The Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022 Olympic Games held during the COVID-19 pandemic: planning, outcomes, and lessons learnt.

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected all mass gatherings for sporting and religious events, causing cancellation, postponement, or downsizing. On March 24, 2020, the Japanese Government, the Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and the International Olympic Committee decided to postpone the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games until the summer of 2021. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the potential creation of a superspreading event that would overwhelm the Tokyo health system was perceived as a risk. Even with a delayed start date, an extensive scale of resources, planning, risk assessment, communication, and SARS-CoV-2 testing were required for the Games to be held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effectiveness of various mitigation and control measures, including the availability of vaccines and the expansion of effective testing options, allowed event organisers and the Japanese Government to successfully host the rescheduled 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games from July 23 to Aug 8, 2021 with robust safety plans in place. In February and March, 2022, Beijing hosted the 2022 Winter Olympic Games as scheduled, built on the lessons learnt from the Tokyo Games, and developed specific COVID-19 countermeasure plans in the context of China's national framework for the plan called Zero COVID. Results from the testing programmes at both the Tokyo and Beijing Games show that the measures put in place were effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19 within the Games, and ensured that neither event became a COVID-19-spreading event. The extensive experience from the Tokyo and Beijing Olympic Games highlights that it is possible to organise mass gatherings during a pandemic, provided that appropriate risk assessment, risk mitigation, and risk communication arrangements are in place, leaving legacies for future mass gatherings, public health, epidemic preparedness, and wider pandemic response.

Health system governance in strengthening International Health Regulations (IHR) compliance in Myanmar.

The International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR) is a legally binding framework which requires 196 WHO Member States to take actions to prevent, protect against, control and provide public health response to the international spread of disease. Improving IHR compliance provides grounds for better health system strengthening, which is key to moving countries closer towards Universal Health Coverage. Multisectoral, collaborative working within and across sectors is fundamental to improving IHR (2005) compliance, and for that, governance is the best lever of the health system. This paper highlights the importance of the relationship between governance and IHR in the context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which follow the fundamental principle of interdependence; SDGs interlink with one another. We consider governance (SDG 16) and how it influences the IHR capacity of SDG 3 (health and well-being for all at all ages). This paper considers the successes of the Myanmar Ministry of Health and Sports thus far in improving IHR compliance and highlights that an even greater focus on health system governance would lead to more sustainable outcomes. Nurturing an institutional culture with enforced rules, which are conducive for improved accountability through inclusive participation would further improve Myanmar IHR strengthening efforts. Without those principles of good governance, the developed IHR capacities cannot be sustained or owned by Myanmar people. This has now become even more urgent given the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Novel public health risk assessment process developed to support syndromic surveillance for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Background: Syndromic surveillance aims to provide early warning and real time estimates of the extent of incidents; and reassurance about lack of impact of mass gatherings. We describe a novel public health risk assessment process to ensure those leading the response to the 2012 Olympic Games were alerted to unusual activity that was of potential public health importance, and not inundated with multiple statistical 'alarms'. Methods: Statistical alarms were assessed to identify those which needed to result in 'alerts' as reliably as possible. There was no previously developed method for this. We identified factors that increased our concern about an alarm suggesting that an 'alert' should be made. Results: Between 2 July and 12 September 2012, 350 674 signals were analysed resulting in 4118 statistical alarms. Using the risk assessment process, 122 'alerts' were communicated to Olympic incident directors. Conclusions: Use of a novel risk assessment process enabled the interpretation of large number of statistical alarms in a manageable way for the period of a sustained mass gathering. This risk assessment process guided the prioritization and could be readily adapted to other surveillance systems. The process, which is novel to our knowledge, continues as a legacy of the Games.

An Observational Study Using English Syndromic Surveillance Data Collected During the 2012 London Olympics - What did Syndromic Surveillance Show and What Can We Learn for Future Mass-gathering Events?

