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 1994, the first World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction held in Yokohama, Japan affirmed that “Disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness are better than disaster response in achieving the goals and objectives of the decade. Disaster response alone is not sufficient, as it yields only temporary results in a very high cost.” Since then, disaster risk reduction has become the mainstay for international development related to disasters.

According to the National Research Council (Washington, DC USA), “Disaster research, which has focused historically on emergency response and recovery, is incomplete without the simultaneous study of the societal hazards and risks associated with disasters, which includes data on the vulnerability of people living in hazard prone areas.” Despite over 25 years of global policy development, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (Washington, DC USA) recently noted that, “while some disaster management and public health preparedness programming may be viewed as tangentially related, a multi-sectoral and inter-disciplinary national platform for coordination and policy guidance on involving disaster risk reduction in the United States does not exist.” Today, one of the world’s “seven targets in seven years” as agreed upon in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is to substantially reduce global mortality by 2030. Significant reductions in health risk (including mortality) have historically required a comprehensive approach for disease management that includes both a preventive and a curative approach. Disaster risk management has arisen as a primary means for the world’s populations to address disaster losses, including those related to health. Prevention has been proven as an effective approach for managing health risk. This report describes the role of disease prevention in managing health risk due to disasters.

KeimM. Managing Disaster-Related Health Risk: A Process for Prevention. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(3):326-334.

Effective disaster risk management requires not only management of the immediate problem (disaster-related injuries and disease), but also of the patient’s risk factors and of the underlying health determinants. This requires an accurate and well-validated process for assessment of the determinants of disease.

Ideally, disaster risk management is based on a prioritization process. Once hazards have been identified, they are assessed in terms of the probability and impact in terms of losses. The hazards associated with the greatest probability and impact loss are prioritized. In addition to prioritization, risk assessment also offers a process for ongoing research involving the interaction of health determinants, risk, and protective factors that may contribute to future adverse health outcomes.

Recently, assessments of health risk have become an integral part of local, state, and national emergency preparedness programs. One of the strengths of these assessments is the convening of multi-sectoral input for public health decision making and plans. However, this diversity of input also creates challenges in development of a common nomenclature for assessing and communicating the characteristics of this risk. Definitions remain ambiguous for many of the key indicators of disaster risk, especially those applied to health risk.

This report is intended as a primer for defining disaster-related health risk. This framework is discussed within a nomenclature that is consistent with international standards for risk management and public health prevention.

KeimM. Defining Disaster-Related Health Risk: A Primer for Prevention. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(3):308-316.

Risk assessment is a key component of public health interventions intended to prevent or reduce adverse health effects. Health risk assessments are widely used to guide public health programming, as well as multi-sectoral studies of environmental impact and developmental decision making. Analytical risk assessment is a well-validated tool that is routinely used among certain subsets of public health, including those for chemical, radiological, and microbiological risk assessment. However, this is not the case for risk assessments involving disasters in general, or more specifically, for public health emergencies involving environmental hazards (eg, technological, hydro-meteorological, and seismic).

There remains a need for a reproducible, well-validated, disaster-related health risk assessment process that is suitable for accommodating the current gaps in certainty. This report is intended to offer a practical framework and nomenclature for assessing disaster-related health risk that is: (1) accurate; (2) based upon historical evidence; (3) quantifiable in public health terms; and (4) inclusive of uncertainty.

KeimM. Assessing Disaster-Related Health Risk: Appraisal for Prevention. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(3):317-325.

Few regions of the world are at higher risk for environmental disasters than the Pacific Island countries and territories. During 2004 and 2005, the top public health leadership from 19 of 22 Pacific Island countries and territories convened 2 health summits with the goal of developing the world's first comprehensive regional strategy for sustainable disaster risk management as applied to public health emergencies. These summits followed on the objectives of the 1994 Barbados Plan of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States and those of the subsequent Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World. The outputs of the 2004 and 2005 Pacific Health Summits for Sustainable Disaster Risk Management provide a detailed description of challenges and accomplishments of the Pacific Island health ministries, establish a Pacific plan of action based upon the principles of disaster risk management, and provide a locally derived, evidence-based approach for many climate change adaptation measures related to extreme weather events in the Pacific region. The declaration and outputs from these summits are offered here as a guide for developmental and humanitarian assistance in the region (and for other small-island developing states) and as a means for reducing the risk of adverse health effects resulting from climate change.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:415-423)

Objective: An 8.3 magnitude earthquake followed by tsunami waves devastated American Samoa on September 29, 2009, resulting in widespread loss of property and public services. An initial and a follow-up Community Needs Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) objectively quantified disaster-affected population needs.

Methods: Using a 2-stage cluster sampling method of CASPER, a household questionnaire eliciting information about medical and basic needs, illnesses, and injuries was administered. To assess response efforts, percent changes in basic and medical needs, illnesses, and injuries between the initial and follow-up CASPER were calculated.

Results: During the initial CASPER (N = 212 households), 47.6% and 51.6% of households reported needing a tarpaulin and having no electricity, respectively. The self-reported greatest needs were water (27.8%) and financial help with cleanup (25.5%). The follow-up CASPER (N = 207 households) identified increased vector problems compared to pre-tsunami, and food (26%) was identified as the self-reported greatest need. As compared to the initial CASPER, the follow-up CASPER observed decreases in electricity (−78.3%), drinking water (−44.4%), and clothing (−26.6%).

