H5N1

True number of Covid deaths in the US likely undercounted, experts say

Via The Guardian: True number of Covid deaths in the US likely undercounted, experts say. Excerpt:

The true number of deaths from the Covid pandemic in the US is likely being undercounted, due to the long-lasting and little-understood effects of Covid infection and other deadly complications that surged during the past two years.  

“We are seeing right now the highest death rates we have ever seen in the history of this business,” J Scott Davison, CEO of insurance company OneAmerica, told journalists on 30 December.

“Death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said, among working-age people between 18 and 64. Deaths among older Americans have also increased, with one in 100 Americans over the age of 65 dying.  

There have been an estimated 942,431 excess deaths in the US since February 2020, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hispanic, Black and Native American and Alaska Native populations have been disproportionately affected with high death rates, research shows.  

Previous crises pale in comparison to the pandemic, Davison said. “A one-in-200-year catastrophe would be a 10% increase over pre-pandemic [levels]. So 40% is just unheard of.”  

Many of the deaths aren’t counted in the official Covid tally, he said, because they happen months after Covid infections. “The deaths that are being reported as Covid deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be Covid on their death certificates, but deaths are up in just huge, huge numbers.”  

In addition to deaths from Covid-19, drug overdoses – already one of the leading causes of death for working-age adults – and homicides have also risen during the pandemic.  

Insurers are also seeing a rise in disability claims – at first for short-term disability and now for long-term disability, because of both long Covid and delayed care for other illnesses, “because people haven’t been able to get the health care that they need because the hospitals are overrun”, Davison said. It’s a trend ”consistent across every player in the business” of insurance.  

Deaths from long Covid have been particularly difficult to track, because the virus may no longer be present at the time of death, but it weakened organs or created fatal new ailments.  

“We’re seeing the statistics get written as we go, almost,” Micah Pollak, associate professor of economics at Indiana University Northwest, said. And high rates of mortality and disability will only continue as more people get infected, he said.

Static socio-ecological COVID-19 vulnerability index and vaccine hesitancy index for England

Via The Lancet Regional Health: Static Socio-Ecological COVID-19 Vulnerability Index and Vaccine Hesitancy Index for England. The summary:

Background  

Population characteristics can be used to infer vulnerability of communities to COVID-19, or to the likelihood of high levels of vaccine hesitancy. Communities harder hit by the virus, or at risk of being so, stand to benefit from greater resource allocation than their population size alone would suggest. This study reports a simple but efficacious method of ranking small areas of England by relative characteristics that are linked with COVID-19 vulnerability and vaccine hesitancy.  

Methods  

Publicly available data on a range of characteristics previously linked with either poor COVID-19 outcomes or vaccine hesitancy were collated for all Middle Super Output Areas of England (MSOA, n=6790, excluding Isles of Scilly), scaled and combined into two numeric indices. Multivariable linear regression was used to build a parsimonious model of vulnerability (static socio-ecological vulnerability index, SEVI) in 60% of MSOAs, and retained variables were used to construct two simple indices. Assuming a monotonic relationship between indices and outcomes, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between the SEVI and cumulative COVID-19 case rates at MSOA level in the remaining 40% of MSOAs over periods both during and out with national lockdowns. Similarly, a novel vaccine hesitancy index (VHI) was constructed using population characteristics aligned with factors identified by an Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey analysis. The relationship between the VHI and vaccine coverage in people aged 12+years (as of 2021-06-24) was determined using Spearman correlation. The indices were split into quintiles, and MSOAs within the highest vulnerability and vaccine hesitancy quintiles were mapped.  

Findings  

The SEVI showed a moderate to strong relationship with case rates in the validation dataset across the whole study period, and for every intervening period studied except early in the pandemic when testing was highly selective. The SEVI was more strongly correlated with case rates than any of its domains (rs 0·59 95% CI 0.57-0.62) and outperformed an existing MSOA-level vulnerability index. The VHI was significantly negatively correlated with COVID-19 vaccine coverage in the validation data at the time of writing (rs -0·43 95% CI -0·46 to -0·41). London had the largest number and proportion of MSOAs in quintile 5 (most vulnerable/hesitant) of SEVI and VHI concurrently.  

Interpretation  

The indices presented offer an efficacious way of identifying geographical disparities in COVID-19 risk, thus helping focus resources according to need.

