A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

Human rights and the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective and prospective analysis.

When the history of the COVID-19 pandemic is written, the failure of many states to live up to their human rights obligations should be a central narrative. The pandemic began with Wuhan officials in China suppressing information, silencing whistleblowers, and violating the freedom of expression and the right to health. Since then, COVID-19's effects have been profoundly unequal, both nationally and globally. These inequalities have emphatically highlighted how far countries are from meeting the supreme human rights command of non-discrimination, from achieving the highest attainable standard of health that is equally the right of all people everywhere, and from taking the human rights obligation of international assistance and cooperation seriously. We propose embedding human rights and equity within a transformed global health architecture as the necessary response to COVID-19's rights violations. This means vastly more funding from high-income countries to support low-income and middle-income countries in rights-based recoveries, plus implementing measures to ensure equitable distribution of COVID-19 medical technologies. We also emphasise structured approaches to funding and equitable distribution going forward, which includes embedding human rights into a new pandemic treaty. Above all, new legal instruments and mechanisms, from a right to health treaty to a fund for civil society right to health advocacy, are required so that the narratives of future health emergencies-and people's daily lives-are ones of equality and human rights.

Judicial Power and Influence on Population Health.

Policy Points Since its founding, the Supreme Court has played a major role in defining the parameters of governments' public health powers and the scope of individual health-related rights. Although conservative courts have been less favorable to public health objectives, federal courts have, for the most part, advanced public health interests through consensus and adherence to the rule of law. In establishing the current six-three conservative supermajority, the Trump administration and the Senate shifted the Supreme Court dramatically. A majority of Justices, led by Chief Justice Roberts, did shift the Court in a decidedly conservative direction. It did so incrementally, guided by the Chief's intuition that the Institution itself should be preserved, mindful of maintaining public trust and appearing outside the political fray. That has all changed because Roberts' voice no longer holds sway. Five members of the Court have displayed a willingness to overturn even long-held precedent and dismantle public health policy in favor of the Justices' core ideological tenants-notably the extensive reach of the First and Second Amendments and a parsimonious view of executive and administrative action. Public health is vulnerable to judicial rulings in this new conservative era. This includes classic public health powers in infectious disease control as well as reproductive rights; lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer or questioning, and others (LGBTQ+) rights; firearm safety; immigration; and climate change. Congress has the power to curb the most extreme actions of the Court while still adhering to the vital ideal of a nonpolitical branch. That does not require Congress itself to overreach (such as by "packing" the Supreme Court, as Franklin Delaeno Roosevelt once proposed). Congress could, however, 1) disempower lower federal judges from issuing injunctions that apply nationwide, 2) limit the Supreme Court's so-called shadow docket, 3) alter the way that presidents appoint federal judges, and 4) set reasonable term limits for federal judges and Supreme Court Justices.

The Global Health Architecture: Governance and International Institutions to Advance Population Health Worldwide.

Policy Points Global health institutions and instruments should be reformed to fully incorporate the principles of good health governance: the right to health, equity, inclusive participation, transparency, accountability, and global solidarity. New legal instruments, like International Health Regulations amendments and the pandemic treaty, should be grounded in these principles of sound governance. Equity should be embedded into the prevention of, preparedness for, response to, and recovery from catastrophic health threats, within and across nations and sectors. This includes the extant model of charitable contributions for access to medical resources giving way to a new model that empowers low- and middle-income countries to create and produce their own diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics-such as through regional messenger RNA vaccine manufacturing hubs. Robust and sustainable funding of key institutions, national health systems, and civil society will ensure more effective and just responses to health emergencies, including the daily toll of avoidable death and disease disproportionately experienced by poorer and more marginalized populations.

A survey of International Health Regulations National Focal Points experiences in carrying out their functions.

BACKGROUND: The 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR (2005)) require States Parties to establish National Focal Points (NFPs) responsible for notifying the World Health Organization (WHO) of potential events that might constitute public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs), such as outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Given the critical role of NFPs in the global surveillance and response system supported by the IHR, we sought to assess their experiences in carrying out their functions. METHODS: In collaboration with WHO officials, we administered a voluntary online survey to all 196 States Parties to the IHR (2005) in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South and North America, from October to November 2019. The survey was available in six languages via a secure internet-based system. RESULTS: In total, 121 NFP representatives answered the 56-question survey; 105 in full, and an additional 16 in part, resulting in a response rate of 62% (121 responses to 196 invitations to participate). The majority of NFPs knew how to notify the WHO of a potential PHEIC, and believed they have the content expertise to carry out their functions. Respondents found training workshops organized by WHO Regional Offices helpful on how to report PHEICs. NFPs experienced challenges in four critical areas: 1) insufficient intersectoral collaboration within their countries, including limited access to, or a lack of cooperation from, key relevant ministries; 2) inadequate communications, such as deficient information technology systems in place to carry out their functions in a timely fashion; 3) lack of authority to report potential PHEICs; and 4) inadequacies in some resources made available by the WHO, including a key tool - the NFP Guide. Finally, many NFP representatives expressed concern about how WHO uses the information they receive from NFPs. CONCLUSION: Our study, conducted just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrates key challenges experienced by NFPs that can affect States Parties and WHO performance when outbreaks occur. In order for NFPs to be able to rapidly and successfully communicate potential PHEICs such as COVID-19 in the future, continued measures need to be taken by both WHO and States Parties to ensure NFPs have the necessary authority, capacity, training, and resources to effectively carry out their functions as described in the IHR.

