This question seems a bit naïve. A global fund? Do you mean something like a United Nations fund? I doubt nations in the East would be eager to contribute.
As for preparedness, surely …Read MoreThis question seems a bit naïve. A global fund? Do you mean something like a United Nations fund? I doubt nations in the East would be eager to contribute.
As for preparedness, surely epidemiologists are already ahead of the game, some even predicted COVID-19, yet those warnings fell on deaf ears. I’m also skeptical of the word preparedness itself. After the last pandemic, it felt like many politicians failed to step up. Instead of keeping the peace, they panicked, copied other nations, and triggered widespread scaremongering.
If we want to talk about true preparedness, perhaps our leaders need training in how to keep the public calm. And funding for what exactly? We need to tread carefully here. Governments already invest heavily in virus research, but we also have to consider the role of private companies doing the same. There’s a great deal of secrecy surrounding virus and vaccine development.
Take the polio vaccine, for example. Scientists, like politicians, can be driven by ambition and a desire for recognition. While their intentions may be good, that ambition can sometimes narrow their focus, leading to rushed or harmful testing and studies that are difficult to replicate.
Pandemic funding should be transparent. But the reality is, many private companies are working independently, sometimes for other nations, and are not always forthcoming about their research on viruses. Read Less
I think there should be a set, very basic international protocol (or general agreement amongst countries) for how states should be expected to respond to public health crises and assist each other. …Read MoreI think there should be a set, very basic international protocol (or general agreement amongst countries) for how states should be expected to respond to public health crises and assist each other. This may exist already. I also think all countries should have a fund for pandemic response. But, a global fund for pandemic response seems like an administrative disaster waiting to happen.
Beyond the difficulty of trying to convince states to contribute in the first place, what about what happens during a global health crisis? Trying to figure out what to target, who gets/deserves what money, where it goes, how to ensure the states actually use the money for its intended purpose— it all sounds like a logistical nightmare. Our international bodies are already stagnant and struggle to make substantial changes. And genuine enforcement of international agreements is mostly non-existent.
A much more productive use of time and money, in my opinion, would be focusing on international health prevention long before a pandemic. Poverty elimination, increasing healthcare access, battling climate change, infrastructure improvements—these are the efforts we should really be targeting. Read Less
Funds were certainly short during the recent pandemic, but the more distinctive cause of struggle was the lack of other important resources: widespread knowledge, cooperation, and trust in protocol …Read MoreFunds were certainly short during the recent pandemic, but the more distinctive cause of struggle was the lack of other important resources: widespread knowledge, cooperation, and trust in protocol and medical instructions. Instead of saving money, it could be useful for nations to put money toward updating facilities and implementing programs that would make it possible for people to become educated about vaccines and disease (or even educate themselves) to decrease the fearmongering and spread of misinformation and distrust.
Having procedures to protect the vulnerable, such as the elderly, the young, the immunocompromised, and others who are unduly burdened by sickness or unable to avoid exposure is especially important for building faith. Read Less
I do see benefit to this, but complications with logistics about how much each country is able to contribute and rollout etc. I agree with above comments that having set agreed on procedures can have …Read MoreI do see benefit to this, but complications with logistics about how much each country is able to contribute and rollout etc. I agree with above comments that having set agreed on procedures can have more impact than a global fund.Read Less
I agree with a lot of people above that enforcing a global fund like this would be extremely difficult. Getting countries to come together, form a consensus, and contribute large amounts of money is …Read MoreI agree with a lot of people above that enforcing a global fund like this would be extremely difficult. Getting countries to come together, form a consensus, and contribute large amounts of money is very hard to do. There could also potentially be inequalities in resource allocation. While I think the idea behind the pandemic preparedness fund has the right intentions, I’m not sure how realistic it is to have all countries contributing to an international fund.Read Less
This would probably be a good idea, especially considering how much underdeveloped countries struggled during Covid. Some insurance fund would help mitigate this and keep the economies of lower …Read MoreThis would probably be a good idea, especially considering how much underdeveloped countries struggled during Covid. Some insurance fund would help mitigate this and keep the economies of lower-incomem countries afloat. However, I am not particular well-informed on this topic, so I select “maybe.”Read Less
I think all countries with the means should. Pandemics spread because of travel, and most citizens with the means to travel live in countries with the means to contribute to these proposed funds. If a …Read MoreI think all countries with the means should. Pandemics spread because of travel, and most citizens with the means to travel live in countries with the means to contribute to these proposed funds. If a third world country can’t contribute, I don’t think they should be forced to.Read Less
I think that there are countries with significantly more resources that also contributed more to the spread of the most recent pandemic; therefore, it would be unfair to require all countries to …Read MoreI think that there are countries with significantly more resources that also contributed more to the spread of the most recent pandemic; therefore, it would be unfair to require all countries to contribute to a global fund.Read Less
I think this would be unnecessary. Why invest in a global fund when you can put that same money in a fund for just your country? I understand how this could benefit less wealthy countries, but there …Read MoreI think this would be unnecessary. Why invest in a global fund when you can put that same money in a fund for just your country? I understand how this could benefit less wealthy countries, but there are other ways they can receive aid.Read Less
This question seems a bit naïve. A global fund? Do you mean something like a United Nations fund? I doubt nations in the East would be eager to contribute.
