Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Hindu
The Hindu
Comment
Shubham Janghu

A vague and wanting statement

Oxfam activists wearing papier mache heads depicting G7 leaders perform during a protest at Swanpool Beach near Falmouth, during the G7 summit, in Cornwall, Britain on June 12, 2021. (Source: Reuters)

Recently, the Group of Seven or G7 met in Cornwall, England. The leaders discussed a number of issues, but failed to take a firm stance on the prevention of future pandemics.

Pandemics of the future

COVID-19 is not the last pandemic we are going to see. Given the closer proximity between humans and animals due to deforestation, displacement of humans, population growth, and the search for wild food, pathogens can easily be transmitted from animals to humans (zoonotic spillover). A report by the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR) notes that most of the new pathogens’ origins are zoonotic.

G7 leaders discuss Wuhan lab leak theory behind COVID-19 pandemic 

Further, climate change is allowing the permafrost found in Arctic regions to melt and is reviving pathogens and organisms that were either once thought to be long gone or remain unknown. Recently, bdelloid rotifers, a microscopic creature that was slumbering for at least 24,000 years, was unearthed from the permafrost, which is melting in places due to climate change. Revich and Podolnaya (2011) conclude that vectors of deadly infections of the 18th and 19th centuries may make a comeback due to the same reason.

Given that we are still in the midst of a raging pandemic, what was the G7’s response to all this? The Carbis Bay Health Declaration of the G7 fails to take any concrete stance on many (or arguably, any) issues. The G7 merely “acknowledge the bold recommendations of the [IPPPR] and the other review committees” and state that they will “continue to work” with other countries, the G20, the World Health Organization (WHO), and other organisations.

The Declaration takes “note” of the IPPPR’s recommendation for a potential treaty under the framework of the WHO, suggesting a failure to reach a concrete agreement. Over 25 leaders from other regions have already supported the idea of a new treaty. Such a treaty is needed to plug holes in the current system and strengthen national capacities and resilience. COVID-19 has taught us that a pandemic anywhere is a pandemic everywhere. If the capacities of developing countries are not strengthened, another virus could spread around the world. Without giving any material support, G7 offers vague commitments to “strive for fairness, inclusion and equity” and “support vulnerable countries”.

Editorial | An elite club: On G-7 summit

Need for a holistic approach

The world needs to adopt a holistic approach for the prevention of future pandemics. Dr. Jorge E. Viñuales et al., in their article in The Lancet, argue that the need is to focus on “deep prevention”. They draw a distinction between upstream, midstream, and downstream stages of intervention. Downstream intervention refers to steps taken on the public health front (for example, prevention of disease spread). ‘Deep prevention’ focuses on upstream and midstream intervention. In the former, one would focus on the ‘One Health’ approach, which acknowledges the interconnection between humans, animals, plants, and the shared ecosystem. This approach can be given varying levels of intrusiveness. Towards the extreme end, it might involve banning wet markets, such as the one suspected to be the origin of COVID-19. China banned such markets in 2003 after the SARS outbreak; however, incentives to keep the industry open eroded the ban eventually. Although the Declaration seems to support ‘One Health’, it dilutes it to encouraging coordination efforts between the UN, WHO, World Organisation for Animal Health, and others.

G7 pledges over 1 billion vaccine doses to poor nations: Boris Johnson

Viñuales et al. suggest that the midstream intervention would involve setting up a science and policy panel such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Such a panel could ensure that science informs the law, pre-emptively detect pathogens of concern, and identify potential hotspots for an outbreak and set up a mechanism for regular inspection by the national authority and appropriate international oversight, among other things.

Shubham Janghu is a lawyer practising in New Delhi

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.