Introduction In preparation for the London 2012 Olympic Games, existing syndromic surveillance systems operating in England were expanded to include daily general practitioner (GP) out-of-hours (OOH) contacts and emergency department (ED) attendances at sentinel sites (the GP OOH and ED syndromic surveillance systems: GPOOHS and EDSSS). Hypothesis/Problem The further development of syndromic surveillance systems in time for the London 2012 Olympic Games provided a unique opportunity to investigate the impact of a large mass-gathering event on public health and health services as monitored in near real-time by syndromic surveillance of GP OOH contacts and ED attendances. This can, in turn, aid the planning of future events. METHODS: The EDSSS and GPOOHS data for London and England from July 13 to August 26, 2012, and a similar period in 2013, were divided into three distinct time periods: pre-Olympic period (July 13-26, 2012); Olympic period (July 27 to August 12); and post-Olympic period (August 13-26, 2012). Time series of selected syndromic indicators in 2012 and 2013 were plotted, compared, and risk assessed by members of the Real-time Syndromic Surveillance Team (ReSST) in Public Health England (PHE). Student's t test was used to test any identified changes in pattern of attendance. RESULTS: Very few differences were found between years or between the weeks which preceded and followed the Olympics. One significant exception was noted: a statistically significant increase (P value = .0003) in attendances for "chemicals, poisons, and overdoses, including alcohol" and "acute alcohol intoxication" were observed in London EDs coinciding with the timing of the Olympic opening ceremony (9:00 pm July 27, 2012 to 01:00 am July 28, 2012). CONCLUSIONS: Syndromic surveillance was able to provide near to real-time monitoring and could identify hourly changes in patterns of presentation during the London 2012 Olympic Games. Reassurance can be provided to planners of future mass-gathering events that there was no discernible impact in overall attendances to sentinel EDs or GP OOH services in the host country. The increase in attendances for alcohol-related causes during the opening ceremony, however, may provide an opportunity for future public health interventions. Todkill D , Hughes HE , Elliot AJ , Morbey RA , Edeghere O , Harcourt S , Hughes T , Endericks T , McCloskey B , Catchpole M , Ibbotson S , Smith G . An observational study using English syndromic surveillance data collected during the 2012 London Olympics - what did syndromic surveillance show and what can we learn for future mass-gathering events? Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(6):628-634.

London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: public health surveillance and epidemiology.

Mass gatherings are regarded as potential risks for transmission of infectious diseases, and might compromise the health system of countries in which they are hosted. The evidence for increased transmission of infectious diseases at international sporting mass gatherings that attract many visitors from all over the world is not clear, and the evidence base for public health surveillance, epidemiology, and response at events such as the Olympics is small. However, infectious diseases are a recognised risk, and public health planning is, and should remain, a crucial part of the overall planning of sporting events. In this Series paper, we set out the planning and the surveillance systems that were used to monitor public health risks during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in the summer of 2012, and draw attention to the public health issues-infectious diseases and chemical, radiation, and environmental hazards-that arose. Although the absolute risk of health-protection problems, including infectious diseases, at sporting mass gatherings is small, the need for reassurance of the absence of problems is higher than has previously been considered; this could challenge conventional public health surveillance systems. Recognition of the limitations of health-surveillance systems needs to be part of the planning for future sporting events.

Euro 2012 European Football Championship Finals: planning for a health legacy.

The revised international health regulations offer a framework that can be used by host countries to organise public health activities for mass gatherings. From June 8, to July 1, 2012, Poland and Ukraine jointly hosted the Union of European Football Associations European Football Championship Finals (Euro 2012). More than 8 million people from around the world congregated to watch the games. Host countries and international public health agencies planned extensively to assess and build capacity in the host countries and to develop effective strategies for dissemination of public health messages. The effectiveness of public health services was maximised through rapid sharing of information between parties, early use of networks of experienced individuals, and the momentum of existing national health programmes. Organisers of future mass gatherings for sporting events should share best practice and their experiences through the WHO International Observer Program. Research about behaviour of large crowds is needed for crowd management and the evidence base translated into practice. A framework to measure and evaluate the legacy of Euro 2012 is needed based on the experiences and the medium-term and long-term benefits of the tournament.