There are several reasons why war occurs. The most lethal wars are those caused by 1 man’s decisions solely driven by an obsessive need for power. With disregard for International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Convention, these wars, referred to as hybrid warfare, purposefully target civilians directly resulting in millions of deaths, injuries, mass migration, and other severe global and public health consequences. The purpose of this commentary is to investigate the developmental nature of those decision-makers and the consequences of their acts of aggression both locally and globally. There is a clear relationship between the psychological developments of individuals with narcissistic and psychopathological disorders and the implications of an abnormal progression of these individuals and their obsessive desire for singular leadership, which seriously impacts health-care security and its essential elements provided by international humanitarian law and Geneva Convention. Current double standards of the West allow narcissistic sociopaths and autocratic leaders to neglect international law, especially the so-called international humanitarian law. This double standard must be ceased and replaced by an international investigative system with universal standards, a special tribunal covering hybrid war crimes as well as the crime of aggression, and to prevent future leaders from choosing the same strategies.

Humanitarian aid workers are an overlooked population within the structure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) research and assistance. This negligence is an industry-wide failure to address aid workers’ psychological health issues. The suspected numbers of death by suicide, diagnosed PTSD, depression, anxiety disorders, hazardous alcohol and drug consumption, emotional exhaustion, and other stress-related problems are impossible to quantify but are considered endemic. Tools for establishing organizational frameworks for mental health and psychosocial support are readily available. However, the capacity to implement this assistance requires the creation and practice of an open and non-judgmental culture, based on the realistic acceptance that aid work has become inherently dangerous. The possibility of developing a psychological problem because of aid work has increased along with the rise in levels of disease, injury, kidnapping, and assault. As a result, expressions of traumatic stress have become the norm rather than an exception. This commentary outlines the essential steps and components necessary to meet these requirements.

This two-part article examines the global public health (GPH) information system deficits emerging in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. It surveys past, missed opportunities for public health (PH) information system and operational improvements, examines current megatrend changes to information management, and describes a new multi-disciplinary model for population-based management (PBM) supported by a GPH Database applicable to pandemics and GPH crises.

This two-part article examines the global public health (GPH) information system deficits emerging in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. It surveys past, missed opportunities for public health (PH) information system and operational improvements, examines current megatrend changes to information management, and describes a new multi-disciplinary model for population-based management (PBM) supported by a GPH Database applicable to pandemics and GPH crises.

Successful management of an event where health-care needs exceed regional health-care capacity requires coordinated strategies for scarce resource allocation. Publications for rapid development, training, and coordination of regional hospital triage teams to manage the allocation of scarce resources during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. Over a period of 3 weeks, over 100 clinicians, ethicists, leaders, and public health authorities convened virtually to achieve consensus on how best to save the most lives possible and share resources. This is referred to as population-based crisis management. The rapid regionalization of 22 acute care hospitals across 4500 square miles in the midst of a pandemic with a shifting regulatory landscape was challenging, but overcome by mutual trust, transparency, and confidence in the public health authority. Because many cities are facing COVID-19 surges, we share a process for successful rapid formation of health-care care coalitions, Crisis Standard of Care, and training of Triage Teams. Incorporation of continuous process improvement and methods for communication is essential for successful implementation. Use of our regional health-care coalition communications, incident command system, and the crisis care committee helped mitigate crisis care in the San Diego and Imperial County region as COVID-19 cases surged and scarce resource collaborative decisions were required.

Editor-in-Chief Note:

Dr. Djalali is a well-known member of the international disaster medicine community. He is a man always with a smile and sincere in seeking the best for all mankind. His now extremely prolonged imprisonment without due process to allow him to defend himself represents one of the most profound inhumane acts on the globe. His torture and starvation are beyond comprehension for the international health and medicine community as well as all men and women. The pictures that accompany this editorial are published with proper permissions and have been authenticated as untouched from the originals.

There have been multiple inconsistencies in the manner the COVID-19 pandemic has been investigated and managed by countries. Population-based management (PBM) has been inconsistent, yet serves as a necessary first step in managing public health crises. Unfortunately, these have dominated the landscape within the United States and continue as of this writing. Political and economic influences have greatly influenced major public health management and control decisions. Responsibility for global public health crises and modeling for management are the responsibility of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Health Regulations Treaty (IHR). This review calls upon both to reassess their roles and responsibilities that must be markedly improved and better replicated world-wide in order to optimize the global public health protections and its PBM.

Technical and technological progress in the 21st century, especially emerging geographic information system (GIS) technology, offers new and unprecedented opportunities to counteract the impact of crisis situations and emergencies. Computerization and development of GIS enabled the digital visualization of space for interactive analysis of multiple data in the form of models or simulations. Additionally, computerization, which gives rise to a new quality of database management, requires continuous modernization of computer hardware and software. This study examines selected examples of the implications and impact of the GIS commonly used in Poland.

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?

In 1999, a robust National Health Preparedness and Response Center was conceptualized and piloted, but never fully operationalized. This study revisits the expansive, coordinated efforts invested in this concept, considered an overdue remedy for persistent shortfalls in medical Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High Yield Explosives training, proficiency, and preparation. The concept defined a robust mission for longstanding, proven programs for prepositioning equipment and associated training of personnel. This study explores the reasons that ended military and governmental support, attendant funding, and operations of the created Joint/Interagency Civil Support Center, which ceased on September 30, 2006. Unfortunately, the concept remains relevant. Major gaps in disaster medical response capabilities have been recognized for decades. Experts from the Institute of Medicine, United States Northern Command, and multiple academic centers and professional organizations have identified these shortcomings, but the national response posture remains disjointed, under-resourced, and based upon obsolete planning premises. Given increasing threats, the authors recommend revisiting the collaboration of military, civilian, academic, and governmental resources that once established the Joint/Interagency Civil Support Center as a multidisciplinary and trans-disciplinary model for a new National Health Preparedness and Response Center coordinated framework for enhanced resilience and operational response capabilities on a national level.

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.

Considering climate change, the risk of natural disasters requires a comprehensive approach on the part of all entities dealing with crisis management. Despite the advanced technologies available to predict weather phenomena, it is often unmanageable to take remedial measures, and the best solution is to suitably prepare for, and efficiently operate after, the occurrence of any given crisis. Nevertheless, it is imperative to implement the latest techniques and solutions which will allow for better preparation and responsiveness in the event of natural disasters. This manuscript presents results of initial analysis concerning the currently tested project, which is aimed at, among other things, improving safety in the event of natural disasters in Poland. There were two reasons for creating the manuscript. First, to present the potential of the system currently being built in Poland, which aims to reduce the risks associated with natural disasters and minimize the problems related to crisis management in Poland. And second, to open discussions and create grounds for information exchange between countries implementing similar solutions, especially neighboring countries, with which joint actions could be taken in the event of disasters in border areas.