A new study ties lifespans to wealth gaps in Greater Vancouver

The Tyee has published my latest article: A New Study Ties Lifespans to Wealth Gaps in Greater Vancouver. Excerpt:

We like to think of Greater Vancouver as one of the best places to live in Canada, if not in the world. Yes, it is — especially for those of us living in the most affluent neighbourhoods. Those in the poorest neighbourhoods, however, are dying younger than their rich neighbours, sometimes by many years. And the gap between them was getting wider even before the opioid-overdose crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic became twin health emergencies. 

That’s an easy conclusion to draw from a recent study published in the journal Health & Place. Of course it’s more complicated than that, but it still seems paradoxical that a region as prosperous as Greater Vancouver should see some people die years younger than others living just a few kilometres away.  

The study involved UBC researchers working with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington and with Imperial College, London. Its ambitious goal was to track life expectancy and major causes of deaths in Greater Vancouver over a quarter-century, from 1990 to 2016. Moreover, they broke the numbers down to the census-tract-level — in effect, neighbourhood by neighbourhood. Overall, the study offers an invaluable portrait of our collective health before the pandemic.  

In some ways, it’s a very flattering portrait. Even the poorest males, in the tenth percentile, had a median life expectancy in 2016 of 77.6; that is, half died before that age and half later. For tenth-percentile females, median life expectancy was 82.5.  

But in the 95th percentile, the richest five per cent of our population, median male life expectancy was 87.1. For females in the 90th percentile, it was 90.8. The poor were paying with almost a decade of their lives for the privilege of living here. 

 The study makes a striking observation: “Between 1991 and 2016, there was a downward trend in the LE [life expectancy] gap, whereby the lowest gap was observed in 2001 (6.9 years for females and 7.9 for males), but this reversed and increased by 1.4-1.6 years between 2001 and 2016.” By a wild coincidence, 2001 was the year the BC Liberals won a huge majority over the NDP and ran the province under Gordon Campbell and then Christy Clark until 2017.  

British researchers noticed a very similar effect during Margaret Thatcher’s years in power: Around 1980, British and Japanese life expectancy were about the same, but then, as the U.K. income gap widened, British lives grew shorter. In Japan, with a much narrower income gap, life expectancy rose to among the highest on the planet.  

What we’re dying of  

And what have Greater Vancouver residents been dying of? Between 1990 and 2016, deaths from cardiovascular diseases, neoplasms (cancers) and unintentional injuries dropped sharply. Clearly, we’ve been exercising more, smoking less, and taking care of ourselves, at least up to a point.  

But we’ve also seen a 10 per cent increase in neurological disorders, a catch-all term that can include everything from Alzheimer’s to eating disorders to meningitis. Other noncommunicable diseases like diabetes mellitus and kidney disease rose by almost four per cent.  

And while the richest of us had little to fear from infectious diseases in 1991, the poorest were already contending with (and dying from) HIV-AIDS and sexually transmitted infections at 12 times the rate as the richest. The poorest faced seven times the rate of maternal and neonatal disorders. They died of neoplasms at over four times the rate of the richest.

Consumption in the G20 nations causes particulate air pollution resulting in two million premature deaths annually

Via Nature Communications: Consumption in the G20 nations causes particulate air pollution resulting in two million premature deaths annually. The abstract:

Worldwide exposure to ambient PM2.5 causes over 4 million premature deaths annually. As most of these deaths are in developing countries, without internationally coordinated efforts this polarized situation will continue. As yet, however, no studies have quantified nation-to-nation consumer responsibility for global mortality due to both primary and secondary PM2.5 particles. 

Here we quantify the global footprint of PM2.5-driven premature deaths for the 19 G20 nations in a position to lead such efforts. G20 consumption in 2010 was responsible for 1.983 [95% Confidence Interval: 1.685–2.285] million premature deaths, at an average age of 67, including 78.6 [71.5–84.8] thousand infant deaths, implying that the G20 lifetime consumption of about 28 [24–33] people claims one life. 

Our results indicate that G20 nations should take responsibility for their footprint rather than focusing solely on transboundary air pollution, as this would expand opportunities for reducing PM2.5-driven premature mortality. Given the infant mortality footprint identified, it would moreover contribute to ensuring infant lives are not unfairly left behind in countries like South Africa, which have a weak relationship with G20 nations.

COVID-19's global death toll tops 5 million in under 2 years

Via The Associated Press: COVID-19's global death toll tops 5 million in under 2 years. Excerpt:

The global death toll from COVID-19 topped 5 million on Monday, less than two years into a crisis that has not only devastated poor countries but also humbled wealthy ones with first-rate health care systems. 

