Researching Law Fall 2020 - Flipbook - Page 6
R ESEA RC HI N G L AW
that major revision was in place
at the time of COVID when it
started in 2019. The new versions
of the IHR brought about some
significant changes, including
mandated reporting on a broader
range of public health threats. The
new IHR also ensure that there
is no longer any discretion for
countries to decide what to report.
Instead, decision tools now exist to
guide countries on what they must
report. Moreover, the WHO is now
permitted to act on information
for a wider array of sources rather
than relying exclusively on official
information coming from member
states.
Additional infrastructure now
exists to support these new
IHR. National IHR focal points
have been mandated to serve as
designated reporters. There are also
two toolkits to help harmonize
the international regulations and
domestic law, which is crucial
when both international and
national responses are needed
for diseases such as COVID.
Designated WHO IHR contact
points in various regions of the
country also receive and track
down information to harmonize
and facilitate a coordinated
national and international
response.
As a result of the new IHR in place
when the COVID-19 pandemic
began in China in November
2019, the first reports were much
timelier. China reported COVID-19
domestically and to the WHO in
6
“We had a better
global response (to
COVID-19),” said
Heimer. “Had we been
operating under the
1969 rules, without
the augmented
capacities of the
revised IHR, we would
be worse off.”
late December 2019. When the
WHO received the information,
they immediately began sending
out regular updates, including
travel advisories. The WHO
declared COVID-19 a Public
Health Emergency of International
Concern in January 2020,
enabling the international
community to provide political,
financial, and technical support to
confront the emergency.
Though SARS and COVID both
originated during the month of
November in China, public health
regulations made a difference in
notifying and preparing nations
worldwide for an outbreak. The
public health regulatory changes
and surveillance actions that went
into place in the intervening years
between SARS and COVID have
critically affected how countries
responded throughout the world.
But while SARS topped out at
8,000 total cases and less than 800
total deaths, COVID has reached
many millions of cases, countless
deaths, and is currently ongoing.
Still, many experts agree that, given
the infection rate and severity of
COVID-19, this could have been
much worse if the international
rules had not been in place.
“We had a better global response
(to COVID-19),” said Heimer.
“Had we been operating under the
1969 rules, without the augmented
capacities of the revised IHR, we
would be worse off.”
The Varying Domestic
Responses to COVID
Although uniform and coordinated
global rules and tracking made
for a swifter global response to
COVID-19, domestic responses
to the pandemic have varied
considerably. These divergent
domestic responses have resulted in
disparate and inconsistent public
health impacts within different
regions, countries, and even
localities.
Global health law and domestic
health law form a fractal system,
noted Heimer. The parts are in the
same structure as the whole, so the
patterns tend to recur.
“The disease challenges on
the global level are mirrored
domestically. There are conflicts
between health and the economy.
And there are issues about the
movement of populations and the
transmissions of diseases, and how
you control borders, whether those
are national borders, state borders,
or borders of municipalities.”