Members of the World Health Organization passed a deal on Tuesday to improve preparations for a future pandemic after the global response to Covid-19 was disconnected, but the United States’ lack of doubts about the effectiveness of the treaty.
After three years of negotiations, the World Health Assembly of Geneva passed a legally binding convention. Whose member states welcome their applause in the afterlife.
The agreement was touted as a victory for members of global health agencies, when multilateral organizations like the WHO were hit by sharp cuts in U.S. foreign funding.
The agreement is a victory, a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we can better protect the world from the threat of future pandemics. ”
The agreement is designed to ensure that drugs, therapeutic agents and vaccines are available worldwide in the next pandemic. It requires participating manufacturers to allocate 20% of vaccines, drugs and testing targets during the pandemic to ensure poorer countries can use it.
But when President Donald Trump began a 12-month process, which he served in the agency for 12 months (to date, the WHO's largest financial backer) when he took office in January, he began a discussion of the agreement on the process of withdrawing the United States (by far the largest financial backer).
In view of this, the United States, which puts billions of dollars into vaccine development during the U.S. pandemic, will not be bound by the agreement. If a member state fails to implement the member state, they will not face a fine.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services.
“This will lock in all the dysfunctions of the WHO pandemic response compared to the pandemic agreement. … We won't be involved,” he said.
Protocol draws mixed reviews
Slovakia demanded a deal after the vote on Monday was reached as its vaccine skeptic prime minister asked his country to challenge the challenge of passing the deal.
One hundred and twenty-four countries voted for it, and no state voted against it, while 11 countries, including Poland, Israel, Italy, Russia, Slovakia and Iran, abstained.
Some health experts welcome the treaty, a step towards global health equity following a lack of vaccines and diagnosis in poor countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It contains key regulations, especially in research and development, which, if implemented, can turn the global pandemic response to greater equality,” Michelle Childs, director of policy advocacy, told Reuters.
Others said the agreement did not meet its initial ambitions, did not have a strong implementation framework, and its risks were stuck in a future pandemic.
“It's an empty shell. …It's hard to say it's a treaty with a strong commitment obligation. …It's a good starting point. But it has to be developed.”
Helen Clark, co-chair of the pandemic preparation and response for independent panels, described the agreement as the basis for establishment.
“There are still many gaps in finance, equitable access to medical responses and understanding the risks of evolving.”
The agreement cannot take effect until the shared disease-causing information is shared. He said the negotiations began here with the aim of delivering the attachment to the World Health Assembly for adoption. Western diplomatic data suggests that it may take two years to complete.