Together, the United States, the European Union, Britain and Brazil — all upper-middle- or high-income countries — account for one-eighth of the world’s population but nearly half of all reported deaths. The U.S. alone has recorded over 745,000 lives lost, more than any other nation.   

“This is a defining moment in our lifetime,” said Dr. Albert Ko, an infectious disease specialist at the Yale School of Public Health. “What do we have to do to protect ourselves so we don’t get to another 5 million?”  

The death toll, as tallied by Johns Hopkins University, is about equal to the populations of Los Angeles and San Francisco combined. It rivals the number of people killed in battles among nations since 1950, according to estimates from the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Globally, COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death, after heart disease and stroke.

The staggering figure is almost certainly an undercount because of limited testing and people dying at home without medical attention, especially in poor parts of the world, such as India.  

Hot spots have shifted over the 22 months since the outbreak began, turning different places on the world map red. Now, the virus is pummeling Russia, Ukraine and other parts of Eastern Europe, especially where rumors, misinformation and distrust in government have hobbled vaccination efforts. In Ukraine, only 17% of the adult population is fully vaccinated; in Armenia, only 7%.  

“What’s uniquely different about this pandemic is it hit hardest the high-resource countries,” said Dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, director of ICAP, a global health center at Columbia University. “That’s the irony of COVID-19.”  

Wealthier nations with longer life expectancies have larger proportions of older people, cancer survivors and nursing home residents, all of whom are especially vulnerable to COVID-19, El-Sadr noted. Poorer countries tend to have larger shares of children, teens and young adults, who are less likely to fall seriously ill from the coronavirus.  

India, despite its terrifying delta surge that peaked in early May, now has a much lower reported daily death rate than wealthier Russia, the U.S. or Britain, though there is uncertainty around its figures.  

The seeming disconnect between wealth and health is a paradox that disease experts will be pondering for years. But the pattern that is seen on the grand scale, when nations are compared, is different when examined at closer range. Within each wealthy country, when deaths and infections are mapped, poorer neighborhoods are hit hardest.  

In the U.S., for example, COVID-19 has taken an outsize toll on Black and Hispanic people, who are more likely than white people to live in poverty and have less access to health care.  

“When we get out our microscopes, we see that within countries, the most vulnerable have suffered most,” Ko said.  

Wealth has also played a role in the global vaccination drive, with rich countries accused of locking up supplies. The U.S. and others are already dispensing booster shots at a time when millions across Africa haven’t received a single dose, though the rich countries are also shipping hundreds of millions of shots to the rest of the world.

Life expectancy and risk of death in 6791 communities in England from 2002 to 2019

Via The Lancet Public Health: Life expectancy and risk of death in 6791 communities in England from 2002 to 2019: high-resolution spatiotemporal analysis of civil registration data. The summary:

Background  

High-resolution data for how mortality and longevity have changed in England, UK are scarce. We aimed to estimate trends from 2002 to 2019 in life expectancy and probabilities of death at different ages for all 6791 middle-layer super output areas (MSOAs) in England.  

Methods  

We performed a high-resolution spatiotemporal analysis of civil registration data from the UK Small Area Health Statistics Unit research database using de-identified data for all deaths in England from 2002 to 2019, with information on age, sex, and MSOA of residence, and population counts by age, sex, and MSOA. We used a Bayesian hierarchical model to obtain estimates of age-specific death rates by sharing information across age groups, MSOAs, and years. We used life table methods to calculate life expectancy at birth and probabilities of death in different ages by sex and MSOA.  

Findings  

In 2002–06 and 2006–10, all but a few (0–1%) MSOAs had a life expectancy increase for female and male sexes. In 2010–14, female life expectancy decreased in 351 (5·2%) of 6791 MSOAs. By 2014–19, the number of MSOAs with declining life expectancy was 1270 (18·7%) for women and 784 (11·5%) for men. 

The life expectancy increase from 2002 to 2019 was smaller in MSOAs where life expectancy had been lower in 2002 (mostly northern urban MSOAs), and larger in MSOAs where life expectancy had been higher in 2002 (mostly MSOAs in and around London). As a result of these trends, the gap between the first and 99th percentiles of MSOA life expectancy for women increased from 10·7 years (95% credible interval 10·4–10·9) in 2002 to reach 14·2 years (13·9–14·5) in 2019, and for men increased from 11·5 years (11·3–11·7) in 2002 to 13·6 years (13·4–13·9) in 2019.  