Tuberculosis, human rights, and law reform: Addressing the lack of progress in the global tuberculosis response.

Mathew Kavanagh and co-authors discuss law reform in the global tuberculosis response.

The International Health Regulations (2005), the threat of populism and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare weaknesses and major challenges in the international approach to managing public health emergencies. Populist sentiment is spreading globally as democratic nations are increasing their support for or electing governments that are perceived to represent "traditional" native interests. Measures need to be taken to proactively address populist sentiment when reviewing the IHR (2005) effectiveness in the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss how populism can impact the IHR (2005) and conversely how the IHR (2005) may be able to address populist concerns if the global community commits to helping states address public health threats that emerge within their borders.

The two most important questions for ethical public health.

Public health ethics is a distinct and established field, and it is important that its approaches and rationales are understood widely in the public health community. Such understanding includes the capacity to identify and combine principled and practical concerns in public health. In this paper, we present a background to the ideas that motivate public health ethics as a field of research and practice, and rationalize these through a critical ethico-legal approach to analysis. Two essential points of inquiry are identified and formulated to allow philosophical and practical agendas regarding public health to be combined. These come through asking the theoretical question 'what makes health public?'; and the practical question 'how do we make health public?'. We argue that these two questions require to be addressed if we are to achieve a robust and rigorous, ethical public health.

Vexing, Veiled, and Inequitable: Social Distancing and the "Rights" Divide in the Age of COVID-19.

Although unprecedented in scope and beyond all our life experiences, sweeping social distancing measures are not without historical precedent. Historically, racism, stigma, and discrimination resulted in grossly inequitable application of disease containment measures. But history also provides examples in which broad measures enjoyed remarkable public support. When it comes to COVID-19, blame and division continue to shape containment responses. But the COVID-19 pandemic also resonates with moments in which there was broad social support for containment precisely because lockdowns or stay at home orders are, on the surface, remarkably equitable. Yet even in a context in which a majority of Americans support social distancing, small but coordinated conservative groups are challenging social distancing as a matter of individual rights. In sharp contrast, vulnerable populations, who bear the heaviest burden of disease, have claimed a right to social distancing as a matter of protection.

Hesitant or Not? The Association of Age, Gender, and Education with Potential Acceptance of a COVID-19 Vaccine: A Country-level Analysis.

In December 2020, the first COVID-19 vaccines were approved. Despite more than 85 million reported cases and 1.8 million known deaths, millions worldwide say they may not accept it. This study assesses the associations of age, gender, and level of education with vaccine acceptance, from a random sample of 13,426 participants selected from 19 high-COVID-19 burden countries in June 2020. Based on univariable and multivariable logistic regression, several noteworthy trends emerged: women in France, Germany, Russia, and Sweden were significantly more likely to accept a vaccine than men in these countries. Older (≥50) people in Canada, Poland, France, Germany, Sweden, and the UK were significantly more favorably disposed to vaccination than younger respondents, but the reverse trend held in China. Highly educated individuals in Ecuador, France, Germany, India, and the US reported that they will accept a vaccine, but higher education levels were associated with lower vaccination acceptance in Canada, Spain, and the UK. Heterogeneity by demographic factors in the respondents' willingness to accept a vaccine if recommended by employers were substantial when comparing responses from Brazil, Ecuador, France, India, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, and the US. This information should help public health authorities target vaccine promotion messages more effectively.

Legal capacities required for prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases.

Law lies at the centre of successful national strategies for prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. By law we mean international agreements, national and subnational legislation, regulations and other executive instruments, and decisions of courts and tribunals. However, the vital role of law in global health development is often poorly understood, and eclipsed by other disciplines such as medicine, public health and economics. This paper identifies key areas of intersection between law and noncommunicable diseases, beginning with the role of law as a tool for implementing policies for prevention and control of leading risk factors. We identify actions that the World Health Organization and its partners could take to mobilize the legal workforce, strengthen legal capacity and support effective use of law at the national level. Legal and regulatory actions must move to the centre of national noncommunicable disease action plans. This requires high-level leadership from global and national leaders, enacting evidence-based legislation and building legal capacities.

