This article captures the webinar narrative on March 31, 2020 of four expert panelists addressing three questions on the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Each panelist was selected for their unique personal expertise, ranging from front-line emergency physicians from multiple countries, an international media personality, former director of the US Strategic National Stockpile, and one of the foremost international experts in disaster medicine and public policy. The forum was moderated by one of the most widely recognized disaster medical experts in the world. The four panelists were asked three questions regarding the current pandemic as follows:

1. 1. What do you see as a particular issue of concern during the current pandemic?

2. 2. What do you see as a particular strength during the current pandemic?

3. 3. If you could change one thing about the way that the pandemic response is occurring, what would you change?

For a large number of health care providers world-wide, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is their first experience in population-based care. In past decades, lower population densities, infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics were rare and driven almost exclusively by natural disasters, predatory animals, and war. In the early 1900s, Sir William Osler first advanced the knowledge of zoonotic diseases that are spread from reservoir animals to human animals. Once rare, they now make up 71% or more of new diseases. Globally, zoonotic spread occurs for many reasons. Because the human population has grown in numbers and density, the spread of these diseases accelerated though rapid unsustainable urbanization, biodiversity loss, and climate change. Furthermore, they are exacerbated by an increasing number of vulnerable populations suffering from chronic deficiencies in food, water, and energy. The World Health Organization (WHO) and its International Health Regulation (IHR) Treaty, organized to manage population-based diseases such as Influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H1N1, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), HIV, and Ebola, have failed to meet population-based expectations. In part, this is due to influence from powerful political donors, which has become most evident in the current COVID-19 pandemic. The global community can no longer tolerate an ineffectual and passive international response system, nor tolerate the self-serving political interference that authoritarian regimes and others have exercised over the WHO. In a highly integrated globalized world, both the WHO with its IHR Treaty have the potential to become one of the most effective mechanisms for crisis response and risk reduction world-wide. Practitioners and health decision-makers must break their silence and advocate for a stronger treaty, a return of the WHO’s singular global authority, and support highly coordinated population-based management. As Osler recognized, his concept of “one medicine, one health” defines what global public health is today.

Public health emergencies of international concern, in the form of infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics, represent an increasing risk to the worldʼs population. Management requires coordinated responses, across many disciplines and nations, and the capacity to muster proper national and global public health education, infrastructure, and prevention measures. Unfortunately, increasing numbers of nations are ruled by autocratic regimes which have characteristically failed to adopt investments in public health infrastructure, education, and prevention measures to keep pace with population growth and density. Autocratic leaders have a direct impact on health security, a direct negative impact on health, and create adverse political and economic conditions that only complicate the crisis further. This is most evident in autocratic regimes where health protections have been seriously and purposely curtailed. All autocratic regimes define public health along economic and political imperatives that are similar across borders and cultures. Autocratic regimes are seriously handicapped by sociopathic narcissistic leaders who are incapable of understanding the health consequences of infectious diseases or the impact on their population. A cross section of autocratic nations currently experiencing the impact of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) are reviewed to demonstrate the manner where self-serving regimes fail to manage health crises and place the rest of the world at increasing risk. It is time to re-address the pre-SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) global agendas calling for stronger strategic capacity, legal authority, support, and institutional status under World Health Organization (WHO) leadership granted by an International Health Regulations Treaty. Treaties remain the most successful means the world has in preventing, preparing for, and controlling epidemics in an increasingly globalized world.

“Honesty is worth a lot more than hope…” The Economist, February 17, 2020.

Homelessness is a growing problem, with perhaps greater than a 150 million homeless people globally. The global community has prioritized the problem, as eradicating homelessness is one of the United Nation’s sustainability goals of 2030. Homelessness is a variable entity with individual, population, cultural, and regional characteristics complicating emergency preparedness. Overall, there are many factors that make homeless individuals and populations more vulnerable to disasters. These include, but are not limited to: shelter concerns, transportation, acute and chronic financial and material resource constraints, mental and physical health concerns, violence, and substance abuse. As such, homeless population classification as a special or vulnerable population with regard to disaster planning is well-accepted. Much work has been done regarding best practices of accounting for and accommodating special populations in all aspects of disaster management. Utilizing what is understood of homeless populations and emergency management for special populations, a review of disaster planning with recommendations for communities was conducted. Much of the literature on this subject generates from urban homeless in the United States, but it is assumed that some lessons learned and guidance will be translatable to other communities and settings.

Over 27,000 people were sickened by Ebola and over 11,000 people died between March of 2014 and June of 2016. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; Atlanta, Georgia USA) was one of many public health organizations that sought to stop this outbreak. This agency deployed almost 2,000 individuals to West Africa during that timeframe. Deployment to these countries exposed these individuals to a wide variety of dangers, stressors, and risks.

Being concerned about the at-risk populations in Africa, and also the well-being of its professionals who willingly deployed, the CDC did several things to help safeguard the health, safety, and resilience of these team members before, during, and after deployment.

The accompanying special report highlights innovative pre-deployment training initiatives, customized screening processes, and post-deployment outreach efforts intended to protect and support the public health professionals fighting Ebola. Before deploying, the CDC team members were expected to participate in both internally-created and externally-provided trainings. These ranged from pre-deployment briefings, to Preparing for Work Overseas (PFWO) and Public Health Readiness Certificate Program (PHRCP) courses, to Incident Command System (ICS) 100, 200, and 400 courses.

A small subset of non-clinical deployers also participated in a three-day training designed in collaboration with the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress (CSTS; Bethesda, Maryland USA) to train individuals to assess and address the well-being and resilience of themselves and their teammates in the field during a deployment. Participants in this unique training were immersed in a Virtual Reality Environment (VRE) that simulated deployment to one of seven different types of emergencies.

The CDC leadership also requested a pre-deployment screening process that helped professionals in the CDC’s Occupational Health Clinic (OHC) determine whether or not individuals were at an increased risk of negative outcomes by participating in a rigorous deployment at that time.

When deployers returned from the field, they received personalized invitations to participate in a voluntary, confidential, post-deployment operational debriefing one-on-one or in a group.

Implementing these approaches provided more information to clinical decision makers about the readiness of deployers. It provided deployers with a greater awareness of the kinds of challenges they were likely to face in the field. The post-deployment outreach efforts reminded staff that their contributions were appreciated and there were resources available if they needed help processing any of the potentially-traumatizing things they may have experienced.

In an epidemic situation or large-scale disaster, medical and human resources may be stretched to the point of exhaustion. Appropriate planning must incorporate plans of action that minimize public health morbidity and mortality while maximizing the appropriate use of medical and human healthcare resources. While the current novel H1N1 influenza has spread throughout the world, the severity of this strain of influenza appears to be relatively less virulent and lethal compared to the 1918 influenza pandemic.However, the presence of this new influenza strain has reignited interest in pandemic planning.

Amongst other necessary resources needed to combat pandemic influenza, a major medical resource concern is the limited number of mechanical ventilators that would be available to be used to treat ill patients. Recent reported cases of avian influenza suggest that mechanical ventilation will be required for the successful recovery of many individuals ill with this strain of virus. However, should the need for ventilators exceed the number of available machines, how will care providers make the difficult ethical decisions as to who should be placed or who should remain on these machines as more influenza patients arrive in need of care?

This paper presents a decision-making model for clinicians that is based upon the bioethical principles of beneficence and justice. The model begins with the basic assumptions of triage and progresses into a useful algorithm based upon utilitarian principles. The model is intended to be used as a guide for clinicians in making decisions about the allocation of scarce resources in a just manner and to serve as an impetus for institutions to create or adapt plans to address resource allocation issues should the need arise.