Interpretation  

In the decade before the COVID-19 pandemic, life expectancy declined in increasing numbers of communities in England. To ensure that this trend does not continue or worsen, there is a need for pro-equity economic and social policies, and greater investment in public health and health care throughout the entire country.

Mortality rates by college degree before and during COVID-19

Via NBER, a paper by Anne Case and Angus Deaton: Mortality Rates by College Degree Before and During COVID-19. Click or tap through to download the PDF. The abstract:

It is now established that mortality and excess mortality from COVID-19 differed across racial and ethnic groups in 2020. Less is known about educational differences in mortality during the pandemic. We examine mortality rates by BA status within sex, age, and race/ethnic groups comparing 2020 with 2019. Mortality rates have increasingly differed by BA status in the US in recent years and there are good reasons to expect the gap to have widened further during the pandemic. 

Using publicly available provisional data from the National Center for Health Statistics we find that mortality rates increased in 2020 over 2019 for those with and without a BA, irrespective of age, sex, or race/ethnicity. Although mortality rates increased by more for those without a BA, the ratio of mortality rates for those with and without a BA changed surprisingly little from 2019 to 2020. Among 60 groups (sex by race/ethnicity by age) that are available in the data, the ratio of mortality rates of those without a BA to those with a BA fell for more than half of the groups. 

Our results suggest that differences in the risk of infection were less important in structuring mortality by education than differences in the risk of death conditional on infection.

Covid is killing rural Americans at twice the rate of people in urban areas

Via NBC News, a report by Lauren Weber of Kaiser Health News: Covid Is killing rural Americans at twice the rate of people in urban areas. Excerpt:

Rural Americans are dying of Covid at more than twice the rate of their urban counterparts — a divide that health experts say is likely to widen as access to medical care shrinks for a population that tends to be older, sicker, heavier, poorer and less vaccinated.  

While the initial surge of Covid-19 deaths skipped over much of rural America, where roughly 15 percent of Americans live, nonmetropolitan mortality rates quickly started to outpace those of metropolitan areas as the virus spread nationwide before vaccinations became available, according to data from the Rural Policy Research Institute.  

Since the pandemic began, about 1 in 434 rural Americans have died from Covid, compared with roughly 1 in 513 urban Americans, the institute’s data shows. And though vaccines have reduced overall Covid death rates since the winter peak, rural mortality rates are now more than double that of urban ones — and accelerating quickly.  

In rural northeastern Texas, Titus Regional Medical Center CEO Terry Scoggin is grappling with a 39 percent vaccination rate in his community. Eleven patients died of Covid in the first half of September at his hospital in Mount Pleasant, population 16,000. Typically, three or four nonhospice patients die there in a whole month.  

“We don’t see death like that,” Scoggin said. “You usually don’t see your friends and neighbors die.”

Part of the problem is that Covid incidence rates in September were roughly 54 percent higher in rural areas than elsewhere, said Fred Ullrich, a University of Iowa College of Public Health research analyst who co-wrote the institute’s report. He said the analysis compared the rates between nonmetropolitan, or rural, areas and metropolitan, or urban, areas. In 39 states, he added, rural counties had higher rates of Covid than their urban counterparts.  

“There is a national disconnect between perception and reality when it comes to Covid in rural America,” said Alan Morgan, head of the National Rural Health Association. “We’ve turned many rural communities into kill boxes. And there's no movement towards addressing what we're seeing in many of these communities, either among the public, or among governing officials.”  

Still, the high incidence of cases and low vaccination rates don’t fully capture why mortality rates are so much higher in rural areas than elsewhere. Academics and officials alike describe rural Americans’ greater rates of poor health and their limited options for medical care as a deadly combination. The pressures of the pandemic have compounded the problem by deepening staffing shortages at hospitals, creating a cycle of worsening access to care.  

It's the latest example of the deadly coronavirus wreaking more havoc in some communities than others. Covid has also killed Native American, Black or Hispanic people at disproportionately high rates.  

Vaccinations are the most effective way to prevent Covid infections from turning deadly. Roughly 41 percent of rural America was vaccinated as of Sept. 23, compared with about 53 percent of urban America, according to an analysis by The Daily Yonder, a newsroom covering rural America. Limited supplies and low access made shots hard to get in the far-flung regions at first, but officials and academics now blame vaccine hesitancy, misinformation and politics for the low vaccination rates.