Le droit est au cœur des stratégies nationales efficaces de lutte contre les maladies non transmissibles. Par droit, nous entendons les accords internationaux, les législations nationales et infranationales, les réglementations et autres instruments exécutifs, et les décisions des cours et des tribunaux. Cependant, le rôle vital du droit dans le développement de la santé à l'échelle mondiale est souvent mal compris, et éclipsé par d'autres disciplines telles que la médecine, la santé publique et l'économie. Cet article définit des domaines d'intersection clés entre le droit et les maladies non transmissibles, en commençant par le rôle du droit en tant qu'outil pour mettre en œuvre des politiques visant à prévenir et maîtriser les principaux facteurs de risque. Nous mettons en évidence des mesures que l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé et ses partenaires pourraient prendre pour mobiliser les professionnels du droit, renforcer les capacités juridiques et soutenir une utilisation efficace du droit au niveau national. Des mesures juridiques et réglementaires doivent être placées au centre des plans d'action nationaux pour la lutte contre les maladies non transmissibles. Cela nécessite un leadership de haut niveau de la part des dirigeants internationaux et nationaux, à travers l'adoption de lois fondées sur des données scientifiques et un renforcement des capacités juridiques.

La ley es la clave del éxito de las estrategias nacionales para la prevención y el control de las enfermedades no contagiosas. Por ley entendemos los acuerdos internacionales, la legislación nacional y subnacional, los reglamentos y otros instrumentos ejecutivos, así como las decisiones de los tribunales y las cortes de justicia. Sin embargo, el papel vital de la ley en el desarrollo de la salud mundial a menudo no se comprende bien y se ve eclipsado por otras disciplinas como la medicina, la salud pública y la economía. Este documento identifica las áreas clave de intersección entre la ley y las enfermedades no contagiosas, empezando por el papel de la ley como herramienta para implementar políticas de prevención y control de los principales factores de riesgo. Se determinan las medidas que la Organización Mundial de la Salud y sus asociados podrían adoptar para movilizar al personal legal, fortalecer la capacidad jurídica y apoyar el uso eficaz de la legislación a nivel nacional. Las acciones legales y reglamentarias deben pasar a ser el centro de los planes de acción nacionales para las enfermedades no contagiosas. Esto requiere un liderazgo de alto nivel por parte de los líderes mundiales y nacionales, para promulgar una legislación basada en pruebas y crear capacidades jurídicas.

The Salzburg Statement on Vaccination Acceptance.

Immunization represents one of the greatest public health achievements. Vaccines save lives, make communities more productive and strengthen health systems. They are critical to attaining the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Vaccination also represents value for investment in public health. It is undisputedly one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease, each year preventing 2-3 million deaths globally. We the concerned scientists, public health professionals, physicians, and child health advocates issue this Salzburg Statement along with the International Working Group on Vaccination and Public Health Solutions, proclaiming our unwavering commitment to universal childhood vaccination, and our pledge to support the development, testing, implementation, and evaluation of new, effective, and fact-based communication programs. Our goal is to explain vaccinations to parents or caregivers, answer their questions, address their concerns, and maintain public confidence in the personal, family and community protection that childhood vaccines provide. Every effort will also be made to communicate the dangers associated with these childhood illnesses to parents and communities since this information seems to have been lost in the present-day narrative. While vaccine misinformation has led to serious declines in community vaccination rates that require immediate attention, in other communities, particularly in low-income countries, issues such as lack of access. and unstable supply of vaccines need to be addressed.

Guiding industry settlements of opioid litigation.

Background: The recent $270 million settlement of Purdue Pharmaceuticals and the State of Oklahoma on March 26, 2019 concerning the state's opioid litigation is a harbinger of industry settlements to come. Thousands of opioid-related cases with impending trial dates may stimulate opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to seek new deals to escape historic liability. Objectives: Against a backdrop of massive damage potential of a two decade opioid epidemic, reaching appropriate settlements is key. Parties to opioid lawsuits must balance an array of factors to assure industry accountability while preserving access to opioids among legitimate patients seeking palliative care. Methods: We examined major bases for opioid litigation across the U.S. Thousands of cases have been filed against opioid manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and others. Hundreds of these cases are consolidated in a federal district court in Cleveland, Ohio where trials are scheduled as early as October 2019. Grounds for litigation are highly varied. Results: Multiple factors underlying responsible settlements include (1) a primary focus on contemporary treatment and prevention strategies supplemented by research innovations; (2) primary access to life-saving treatments for at-risk individuals; (3) fair and equitable allocation of settlement resources; (4) dedication to lawful, efficacious interventions; (5) cross-sharing of industry data and practices to promote good faith compliance; and (6) continued assurance of access to palliative care for deserving patients. Conclusions: Negotiated settlements must align with highly effective public health priorities. Crafting wise settlement agreements is necessary to assign responsibility for huge public harms and ensure future treatments that are prudent and efficacious.