions into words. Key areas would include monitoring, vaccine research, stockpiles of anti-viral drugs and other pharmaceutical equipment, working more closely with the veterinary and agricultural sectors.
Numerous nationally-based but internationally accessible monitoring systems have been put in place. And collaboration on vaccine research made the news made the news more for problems (such as the Indonesian case) in collaboration than progress (Pandemic Influenza Vaccines Workshop Report, PDF, Jan 2007). ASEAN continues to make many fine declarations that have, so far, been little more than the usual aspirational banalities (de)coupled with little concrete action.
Preparing Domestically, Conflicting Internationally
The core worry of this post is not just the depressing lack of positive concrete international coordination but how domestic preparedness/rapid response programs can actually interfere with each other. One example is how the rush by developed Western countries to stockpile vaccines and anti-virals, such as tamiflu, has meant that, until about last year, Roche had difficulty keeping up supply and that poorer states were relegated to the back of the queue.
Another area that does not get much press coverage is the relatively unglamorous but essential supply of non-vaccine/anti-viral medical supplies - thermometers, N95 respirator masks, surgical gowns and so on. Due to the spread of Just In Time inventory management, many states do not hold large inventories of these items even if they do not have the manufacturing capabilities to produce them. Lobbying for US federal legislation (and funding) for maintaining domestic manufacturing capacity of such products, the Coalition for Breathing Safety noted: 'The [2003] experience with SARS showed that countries will embargo exports of respirator masks in the case of a global pandemic.' Some of us might remember the miserable scramble for masks and thermometers in the early days of the crisis.
During the discussion that followed Prof Barry Kellman's IISS presentation (related post), this topic came up. Prof Kellman recounted how he was horrified to hear senior US legislators declare that not a single iota of vaccine, anti-virals or essential medical protection equipment would be allowed out of the US. He described this type of thinking as short-sighted and stupid, ignoring how disease does not respect borders and the best way to protect public health was to stop infections at the locality of the initial outbreak.
In a similar vein, Prof Ann Marie Kimball observed: 'Countries with relatively poor economies, such as Indonesia, do not have the capacity to stockpile antiviral as do wealthier countries, such as Singapore. Experience has shown, however, that with transborder traffic flu quickly spreads to all economies if not controlled effectively at the primary site of transmission.' [1]
Transnational Pandemic Preparedness
Thus a transnational component for domestic preparedness programs could play an important part for domestic as well as international health security. Preparations could be made to designate portions of vaccines, drugs, medical supplies stockpiles as well as teams of skilled personnel for rapid deployment to help contain serious outbreaks in the region. The experience of Ops Flying Eagle in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami could be instructive in some respects although any assistance would be more effective if there were stronger information-sharing, planning and coordination processes in place before hand.
I am troubled by the possibility of creating moral hazard but suspect that the fact that aid transfers between sovereign states is not unconditional may act as a sufficient deterrent. Preparing for and managing response to pandemic disease within one state is already a huge challenge [2], working to prepare and manage a pandemic crises between two or more states will be even more difficult. But the hope of this post is that such preparations will get underway soon - When the going gets tough, the tough get a bloomin' move on!
References
[1] Ann Marie Kimball, 'When the Flu Comes: Political and Economic Risks of Pandemic Disease in Asia' in Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Wills (ed), Strategic Asia 2006-07: Trade, Interdependence and Security (Washington D.C.: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2006), 385.
[2] Barry Kellman, Bioviolence: Preventing Biological Terror and Crime, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 168-84. Key decision points include the hows and whens of compulsory vaccination for first responders, placement of victims, stockpiling and disbursement of stockpiles, compulsory medical interventions such as quarantine zones.


Comments (4)
Another aspect of this issue is the increasing tendency of these richer developed countries (especially the US) to seek renewals and extensions of patents for their anti-viral drugs and vaccines. I suspect that giant pharmaceutical companies and their lobbies in government are consistently expanding the types of vaccines to be included under the existing patents as new, innovative alternatives are being produced in the areas where such pandemics are most active. Given the latter's already low levels of funding and publicity, such accusations of IPR violations by these countries are simply vicious, mean-spirited and devastating in its consequences.
Protectors of national sovereignty and interests have faced threats from globalisation and transnationalism, but now have exploited the transboundary nature of intellectual property rights to enforce protectionist barriers all across the world, even in the most dire of regions where subsidies, not tariffs, are most needed.
Posted by harrison
|
April 15, 2008 11:52 PM
harrison,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the IPR issue. Certainly the Thai and Indian compulsory licensing of various big pharm drugs to treat HIV is an important example. In addition, it reminds us of how multi/transnational firms play a huge role in public health.
Specifically WRT to avian influenza pandemic preparedness, the tussle between the Indonesian government, WHO and big pharm raise some real questions, not just about security which has been its primary framing but also about equity and distributive justice which IMHO are necessary to sustain the longer term effectiveness of security measures.
Posted by ringisei
|
April 18, 2008 6:28 PM
So this is how Singaporeangle operates- by drowning out dissenting voices and only permitting comments that are in line with your own agenda to be shown.
What a credible blog.
Posted by Ha | April 21, 2008 6:10 PM
Ha: there is no 'Singapore Angle' way of running comment threads. The orange box above the comment fields clearly state that each post author has sole discretion and thus responsibility.
You are certainly right that I, personally, only permit comments 'that are in line with [my] own agenda to be shown' - that is, comments that are clearly on topic. I don't have Loy's saintly patience nor do I have dansong or KTM's gifts for rowdy robust debate. If that's what you like, you should choh-choh them to write more. ;)
That said, dissenting on-topic comments are always welcome.
Further sweeping meta-comments that don't add anything to the discussion on pandemic preparedness itself will be removed. Thanks for your understanding.
Posted by ringisei
|
April 21, 2008 7:07 PM