How the US vaccine effort derailed and why we shouldn’t be surprised

Via The Guardian: How the US vaccine effort derailed and why we shouldn’t be surprise. Excerpt:

There are very specific, well-documented reasons that Americans are hesitant to take vaccines. They vary from the troubling way the medical system treats people of color, to vaccine misinformation campaigns overwhelmingly popular in conservative circles, to logistical challenges.  

But population health researchers, whose work considers how society as a whole is fairing, said low vaccine uptake may be looked at another way: as the predictable outcome of a campaign subject to entrenched social forces that have diminished American health and life expectancy since the 1980s.  

“When I look at this I do see a very familiar pattern,” said Dr Steven Woolf, a prominent population health researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University. “When Operation Warp Speed came out I thought I was just seeing a modern example of this old problem where the scientific community developed the vaccine at ‘warp speed,’ but the implementation system for getting it out into the community was inadequate”.  

Woolf calls this “breakthrough without follow-through”. In that light, the plodding vaccination campaign could be seen as one more aspect of the American “health disadvantage”.  

The phrase describes a paradox: the US houses among the most advanced medical and research centers in the world, but performs poorly in basic health metrics such as maternal mortality and infant mortality; accidental injury, death and disability; and chronic and infectious disease.

"So much of the whole issue of social determinants of health and the US ‘health disadvantage’ is rooted in a lack of trust and a lack of trustworthiness in many parts of our society,” said Laudan Y Aron, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s health policy center. 

A key piece of research in this area is a 2013 report by a panel chaired by Woolf, directed by Aron, and funded by the National Institutes of Health. Called US Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health, the report describes how Americans spend more than double per person on healthcare compared to 17 peer nations, but rank near the bottom in health outcomes.  

The phenomenon is described as “pervasive”, impacting all age groups up to 75, with life expectancy declining especially for women. In just a few examples, Americans have the highest infant mortality, children are less likely to live to age five, and the US has the worst rates of Aids among peer nations.  

The US also has the highest or among the highest rates of cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic lung disease and disability. Together, these risk factors culminate in Americans having the worst or second worst probability of living to age 50.  

Americans know intuitively that their healthcare is expensive, frustrating and often unfair. Remarkably, even amid the pandemic, roughly 30 million Americans went without health insurance, exposing them to potentially ruinous medical debt.  

“It’s also really interesting how often the messaging is: talk to your doctor, talk to someone you trust,” said Aron. “Yet, we don’t really acknowledge how many people don’t have a doctor, or a doctor they have a trust-based relationship with them”.

Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health

Via The Lancet, but also published in 200 other health journals around the world: Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health.

The UN General Assembly in September, 2021, will bring countries together at a critical time for marshalling collective action to tackle the global environmental crisis. They will meet again at the biodiversity summit in Kunming, China, and the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, UK. Ahead of these pivotal meetings, we—the editors of health journals worldwide—call for urgent action to keep average global temperature increases below 1·5°C, halt the destruction of nature, and protect health.  

Health is already being harmed by global temperature increases and the destruction of the natural world, a state of affairs health professionals have been bringing attention to for decades.1 The science is unequivocal; a global increase of 1·5°C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse. Despite the world's necessary preoccupation with COVID-19, we cannot wait for the pandemic to pass to rapidly reduce emissions.  

Reflecting the severity of the moment, this Comment appears in health journals across the world. We are united in recognising that only fundamental and equitable changes to societies will reverse our current trajectory.  

The risks to health of increases above 1·5°C are now well established. Indeed, no temperature rise is “safe”. In the past 20 years, heat-related mortality among people older than 65 years has increased by more than 50%. Higher temperatures have brought increased dehydration and renal function loss, dermatological malignancies, tropical infections, adverse mental health outcomes, pregnancy complications, allergies, and cardiovascular and pulmonary morbidity and mortality. Harms disproportionately affect the most vulnerable, including children, older populations, ethnic minorities, poorer communities, and those with underlying health problems.  

Global heating is also contributing to the decline in global yield potential for major crops, falling by 1·8–5·6% since 1981; this, together with the effects of extreme weather and soil depletion, is hampering efforts to reduce undernutrition. Thriving ecosystems are essential to human health, and the widespread destruction of nature, including habitats and species, is eroding water and food security and increasing the chance of pandemics.  

