H5N1

Bird flu could become the next human pandemic – and politicians aren’t paying attention

Via The Guardian, an op-ed: Bird flu could become the next human pandemic – and politicians aren’t paying attention. Excerpt:

Since November, the signals emerging across the world continue to be worrying. In January and February this year, more than 3,000 sea lions died of bird flu in Peru (where the death toll in wild birds reached an estimated 50,000). In Russia, 700 Caspian seals died. Then several dolphins in Britain and the US died of H5N1. Normally, even if an animal catches H5N1 from a bird, it can’t pass it to other mammals. This limits its spread. But the large number of cases in these outbreaks suggest the possibility of mammal-to-mammal transmission, although this hasn’t been confirmed yet by genetic sequencing. A more likely hypothesis is that these outbreaks are groups of animals feeding on infected birds. It is not yet 100% clear what’s happening.  

But the risk of spread among mammals is ever-present. A new research pre-print from Canada showed that H5N1 samples could spread efficiently between ferrets with fatal outcomes. In order to spread efficiently to humans, H5 would need three major categories of genetic changes, according to bird flu expert Prof Richard Webby. So far, the virus has been able to make one of these changes, but not the other two. 

So right now, H5N1 is a theoretical risk for the next human pandemic, rather than one requiring urgency in response today. And a prime minister or health secretary might say, “Why prepare for something that might never happen?” 

To those of us scientists working in global health, there are enough concerning signals that action should already be happening. So that if a certain set of mutations do occur and we see an outbreak in humans in Peru or China or Britain, that the harm it could cause is minimal. This is a disease with an estimated 50-60% fatality rate in humans, including children.  

The cornerstone of infectious disease preparedness is in: surveillance (to know what strain is spreading and where in birds); testing (to identify disease quickly in humans); vaccines (for protection against disease and death); and antivirals (to improve clinical outcomes). The US government is already moving in this direction. Rebecca Katz, professor at Georgetown University Medical Center, has noted that a H5 candidate vaccine virus recently produced by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is likely to provide good protection against the circulating H5N1 viruses.  

The information has been shared with vaccine manufacturers to start the process of stockpiling adequate doses. But this is a challenge because most influenza vaccines are created by incubating doses in chicken eggs (called egg-based production). If bird flu has killed off many of the chickens, then egg shortages are likely. There’s another H5N1 vaccine which is non-egg based, but they could have a maximum of 150m doses ready within six months. The world’s population is almost 8 billion.  

In addition, the FDA-approved antiviral treatments for seasonal influenza could also work against bird flu. But again, getting doses to all parts of the world is a challenge given shortages. Preparation must also involve appropriate PPE for healthcare workers to protect against a respiratory disease (flu) and diagnostics to quickly identify if someone is infectious in hospitals.  

All of these issues are solvable with precise planning, collaboration across countries, scientific ingenuity and good leadership. With post Covid-19 fatigue, the bigger problem is bringing the public along and communicating the facts so that they are trusted and believed. With so much – often understandable – mistrust in our current political leadership, authorities like chief medical officers and independent government advisers become crucial.

Unravelling the commercial determinants of health

Via The Lancet, an editorial: Unravelling the commercial determinants of health. Excerpt:

In early March, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 200 people—including former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon—signed a letter strongly criticising pharmaceutical companies for putting a desire to make extraordinary profits before the needs of humanity. Selling publicly funded vaccines, treatments, and tests to the highest bidder resulted in inequities that cost more than a million lives, while private companies made billions of dollars. The signatories called on world leaders to ensure that such an injustice is never repeated.  

The conflict between profits and health equity is not new. The global health community fought for decades to provide access to antiretrovirals for patients with HIV/AIDS in less-resourced settings. Many commercial actors attempt to negatively influence national and international policies, undermine science, or to directly attack individuals calling out their actions. The recent Lancet Series on breastfeeding showed how an extensive network of lobbying by formula milk companies has derailed progress on breastfeeding education. 

This history speaks to the central importance to health equity of the commercial determinants of health, the subject of a Series published in this issue of The Lancet, led by Rob Moodie of the University of Melbourne, along with authors spanning 15 countries and six continents, with the support of the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation of Australia.  