As for preparedness, surely …Read MoreThis question seems a bit naïve. A global fund? Do you mean something like a United Nations fund? I doubt nations in the East would be eager to contribute.
As for preparedness, surely epidemiologists are already ahead of the game, some even predicted COVID-19, yet those warnings fell on deaf ears. I’m also skeptical of the word preparedness itself. After the last pandemic, it felt like many politicians failed to step up. Instead of keeping the peace, they panicked, copied other nations, and triggered widespread scaremongering.
If we want to talk about true preparedness, perhaps our leaders need training in how to keep the public calm.
And funding for what exactly? We need to tread carefully here. Governments already invest heavily in virus research, but we also have to consider the role of private companies doing the same. There’s a great deal of secrecy surrounding virus and vaccine development.
Take the polio vaccine, for example. Scientists, like politicians, can be driven by ambition and a desire for recognition. While their intentions may be good, that ambition can sometimes narrow their focus, leading to rushed or harmful testing and studies that are difficult to replicate.
Pandemic funding should be transparent. But the reality is, many private companies are working independently, sometimes for other nations, and are not always forthcoming about their research on viruses. Read Less
I think there should be a set, very basic international protocol (or general agreement amongst countries) for how states should be expected to respond to public health crises and assist each other. …Read MoreI think there should be a set, very basic international protocol (or general agreement amongst countries) for how states should be expected to respond to public health crises and assist each other. This may exist already. I also think all countries should have a fund for pandemic response. But, a global fund for pandemic response seems like an administrative disaster waiting to happen.
Beyond the difficulty of trying to convince states to contribute in the first place, what about what happens during a global health crisis? Trying to figure out what to target, who gets/deserves what money, where it goes, how to ensure the states actually use the money for its intended purpose— it all sounds like a logistical nightmare. Our international bodies are already stagnant and struggle to make substantial changes. And genuine enforcement of international agreements is mostly non-existent.
A much more productive use of time and money, in my opinion, would be focusing on international health prevention long before a pandemic. Poverty elimination, increasing healthcare access, battling climate change, infrastructure improvements—these are the efforts we should really be targeting. Read Less
Funds were certainly short during the recent pandemic, but the more distinctive cause of struggle was the lack of other important resources: widespread knowledge, cooperation, and trust in protocol …Read MoreFunds were certainly short during the recent pandemic, but the more distinctive cause of struggle was the lack of other important resources: widespread knowledge, cooperation, and trust in protocol and medical instructions. Instead of saving money, it could be useful for nations to put money toward updating facilities and implementing programs that would make it possible for people to become educated about vaccines and disease (or even educate themselves) to decrease the fearmongering and spread of misinformation and distrust.
Having procedures to protect the vulnerable, such as the elderly, the young, the immunocompromised, and others who are unduly burdened by sickness or unable to avoid exposure is especially important for building faith. Read Less
I do see benefit to this, but complications with logistics about how much each country is able to contribute and rollout etc. I agree with above comments that having set agreed on procedures can have …Read MoreI do see benefit to this, but complications with logistics about how much each country is able to contribute and rollout etc. I agree with above comments that having set agreed on procedures can have more impact than a global fund. Read Less
Probably a good idea for countries to do that but it’s both unfeasible and morally wrong to force all countries to do that.
I agree with a lot of people above that enforcing a global fund like this would be extremely difficult. Getting countries to come together, form a consensus, and contribute large amounts of money is …Read MoreI agree with a lot of people above that enforcing a global fund like this would be extremely difficult. Getting countries to come together, form a consensus, and contribute large amounts of money is very hard to do. There could also potentially be inequalities in resource allocation. While I think the idea behind the pandemic preparedness fund has the right intentions, I’m not sure how realistic it is to have all countries contributing to an international fund. Read Less
This would probably be a good idea, especially considering how much underdeveloped countries struggled during Covid. Some insurance fund would help mitigate this and keep the economies of lower …Read MoreThis would probably be a good idea, especially considering how much underdeveloped countries struggled during Covid. Some insurance fund would help mitigate this and keep the economies of lower-incomem countries afloat. However, I am not particular well-informed on this topic, so I select “maybe.” Read Less
I think all countries with the means should. Pandemics spread because of travel, and most citizens with the means to travel live in countries with the means to contribute to these proposed funds. If a …Read MoreI think all countries with the means should. Pandemics spread because of travel, and most citizens with the means to travel live in countries with the means to contribute to these proposed funds. If a third world country can’t contribute, I don’t think they should be forced to. Read Less
I think that there are countries with significantly more resources that also contributed more to the spread of the most recent pandemic; therefore, it would be unfair to require all countries to …Read MoreI think that there are countries with significantly more resources that also contributed more to the spread of the most recent pandemic; therefore, it would be unfair to require all countries to contribute to a global fund. Read Less
I think this would be unnecessary. Why invest in a global fund when you can put that same money in a fund for just your country? I understand how this could benefit less wealthy countries, but there …Read MoreI think this would be unnecessary. Why invest in a global fund when you can put that same money in a fund for just your country? I understand how this could benefit less wealthy countries, but there are other ways they can receive aid. Read Less