Individuals working in public health have employed the rhetoric of the global community throughout the COVID-19 outbreak, evoking themes of solidarity, decency, and equity. The idea of global health governance signals an overwhelmingly optimistic outlook regarding the world’s ability to recognise and tackle issues through increased international cooperation, coordination, and consensus. Governments, on the other hand, can utilize a variety of tactics to react to global health in their own limited self-interest. In fact, it is feasible to emphasize the particular idea related to the notion that any agreement established in this sphere and under this condition will not influence the general situation considerably. In contrast, another concept can be proposed that highlights the possibility of providing change given the obvious presence of narrow self-interest among different nations. As in many countries the peak of the infections and the hospital admissions is over, the attention moves towards the social, economic, and sustainability impacts. Connecting to the aspects of communicable diseases, which underline global healthcare cooperation, the international community can positively impact united public health initiatives and decisions.
A communicable illness is the one that may be transmitted from one person to another in a number of ways, including contact with blood and body fluids, inhaling an infectious agent, or being bitten by an organism. Communicable illnesses, often known as infectious sicknesses, spread among communities through direct physical contact or interaction with living creatures, such as feces or oral transfer, sexual relations, or airborne or polluted surfaces. In complicated circumstances, communicable illnesses, alone or in conjunction with starvation, can result in a large number of deaths. Factors that promote disease transmission combine synergistically, resulting in high diarrhoea, respiratory illness, malaria, and measles incidence rates. Overcrowding, forced relocation, low quality shelter, insufficient water, sanitation, and hygiene, a lack of healthcare services, and inadequate monitoring are all major risk factors. Many infectious illnesses can be prevented using vaccines. Vaccines for children and adults are available to protect against a variety of infectious illnesses. Proper prevention measures and management are essential to combat communicable diseases. For travel to specific regions of the world, immunizations are also advised or necessary.
Due to the significant velocity of dissemination, communicable diseases and infections are believed to be a major concern of the global healthcare environment. Communicable diseases continue to be a serious global public health concern. In the p infectious diseases, a global outbreak is a worst-case scenario. Malaria and HIV/AIDS, for instance, are both mass killers that disproportionately affect the poor. The fast spread of microbial resistance has made a significant contribution to the danger posed by infectious diseases.
The international community and interethnic health institutions cannot remain aloof from this problem since it does not have clear distribution boundaries. Technology changes– particularly the digital revolution – have presented new regulatory challenges. The HIV/AIDS pandemic first underscored that human rights-based approaches are one of the most effective paths to achieving public health. Various kinds of infectious diseases are transmitted and spread with high frequency and speed. Furthermore, the general globalization of the world community leads to an infected person quickly finding themselves in another state and becoming a carrier of the disease. Given the abovementioned conditions, transmissible diseases can be classified as an international health concern that has to be addressed at the national level with a variety of support and work.
Health security is considered to be a methodological conception that comprises actions and procedures that are implemented across sovereign borders to reduce public health events and ensure public health. Within the domains of international affairs and development studies, it is a developing paradigm. The major impact of the epidemic, or alleged pandemic, is on the supply side of the global economy. The presence of robust and resilient public health services that can avert, identify, and react to outbreaks of infectious diseases everywhere is called global health security. The aspects of health security are strongly correlated with the notions of communicable diseases and, in addition, global community healthcare cooperation. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an inevitable surge in the use of digital technologies due to the social distancing norms and nationwide lockdowns. Health security statements and standards are the specific terms that are defined by international policy-makers and decision-makers as separate responses to massive issues in medicine. It is the concrete point which, according to an existing idea, is related to the assumption that no agreement in global healthcare is feasible due to the occurrence of the narrow self-interest among distinct countries.
Businesses have fully taken the opportunity to unite and build their reputation during the pandemic. However, the question whether it will be possible to maintain universal support after the crisis remains. Transformation is not simply a matter of allocating material resources. The exponential rate at which the virus was spreading, and the heightened uncertainty about it, led to flight to safety in consumption and investment among consumers, investors, and international trade partners. Any crisis is, on the one hand, a time of testing, but on the other hand, tests are of a completely economic nature. COVID-19 would likely deepen an existing malaise in the global economy. No one canceled competition in any markets, even at the high time of pandemic during 2019 and 2020. States will prioritize issues when they feel that their vital interests are at stake, and the perceived interests of rich and powerful states will ultimately determine the global agenda. It is doubtful that countries and corporations that have been competing for so many years will suddenly forget about their competitions and start sharing best practices and helping each other.