The headline findings are startling: four industries (tobacco, unhealthy food, fossil fuel, and alcohol) are responsible for at least a third of global deaths per year. Yet much of the work to understand the harmful (or beneficial) impact of commercial actors has to date been done in health research silos. Each field faces many of the same tactical battles and strategies without a unified agenda to protect health. There is a lack of consensus across fields of health to define and understand the commercial determinants of health.  

The Lancet Series seeks to remedy this long-standing and complex situation with a consensus definition of the commercial determinants of health (“systems, practices, and pathways through which commercial actors drive health and equity”), a framing to understand commercial entities' impact on health, and a commitment to address its challenges in a holistic way.  

The Series authors set out a bold vision in which governments, commercial actors, and civil society contribute first and foremost to improving health and societal wellbeing. Such a vision is needed urgently. As the second paper in the Series outlines, commercial actors are diverse and many play a vital role in society, but the products and practices of many are having increasingly negative impacts on human and planetary health and equity.  

The Series provides a comprehensive agenda for action, recognising the need for regenerative business models and accountable transparent policies (including an end to commercial actors opposition to health regulation and policies).  

Moodie emphasises that the Series is not anti-business; it is pro-health. There are some notable good models of pro-health-acting businesses. For example, nearly 200 leading financial institutions (which together manage more than US$16 trillion) have signed a pledge to support tobacco-free policies across lending, investment, and insurance. However, although Environmental, Social and Governance frameworks are increasingly used to guide more responsible investment, they still lack specific health indicators.  

Health needs to become a crucial consideration of investor frameworks and global capital markets. Doing so will require the adoption of different economic models, new legislative and regulatory measures, civil society advocacy and accountability, and better corporate social responsibility. Governments must be empowered to encourage businesses to prioritise positive health impacts.  

As Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, writes in an accompanying Comment, public health cannot progress without action on the commercial determinants of health. The Lancet welcomes the upcoming WHO Congress and first Annual Report on the commercial determinants of health, especially in helping to address non-communicable diseases. Given their huge unresolved impacts, the commercial determinants of health must be recognised—and funded—as a crucial field of research.

Want to fix public health? Stop thinking like a doctor

Via The Nation, Eric Reinhart writes: Want to Fix Public Health? Stop Thinking Like a Doctor. Excerpt:

A changing of the guard in US public health is impending—and, with it, a chance to rejuvenate a flailing field. Anthony Fauci has retired in the shadow of one of the worst preventable disasters in history, and President Biden is moving to make new appointments while establishing a permanent White House Office for Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy. 

In doing so, Biden and his advisers must confront the fact that the rot in public health is structural: It cannot be cured by simply rotating the figureheads who preside over it. Building effective national health infrastructure will require confronting pervasive distortions of public health and remaking the leadership appointment systems that have left US public health agencies captive to partisan interests. 

 Part of what has made public health vulnerable and a plaything of partisan politicking is the field’s gradual medicalization. Consider, for example, the history of the nation’s most important public health agency. Since 1953, every director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has had a doctor of medicine, or MD, degree as their primary credential, with secondary degrees serving mostly as résumé decor. 

Given that medical interventions constitute only 10–20 percent of modifiable factors affecting health, the backgrounds reflected in CDC leadership—and, likewise, at most state and local public health agencies—are notable for their consistent prioritization of narrow biomedical expertise at the expense of other fields that represent the remaining 80–90 percent of pertinent knowledge for making public health policy.  

Physician and public health scholar Milton Roemer once observed that for the work of public health, “most of medical education is irrelevant.” But neither doctors’ irrelevant medical knowledge nor relative ignorance of essential fields—labor history, social anthropology, political economy, epidemiology, environmental sciences—is the most troubling aspect of physician control of public health. Rather, it’s the lack of epistemic humility, conferring an inability to recognize the limits and hazards of clinical reasoning, with which medical training often imbues them. Clinical reasoning is not only not the population-level logic of public health; it is frequently antithetical to it.

When we treat patients, doctors are appropriately oriented around taking care of the individual in front of us. We recognize that we typically cannot change their life circumstances—such as economic and housing conditions, employers’ demands, student and medical debt, neighborhood violence, or social isolation—and so we focus our clinical attention on helping them live as well as possible within existing constraints.