The consequences of the environmental crisis fall disproportionately on those countries and communities that have contributed least to the problem and are least able to mitigate the harms. Yet no country, no matter how wealthy, can shield itself from these impacts. Allowing the consequences to fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable will breed more conflict, food insecurity, forced displacement, and zoonotic disease—with severe implications for all countries and communities. As with the COVID-19 pandemic, we are globally as strong as our weakest member.  

Rises above 1·5°C increase the chance of reaching tipping points in natural systems that could lock the world into an acutely unstable state. This would critically impair our ability to mitigate harms and to prevent catastrophic, runaway environmental change.  

Encouragingly, many governments, financial institutions, and businesses are setting targets to reach net-zero emissions, including targets for 2030. The cost of renewable energy is dropping rapidly. Many countries are aiming to protect at least 30% of the world's land and oceans by 2030.  

These promises are not enough. Targets are easy to set and hard to achieve. They are yet to be matched with credible short-term and longer-term plans to accelerate cleaner technologies and transform societies. Emissions reduction plans do not adequately incorporate health considerations. Concern is growing that temperature rises above 1·5°C are beginning to be seen as inevitable, or even acceptable, to powerful members of the global community. Relatedly, current strategies for reducing emissions to net zero by the middle of the 21st century implausibly assume that the world will acquire great capabilities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

This insufficient action means that temperature increases are likely to be well in excess of 2°C, a catastrophic outcome for health and environmental stability. Crucially, the destruction of nature does not have parity of esteem with the climate element of the crisis, and every single global target to restore biodiversity loss by 2020 was missed. This is an overall environmental crisis.

Health professionals are united with environmental scientists, businesses, and many others in rejecting that this outcome is inevitable. More can and must be done now—in Glasgow and Kunming—and in the immediate years that follow. We join health professionals worldwide who have already supported calls for rapid action.

Equity must be at the centre of the global response. Contributing a fair share to the global effort means that reduction commitments must account for the cumulative, historical contribution each country has made to emissions, as well as its current emissions and capacity to respond. Wealthier countries will have to cut emissions more quickly, making reductions by 2030 beyond those currently proposed and reaching net-zero emissions before 2050. Similar targets and emergency action are needed for biodiversity loss and the wider destruction of the natural world.

To achieve these targets, governments must make fundamental changes to how our societies and economies are organised and how we live. The current strategy of encouraging markets to swap dirty for cleaner technologies is not enough. Governments must intervene to support the redesign of transport systems, cities, production and distribution of food, markets for financial investments, health systems, and much more. Global coordination is needed to ensure that the rush for cleaner technologies does not come at the cost of more environmental destruction and human exploitation.

Many governments met the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic with unprecedented funding. The environmental crisis demands a similar emergency response. Huge investment will be needed, beyond what is being considered or delivered anywhere in the world. But such investments will produce huge positive health and economic outcomes. These include high quality jobs, reduced air pollution, increased physical activity, and improved housing and diet. Better air quality alone would realise health benefits that easily offset the global costs of emissions reductions.

These measures will also improve the social and economic determinants of health, the poor state of which may have made populations more vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic. But the changes cannot be achieved through a return to damaging austerity policies or the continuation of the large inequalities of wealth and power within and between countries.

In particular, countries that have disproportionately created the environmental crisis must do more to support low-income and middle-income countries to build cleaner, healthier, and more resilient societies. High-income countries must meet and go beyond their outstanding commitment to provide US$100 billion a year, making up for any shortfall in 2020 and increasing contributions to and beyond 2025. Funding must be equally split between mitigation and adaptation, including improving the resilience of health systems.

Financing should be through grants rather than loans, building local capabilities and truly empowering communities, and should come alongside forgiving large debts, which constrain the agency of so many low-income countries. Additional funding must be marshalled to compensate for inevitable loss and damage caused by the consequences of the environmental crisis.

As health professionals, we must do all we can to aid the transition to a sustainable, fairer, resilient, and healthier world. Alongside acting to reduce the harm from the environmental crisis, we should proactively contribute to global prevention of further damage and action on the root causes of the crisis. We must hold global leaders to account and continue to educate others about the health risks of the crisis. We must join in the work to achieve environmentally sustainable health systems before 2040, recognising that this will mean changing clinical practice. Health institutions have already divested more than $42 billion of assets from fossil fuels; others should join them.

The greatest threat to global public health is the continued failure of world leaders to keep the global temperature rise below 1·5°C and to restore nature. Urgent, society-wide changes must be made and will lead to a fairer and healthier world. We, as editors of health journals, call for governments and other leaders to act, marking 2021 as the year that the world finally changes course.