Laidback Al
New member
Pandemic influenza?(some) reasons to be cheerful?
The Lancet, Volume 376, Issue 9741, Page 565, 21 August 2010
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61277-9
There was no fanfare to accompany WHO's declaration on Aug 10 that the world was entering a ?post-pandemic period? and that influenza A H1N1 had ?largely run its course?. But the aftershocks of the pandemic might last for a long time, so this announcement should herald the start of a period of reflection.
From the first cases, in Mexico, in March, 2009, to identification of the culprit virus took WHO's global influenza surveillance network just 6 weeks. Then, with only oseltamivir to protect the world's population, the cogs of the influenza vaccine production mechanism whirred into action. Normally competitive groups collaborated, and countries around the world shared data on virus strains, despite fears that many would not do so without a binding agreement guaranteeing vaccines in return for data. Once a suitable seed strain was grown, drug companies started to make a useable vaccine. From virus identification to vaccine approval by the US Food and Drug Administration took 6 months. So far, so good. But from here on, chinks in the pandemic preparedness armour started to appear.
. . .
Questions are rightly being asked about the influence of the drug industry on WHO's decision-making process, but to focus on this alone would be foolish. Now is not the time to apportion blame, but to ask: how can we do better next time? First, we need to be better prepared. . . .
Second, we need systems in place to maximise learning. Protocols and approvals should be ready for randomised trials of treatment strategies; these could then begin recruiting as soon as an outbreak occurs. But finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need to rebuild a relationship of trust with the public. The disparity between predicted and actual severity of this pandemic has severely dented experts' credibility, so now experts need to use all methods at their disposal to engage the public. The best laid plans will come to nothing if people have lost faith in the information and interventions available.
Full text at: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...?elsca1=TL-210810&elsca2=email&elsca3=segment
The Lancet, Volume 376, Issue 9741, Page 565, 21 August 2010
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61277-9
There was no fanfare to accompany WHO's declaration on Aug 10 that the world was entering a ?post-pandemic period? and that influenza A H1N1 had ?largely run its course?. But the aftershocks of the pandemic might last for a long time, so this announcement should herald the start of a period of reflection.
From the first cases, in Mexico, in March, 2009, to identification of the culprit virus took WHO's global influenza surveillance network just 6 weeks. Then, with only oseltamivir to protect the world's population, the cogs of the influenza vaccine production mechanism whirred into action. Normally competitive groups collaborated, and countries around the world shared data on virus strains, despite fears that many would not do so without a binding agreement guaranteeing vaccines in return for data. Once a suitable seed strain was grown, drug companies started to make a useable vaccine. From virus identification to vaccine approval by the US Food and Drug Administration took 6 months. So far, so good. But from here on, chinks in the pandemic preparedness armour started to appear.
. . .
Questions are rightly being asked about the influence of the drug industry on WHO's decision-making process, but to focus on this alone would be foolish. Now is not the time to apportion blame, but to ask: how can we do better next time? First, we need to be better prepared. . . .
Second, we need systems in place to maximise learning. Protocols and approvals should be ready for randomised trials of treatment strategies; these could then begin recruiting as soon as an outbreak occurs. But finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need to rebuild a relationship of trust with the public. The disparity between predicted and actual severity of this pandemic has severely dented experts' credibility, so now experts need to use all methods at their disposal to engage the public. The best laid plans will come to nothing if people have lost faith in the information and interventions available.
Full text at: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...?elsca1=TL-210810&elsca2=email&elsca3=segment