Public health, by contrast, is about treating populations. As with medicine, the goal of public health is to enable individuals to be free of health limitations that curtail their ability to live as they please. But public health pursues this by very different means. The task is not to help individuals accommodate to oppressive social or labor contexts. It is instead to use the power of government to change conditions that are constraining people’s freedom. The core tools of public health, then, are not just vaccines or lab tests but also policies pertaining to corporate regulation and consumer safety standards; labor protections; public jobs and housing programs; investments in community health workers, decriminalization, and decarceration; and civil rights lawsuits.

Goodbye, Johns Hopkins covid tracker

Via The Washington Post: Goodbye, Johns Hopkins covid tracker. Excerpt:

When the pandemic hit, the federal government struggled to publish snapshots of the virus’ spread.  

So, academics and journalists quickly filled the void, creating new tools with near real-time estimates of the unfolding pandemic. Since January 2020, Johns Hopkins University has operated one of the most prominent resources for tracking covid-19 case counts and deaths across the world.   

After more than three years, the university will stop updating its tracker on March 10 as the country has moved into a different stage of the pandemic with a different data flow. But the story of the online dashboard — a $13 million project that’s been viewed over 2.5 billion times — is more than just about a tool to track the pandemic. It underscores the country’s fragmented public health systems and its decentralized and underfunded reporting system, which hobbled the U.S. pandemic response.    

“The thing that became the biggest surprise was the importance and reliance on it by everyone: by the general public and decision-makers and everyone in between,” said Lauren Gardner, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering who started the global tracker with one of her PhD students.  

“Hopkins filled a gap that nobody else was able to do,” Ali Mokdad, a professor of health metrics sciences at University of Washington’s IHME. “So all of us, reporters, us in academia, we went to Hopkins to get the data.”  

Why now?  

The Johns Hopkins researchers point out that they don’t believe the pandemic has ended — and the move to stop updating the tracker shouldn’t be conflated as such. Instead, the decision comes amid a different phase of the pandemic and was made for two main reasons.   

The first: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have built up their capacity to share covid data with the general public, which Gardner called the “appropriate” entities to be providing this information long term.   

The second: The quality of the tracker depends on the quality of publicly available data. At the beginning of the pandemic, states, counties and even cities were providing daily covid updates, which scrapers for the tracker could collect data from. But that’s not the case anymore, and that has a direct impact on what the dashboard can do.   

Looking forward  

The country has made some improvements on its data collection efforts, but there’s still a ways to go, according to several experts.   

Beth Blauer, an associate vice provost at Johns Hopkins University who helped run the Coronavirus Resource Center, said that many states closed up their covid reporting with little information on any next steps.  

“Our big question is whether or not they’re making long-term investments in critical public health data infrastructure to navigate lots of challenges that they face,” Blauer said, citing the opioid epidemic and economic mobility. 

Fixing the crisis in public health

The Tyee has published my article Fixing the Crisis in Public Health. Excerpt:

After three years of pandemic and the turmoil it’s generated, Canada is looking a little the worse for wear. We may want to think it’s over, but 50,344 Canadians have died of COVID — 18,920 of them in 2022. As well, the winter of 2022-23 has put a brutal strain on health-care workers and their patients.

Meanwhile, Ottawa and the provinces have been growling at one another about health-care funding. Given the mess in the health-care system, they seem likely to come up with some kind of cost-sharing formula on Feb. 7, which may improve the situation.  

Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, has made some excellent suggestions for improving the health-care system in her annual reports for 2021 and 2022. But I expect the politicians will ignore her.  

Health spending has been enormous since the pandemic began in 2020. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, total health spending in 2022 was expected to reach $331 billion, or $8,563 per capita. Hospitals got 24.6 per cent, physicians received 13.6 per cent, and 13.6 per cent of all health spending was for drugs.  

Strikingly, only 5.3 per cent of that was for public health.

China is flying blind as pandemic rages

Via Science: China is flying blind as pandemic rages. Excerpt:

Most scientists believe China’s decision to end its zero-COVID policy was long overdue. But now they have a new worry: that the country is collecting and sharing far too little data about the rough transition to a new coexistence with the virus.  

