Experts Call for Creation of International Group of Independent Scientists

Warnings about a global pandemic were issued well before the current crisis. Big name people talked about the risks, including George Bush in 2005 and Bill Gates, who gave a Ted Talk in 2015 that forewarned about the coming disaster. Videos of these warnings are making the rounds and have been seen by millions of people on the internet. In lots of countries, these warnings had no effect on decisions made to prepare for such a situation. In France, for example, mask stockpiles dwindled as if a crisis was impossible. The question must be asked: Why didn’t governments listen to these warnings?

Information about epidemic risks: a national and international challenge
When it comes to epidemics, prevention, identification of infectious agents and responses must be organized on two levels: - On the national level, by preparing the country and the health system before the epidemic starts (equipment, equipment, training for healthcare personnel, health education, etc.), then fighting “the war” once the epidemic is declared.
- On the international level, by activating an epidemiological warning network in all countries with teams of experts on standby to quickly travel to the location of the epidemic’s origin to evaluate the situation and coordinate information. This is the role of the WHO in Geneva. This observation is coupled with an obvious geopolitical reality:
governments use pandemic information strategically. The choice to remain quiet, inform the population or trigger a warning depends on major financial, strategic and political factors. A century ago, States at war decided not to say anything about the Spanish flu because they needed to send people to war. The results were catastrophic. Today, the stakes are financial. The parallel is still obvious: when facing epidemics, States often have other priorities beyond sounding the alarm, informing the public and setting up a cordon sanitaire. In light of this observation, it’s crucial that States take all opportunities available to share information and to cooperate before and sometimes during a pandemic. This is (or should be) the reason the World Health Organization (WHO) exists. With COVID-19, it appears there were failures in preventing the emergence of the infectious disease and in sending warning signals from China. A month passed between the time the WHO received information from China that a group of atypical respiratory illnesses had appeared in Wuhan (December 31, 2019) and when the WHO’s director-general declared a health emergency (January 30, 2020). There is also some debate about how much independence the WHO needs to withstand the power of States. But can the world wait, in isolation, for all of this to change?

In support of an independent and legitimate early warning organization
We must ask another question: can we act faster in detecting epidemic risks earlier, sending global alerts and, in a more permanent way, issuing recommendations to States about precautions to take? First, the information has to be available. To do that, the world needs a high quality, reliable information network focused on emerging epidemics. Such a network is already in place: each day, information from around the world about events that may indicate the start of an epidemic arrive at the WHO in Geneva. For this, the WHO uses an excellent tool created in 2000: the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN). During previous epidemics, this network produced reliable information that was used around the world. The breakdown in the current case occurred is related to the way the WHO used the information. Improvement must be made at this secondary stage: to avoid the risk of politically-driven stalemates, there must be an independent scientific body that has the legitimacy to collect the information about possible epidemics coming from various institutional sources (including GOARN) and independent early warning systems. This point is essential: this scientific group must be able to present information through all media outlets without being subjected to censure or filtering from States or international organizations that might delay or change their message. This scientific group must also be able to make recommendations to States about the best policies to prepare for potential pandemics on an ongoing basis without connection to an imminent danger. Due to the authority derived from its scientific composition, the group’s recommendations would be a solid base for public opinion in each country so governments can be held accountable. In light of the global crisis we are experiencing today, we believe this question must be considered urgent and have priority over the requisite long-term retrospective analysis that will be conducted in each country and internationally on all things related to the Coronavirus pandemic, as well as any proposals for reforming the WHO. Each pandemic teaches us things about the world around us. We must heed the lessons of this crisis and implement an international system that will help us better control future pandemics.