Conclusion: This study highlights the use of CASPER during the response and recovery phases following a disaster. The initial CASPER identified basic needs immediately after the earthquake, whereas the follow-up CASPER assessed effectiveness of relief efforts and identified ongoing community needs.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:209–216)

The 2010 World Exposition in Shanghai China (Expo) was the largest mass gathering in world history, attracting a record 72 million visitors. More than 190 countries participated in the Expo, along with more than 50 international organizations. The 2010 Expo was six months in duration (May 1 through October 30, 2010), and the size of the venue site comprised 5.28 square kilometers. Great challenges were imposed on the public health system in Shanghai due to the high number and density of visitors, long duration of the event, and other risk factors such as high temperatures, typhoon, etc.

As the major metropolitan public health agency in Shanghai, the Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention (SCDC) implemented a series of actions in preparing for, and responding to, the potential health impact of the world's largest mass gathering to date, which included partnerships for capacity building, enhancement of internal organizational structure, risk assessment, strengthened surveillance, disaster planning and exercises, laboratory management, vaccination campaign, health education, health intervention, risk communication and mass media surveillance, and technical support for health inspection. The clear-cut organizational structures and job responsibilities, as well as comprehensive operational and scientific preparations, were key elements to ensure the success of the 2010 World Exposition.

YiH, Zheng'anY, FanW, XiangG, ChenD, YongchaoH, XiaodongS, HaoP, MahanyM, KeimM. Public Health Preparedness for the World's Largest Mass Gathering: 2010 World Exposition in Shanghai, China. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2012;27(6):1-6.

Global warming could increase the number and severity of extreme weather events. These events are often known to result in public health disasters, but we can lessen the effects of these disasters. By addressing the factors that cause changes in climate, we can mitigate the effects of climate change. By addressing the factors that make society vulnerable to the effects of climate, we can adapt to climate change. To adapt to climate change, a comprehensive approach to disaster risk reduction has been proposed. By reducing human vulnerability to disasters, we can lessen—and at times even prevent—their impact.

Human vulnerability is a complex phenomenon that comprises social, economic, health, and cultural factors. Because public health is uniquely placed at the community level, it has the opportunity to lessen human vulnerability to climate-related disasters. At the national and international level, a supportive policy environment can enable local adaptation to disaster events. The purpose of this article is to introduce the basic concept of disaster risk reduction so that it can be applied to preventing and mitigating the negative effects of climate change and to examine the role of community-focused public health as a means for lessening human vulnerability and, as a result, the overall risk of climate-related disasters.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:140–148)

The Ministry of Health of Panama (MINSA) received several reports of ill persons who had clinical presentations of acute renal insufficiency or failure during September and October 2006. On 01 October 2006, the MINSA formally asked the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to assist with the investigation. Additional agencies involved in the response included the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Gorgas Institute for Health Studies (GIHS), and the Social Security Health System (SSHS) of Panama. Through a joint effort, the MINSA, CDC, FDA, GIHS, SSHS, and PAHO were able to characterize the illness, identify the etiological agent, identify the population-at-risk, and launch an unprecedented media and social mobilization effort to prevent additional cases.

International outbreak responses may require familiarity with basic emergency management principles beyond technical or scientific considerations. The management, logistical capabilities, team interaction, and efficiency of outbreak investigations can be enhanced substantially by having staff already familiar with common operational frameworks for incident responses. This report describes the inter-agency coordination and organizational structure implemented during an international response to identify the cause of an outbreak of acute renal failure in Panama.

Objectives: To describe the impact of an acute-onset sea-level-rise disaster in 2 coral atoll populations and to generate hypotheses for further investigation of the association between climate change and public health.

Methods: Households of Lukunoch and Oneop islands, Micronesia, were assessed for demographics, asset damage, food availability, water quantity and quality, hygiene and sanitation, and health status. Every fourth household on Lukunoch was randomly selected (n = 40). All Oneop households were surveyed (n = 72). Heads of each household were interviewed in the local language using a standard survey tool. Prevalence data were analyzed, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

Results: A total of 112 total households were respondents representing 974 inhabitants. On Lukunoch, roughly half of all households surveyed reported at least a partial loss of their primary dietary staple and source of calories (taro and breadfruit). Six (15%) of 40 Lukunoch households surveyed (95% CI, 6%-30%) reported a complete loss of taro and four (10%) of the 40 households (95% CI, 3%-24%) reported a complete loss of breadfruit. On Oneop, nearly all households reported at least a partial loss of these same food staples. Twenty four (31%) of all 76 Oneop households reported a complete loss of taro and another 24 (31%) households reported a complete loss of breadfruit. One third of all households surveyed reported a complete loss. On Lukunoch 11 (28%) of 40 households, (95% CI, 15%-43%) reported damage from salination, but none were damaged to the point of a complete loss. Forty-nine (64%) of 76 Oneop households reported salination and five (6%) reported complete loss of their well.

Conclusion: On March 5, 2007, an acute-onset, sea level rise event resulting in coastal erosion, shoreline inundation, and saltwater intrusion occurred in two coral atoll islands of Micronesia. The findings of this study suggest that highly vulnerable populations of both islands experienced disastrous losses involving crop productivity and freshwater sources. These findings reveal the need for effective public health research and sustainable interventions that will monitor and shape the health of small island populations predicted to be at high risk for adverse health effects due to climate change.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2010;4:81-87)