China abruptly dropped virtually all controls a month ago, after protests, a sagging economy, and the extreme transmissibility of the virus’ latest variants made clinging to zero COVID untenable. Now, “SARS-CoV-2 has an open goal in front of it: a population with very low levels of standing immunity,” says evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney. But how the epidemic is unfolding is a mystery because the country has practically stopped collecting basic epidemiological data.  

Models that predicted a massive wave of infection and death if China ended zero COVID appear to have been correct. Press reports and social media posts have shown intensive care units stretched beyond capacity, with crowds of patients in wheelchairs and on gurneys in hallways. Doctors and nurses are reportedly working while sick. Crematoriums are overwhelmed. 

But China’s official COVID-19 death toll is widely considered laughably low. And some scientists worry a genomic monitoring plan unveiled last month doesn’t have the power to detect new SARS-CoV-2 variants arising as the virus works its way through one-fifth of the world population.

Earlier in the pandemic China’s daily counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths, based partly on its exhaustive testing programs, were generally believed to be accurate. Now, they are anyone’s guess. Patients with mild symptoms are not encouraged to get tested, let alone those who are asymptomatic. People testing positive at home are not asked to report their results.  

The China Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) put the number of confirmed cases the last week of December 2022 at more than 35,000—a fraction of the official number in the United States. But leaked notes from an internal meeting suggest a very different reality: The agency was told that almost 250 million people in China—roughly 18% of the population—may have caught COVID-19 in the first 20 days of December. Some experts said the number is implausibly large, but Yanzhong Huang, a global health specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S. think tank, says it’s “not unreasonable,” given credible reports that 80% of Beijing residents have been infected by now.  

As to the death toll, China’s reporting had long been inconsistent, Huang says, with some regions reporting all fatalities in which SARS-CoV-2 was a factor, as most countries do, and others excluding people who died from other conditions, such as heart attacks, even if they had COVID-19. In early December, China’s government decided the narrower definition should be used nationwide.  

Even then, the official count is astonishingly low: just eight deaths for the entire last week of December, which is “not matching media reports and what is being seen on social media,” says Louise Blair, who tracks China’s COVID-19 outbreak for Airfinity, a London-based health analytics firm that estimates about 9000 people were dying of COVID-19–related causes every day in late December.  

Also missing are data on case fatality rates, the average number of new infections stemming from each case, and hospital and intensive care admissions. “These are critical data” that would help health authorities get a handle on the surge and further the world’s understanding of the pandemic, says Xi Chen, a public health scientist at the Yale School of Public Health.

The next pandemic? More likely a polydemic

Last week The Tyee published my article The Next Pandemic? More Likely a Polydemic. After going through a number of unpleasant problems in global health, I concluded:

These are just some of the threats in the present polydemic, which itself is part of the present hot mess of economic decline, rising prices, war, climate change and political polarization that writers like Adam Tooze are calling a polycrisis. And it’s precisely now that Canadian health spending should be rising to support pandemic preparation and prevention, not levelling off.  

From a political point of view, lower spending makes sense. The system is still trying to catch up with all the knee and hip replacements postponed for the last two years. Inflation makes it impossible to raise taxes, and the deficit spending that kept everyone afloat in 2020 and 2021 is now politically unacceptable.  

Besides, governments have learned that they don’t have to take pandemics as seriously as they once did. Provincial governments that let COVID-19 rip have been re-elected. Public health measures like masks and vaccine mandates have triggered a populist backlash that some politicians are exploiting. Health-care workers are exhausted, underpaid and embittered.

So even if a government wanted to take the polydemic seriously, and to build up the system against future pandemics, it would face serious resistance from many voters, not to mention the business sector. Rebuilding health-care staff numbers and infrastructure would take billions, spent over more years than any government is likely to survive. Short-term emergencies would always take priority over long-term needs.  

And when the next pandemic arrived and became a short-term emergency, neither governments nor the governed would implement or accept even proven measures to protect public health. They’d recycle COVID-19 misinformation as precedent: “It was mostly mild, it only killed old people, we got through it.”  

But if it’s a pandemic as lethal as H5N1 or Ebola, which has an average case fatality rate of 50 per cent, the survivors will think otherwise.