Thus, it is highly unlikely that global changes will affect all countries. Still, it is indeed imperative to discuss sustainable production and consumption pattern in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era. However, differences in internal and external politics, cultural misalignments, and overall direction of development pose a significant barrier to mutual understanding. A good example is China – despite its continuous efforts to contain the coronavirus, the country is failing this task. Since the first weeks of the pandemic, China has consistently pursued a policy of so-called zero tolerance for the coronavirus. The country was effectively cut off from the rest of the world; for those who entered it, a strict and long quarantine was provided. Total lockdowns and nation-wide testing have significantly aided in containing small virus outbreaks. The policy has been working sufficiently up for the last three years, allowing China to maintain low infection levels and manage the pandemic – up until recently. While a further COVID-19 spread could not be contained, the measures attributed to the lockdown in Hubei aided in slowing the speed of infection. However, nowadays, experts around the world express doubts as to whether the Chinese system will be able to sustain the country for any longer due to outbreaks of new virus strains.
Despite the difficulties that Chinese national virus protection system experiences in the last half a year, the country does not deter from the zero tolerance policy. Overall, Chinese government does not want to engage in the pandemic-related healthcare strategies employed by other countries that have successfully battled coronavirus. The country refuses to implement the concept of collective immunity, for example, arguing that large number of infections in European countries with high levels of vaccination demonstrates that collective immunity cannot be relied on alone. China has increasingly discussed this issue especially in the face of the emergence of new virus strains against which vaccinations are not as effective. Therefore, the Chinese authorities continue to consider the applied comprehensive measures reasonable and justified, and do not wish to engage with other countries in the discussion on the pandemic prevention policies.
Despite everything, it is quite likely that there will be an accelerated development of associations by type of business or region. Such associations can help influence federal companies and authorities, strengthening horizontal ways of interaction and spreading new technologies in the global community. The development of horizontal ties is not something new that appeared during the crisis period. This is a change in the system of internal relations – both in politics and business – when not all commands are given from above. After a severe crisis, the weight of the public sector will grow – and this is the time to start a dialogue. Not only in the field of healthcare: joint solutions await problems in foreign relations and domestic business associations. The pandemic provides the opportunity to complete the horizontal system of interaction between states, societies, and businesses. Coronavirus will pass, but mutual understanding might remain, if countries put effort into strengthening and maintaining it.
References
Ali, Imran, and Omar M.L. Alharbi, “COVID-19: Disease, Management, Treatment, and Social Impact,” Science of The Total Environment, 728 (2020), 138861
Bobdey, Saurabh, and Sougat Ray, “Going Viral – COVID-19 Impact Assessment: A Perspective beyond Clinical Practice,” Journal of Marine Medical Society, 22/1 (2020), 9
De’, Rahul, Neena Pandey, and Abhipsa Pal, “Impact of Digital Surge during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Viewpoint on Research and Practice,” International Journal of Information Management, 55 (2020), 102171
Gautam, Sneha, and Luc Hens, “COVID-19: Impact by and on the Environment, Health and Economy,” Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22/6 (2020), 4953–54
Harrington, John, “Access to Essential Medicines in Kenya: Intellectual Property, Anti-Counterfeiting, and the Right to Health,” in Law and Global Health, ed. by Sarah Hawkes and Belinda Bennett (Oxford, UK, 2014), 94–118
Kumar, Aalok, Sunil Luthra, Sachin Kumar Mangla, and Yiğit Kazançoğlu, “COVID-19 Impact on Sustainable Production and Operations Management,” Sustainable Operations and Computers, 1 (2020), 1–7
Lau, Hien, Veria Khosrawipour, Piotr Kocbach, Agata Mikolajczyk, Justyna Schubert, Jacek Bania, and others, “The Positive Impact of Lockdown in Wuhan on Containing the COVID-19 Outbreak in China,” Journal of Travel Medicine, 27/3 (2020)
Maital, Shlomo, and Ella Barzani, “The Global Economic Impact of COVID-19: A Summary of Research,” The Global Economic Impact of COVID-19: A Summary of Research, 2020. Web.
Nunes, João, “Ebola and the Production of Neglect in Global Health,” Third World Quarterly, 37/3 (2016), 542–56
Ozili, Peterson K, and Thankom Arun, “Spillover of COVID-19: Impact on the Global Economy,” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020
Rushton, Simon, “Framing AIDS: Securitization, Development-Ization, Rights-Ization,” Global Health Governance, 4/1 (2010), 1–17
Sekalala, Sharifah, and John Harrington, “Communicable Diseases, Health Security, and Human Rights: From AIDS to Ebola,” in Foundations of Global Health & Human Rights, ed. by Lawrence O. Gostin and Benjamin Mason Meier (New York, US, 2020), 221–241
Sekalala, Sharifah, Lisa Forman, Roojin Habibi, and Benjamin Mason Meier, “Health and Human Rights Are Inextricably Linked in the COVID-19 Response,” BMJ Global Health, 5/9 (2020)
Sell, Susan K., “TRIPS Was Never Enough: Vertical Forum Shifting, FTAS, ACTA, and TTP,” Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 18/2 (2011), 447–78
Song, Ligang, and Yixiao Zhou, “The COVID‐19 Pandemic and Its Impact on the Global Economy: What Does It Take to Turn Crisis into Opportunity?,” China & World Economy, 28/4 (2020), 1–25