Before 2020, the pandemic anticipators I called Flublogia were certainly worried about the impact of a new influenza or other virus. But we still had a naive faith that while it would be bad, we in North America and western Europe and Japan would have the technology and the experts to deal with it.

The response of the western nations, and especially the US, was and is a disgrace and a revelation: just as the fearsome Russian army turned out to be stupid and incompetent, so have the health systems and politicians of the "advanced" nations. If the next virus turns serious, I really doubt whether the public will listen to the advice of the health experts. Nor will healthcare workers be willing to resist another onslaught. And that, of course, will only make matters much, much worse,

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

Via Nature: A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat. The abstract:

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 approaches, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach 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 communities 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.

The politics of public health investments

Via PubMed, a discouraging but all too believable study: The politics of public health investments. The abstract:

Public health investments help to prevent mortality and reduce health care costs. Yet very few studies have examined the determinants of preventive care investments across countries and over time. We develop a theory of health spending priorities contrasting preventive and curative care. 

Preventive care is particularly unlikely to be prioritized by governments since it is a public good that requires the allocation of scarce resources in the present to generate diffuse benefits that unfold only in the long-term. As such, public health is a "quiet" policy that is not supported by interest groups or public opinion. 

These characteristics have two implications: like other long-term investments, public health programs are particularly vulnerable to fiscal austerity, and prevention expenditures are not influenced by government partisanship since parties cannot attract votes with such low visibility, long term investments. 

We use a dataset covering 25 OECD countries from 1970 to 2018 to demonstrate that fiscal consolidations are negatively associated with the absolute level of preventive care and with its proportion relative to curative care. 

We also confirm that left-wing governments are not more likely to invest in public health than right-wing governments. 

Finally, contributing to the literature on comparative health care systems, we show that National Health Services systems maintain higher preventive care investments than Social Health Insurance systems.

COVID-19: It ain’t over ’til it’s over

Via Science, an editorial by Editor in Chief H. Holden Thorp: It ain’t over ’til it’s over. Excerpt:

The Biden administration is sheepishly waving a checkered flag on the pandemic. If you look closely, you can see its members cringing as they do so. 

Chief Medical Advisor Anthony Fauci told the PBS Newshour that the United States was “out of the pandemic phase” and then walked it back, saying he meant that the “acute compo­nent” of the pandemic phase was over. President Biden attended the likely superspreading White House Corre­spondents’ Dinner last weekend but skipped cocktails and the meal, opting to just give his talk. Fauci avoid­ed the whole affair. 

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris continued to isolate after her positive COVID-19 test, and many members of Congress and the administra­tion announced positive test results as well. All of this happened while the White House allowed a renegade federal judge in Florida (where else?) to end the nationwide mask mandate without much of a fight. 

These mixed messages have been emanating from the administration for months now, and although those with resources have tools to manage COVID-19, care needs to be taken that those without such means are not forgotten. 

When Biden pledged to “follow the science,” it was hard to imagine that the country could have ended up here. But the administration made a big bet that vaccines would provide sterilizing immunity and end the pandemic, allowing it to move on to other priorities. 

Leaving behind the insanity of ivermectin, hydroxy­chloroquine, and bleach was certainly a great step forward. However, evolution has had other plans, and variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome corona­virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19) have kept the pandemic going. This left the White House in a very tight spot: There was little political will to keep pushing nonpharmaceutical interven­tions, yet the pandemic was far from over. Add to this mounting inflation worries and concerns about the war in Ukraine, and the response has been a clumsy pivot to a message that politicians always turn to: personal responsibility. 

Get vaccinated, get boosted, wear a mask, get a prescription for the antiviral Pax­lovid—if you want to. This may be fine if you have a healthy immune system, great health insurance, and the ability to navigate the US health care system. But what about everyone else? 

COVID-19 is at a similar place to where the HIV/AIDS global pandemic was when the antiretroviral drugs came along. Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves told me about important parallels between both pandem­ics. “The HIV epidemic didn’t go away,” he said. “It just went to where people could ignore it. It went into the rural South, it went to communities that were already facing disparities in health.” 

At that time, confusion between medicine and public health was also an im­portant factor. “The discourse shifting to private choice and private adjudication of risk is really not what public health science is,” he said. “We work in populations. And if we’re talking about medicine, it’s about private risk and private choices.”