scholarly journals Risk Management and Early Measures Taken by Pakistan to Combat with Novel Corona Virus (COVID-2019) in the Light of Global Health Security Index (GHS)

Author(s):  
Wajahat Ali Ghulam ◽  
Jiuchang Wei

This research paper is mainly aimed to elaborate the initial risk management and measures which government of Pakistan took towards Novel Corona Virus (COVID-2019). This initial response and planning was devised after the early outbreak of COVID-2019 in Wuhan, China in early time of January 2020. Pakistan devised a comprehensive plan that not to evacuate their student from Wuhan, China. The government of Pakistan in compliance with the National Institute of Health (NIH) devised and documented comprehensive plans such as the flight operations postponed related to Umerah pilgrims, which were intended to go to sacred places of KSA (The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). The process of visa, immigration policy totally changed and the government of Pakistan notified it officially that, no new visas of visit, student, and business would be issued in due course of uncertainty due to COVID-2019. The government of Pakistan also announced medical emergency and notified through the country’s provinces the process of testing and treatment of COVID-2019. The government of Pakistan also allocated funds for medical supplies and named out the particular country’s best laboratories. The government of Pakistan also locked down all the cities with the emergency announcement that people should stay inside the home in quarantine or self-isolation. NIH (The National Institute of Health) played a vital role in executing the planning to cope with COVID – 2019). The National Institute of Health responded as “The Centre for Disease Control”. In aid to the government, the national army of Pakistan responded in a proactive manner towards planed execution. The medical corps of Pakistan army dedicated themselves to treat the suspected patients of COVID – 2019. Due to plans, policies being documented, implemented in such a way productive way that from February 28, 2020 to till date there is not much critical situation and issues are not present. There are much productive results as there is not much boom in a rise of COVID-2019 patients. This lockdown under the authority of the provinces resulted in fruitful outcomes. Background: On January 02, 2020, authorities of the People Republic of China elaborated that they have encountered with a novel type of infectious viral disease 2019. Later on January 12, the authorities from China elaborated the related sequence of Corona Virus diseases 2019 names as COVID – 2019. When COVID-2019 being identified in Wuhan, Hubei China, as an early response the Government of Pakistan in support of the National Institute of Health (Field Epidemiology & Disease Surveillance Division) published a health advisory about novel coronavirus. Methods: According to Global Health Security Index, Pakistan is ranked as 105th country among 195 countries in GHS index. Overall Score of Pakistan is 35.5. The score of Early Detection and Reporting for Epidemics of Potential International Concern is 41.7. A Graphical depiction of the COVID-19 cases placed until April 10, 2020 as well as a graph trend line of recovered as well as death rate is also depicted. According to the graphical facts of Government of Pakistan and World meters, the recovery rate of COVID-19 is about 98 percent and 2.1 percent death rate is reported against the total cases. Trend analysis with line graph was drawn based on available data from official dashboard web portal of the government of Pakistan and worldometers.info. Data figures were incorporated from March to August 18, 2020 in MS Excel and then subsequently deployed to draw trend analysis from managing risk to recovery. Results: The line graph showed a slowdown in the COVID-19 cases and high rate of recoveries from COVID-19 in Pakistan. On March 11, 2020, there were 20 confirmed cases of coronavirus reported in Pakistan. No death was recorded in very first seven days, on March 18, 2020 only two deaths were reported. On August 18, 2020, there were 272128 recoveries, 6201 deaths, total confirmed cases 290445, and total test were 2340072 in Pakistan. As a results, we can report that due to early measures taken by government of Pakistan no mass scale destruction in terms of death and cases been recorded in Pakistan. Conclusions: To till date, the government of Pakistan tried its level best to minimize the coronavirus cases as much as they can. However, the ending of the potential attack of an outbreak would depend upon the well organized and coordinated approach at all levels such as true directed decisions, fully preparedness, as well implementation and evaluation of continuous decisions. As the recovery rate of the cases is 98 percent and merely death rate is 2.1 percent, concluded that in future it would be a good sign to stop the potential outbreak. Also, lock down as well as precautionary measurement taken by the provincial governments resulted a decline number of COVID-19 cases in the country. Another good sign is that merely 4 percent population of Pakistan is of more than 60 years of old it can be concluded that there are less chances of mass death due to outbreak of COVID-19.

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. e002477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Razavi ◽  
Ngozi Erondu ◽  
Ebere Okereke

One Health ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 100235
Author(s):  
Bruno Grespan Leichtweis ◽  
Letícia de Faria Silva ◽  
Felipe Lopes da Silva ◽  
Luiz Alexandre Peternelli

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Habtamu Legese ◽  
Wondmagegn Biru ◽  
Frezer Tilahun ◽  
Henock Semaw

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of civil liberties, global health security, median age and population size on the spread of COVID-19 across the globe.Design/methodology/approachThis study was done by taking data from 166 different countries from the Economist Intelligence Unit, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, World Bank, Johns Hopkins University and United Nations Population Division (UNPD). After conducting all the necessary standard econometric tests, the study was analyzed using the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression.FindingsThe finding of the study indicated that COVID-19 tests per million people (LTT/PM), Population Size (LPOP), Civil Liberty Index (CLI) are statistically significant and positively affect the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases; on the other hand, the Health Security Index (HSI) negatively affects the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases.Practical implicationsIn emergency circumstances, the government ought to have a special responsibility to align civil rights with the protection of public health cautiously. However, measures to restrict civil liberties must be proportionate.Originality/valueBesides other variables, the study included and considered civil liberties as a significant factor to affect the spread of COVID-19, which is a new contribution to the existing body of knowledge in the field.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Hooper

UNSTRUCTURED The severity of this global pandemic and focus upon its devastating effects upon local communities has tended to be through the media with time series graphics at the national level. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine the cross-national differences in the deaths caused by covid-19, and relate that to a range of contextual variables. Objectives: The objective of this paper is to examine the influence that various contextual variables have upon the number of deaths due to covid-19, across the world. Setting Level: This study utilizes data for 125 countries for contextual variables from 1st January 2020 until the 15th June 2020. Participants: This study considers deaths from covid-19. Interventions: DELETED Primary and secondary outcome measures: The contextual variables considered in this study are stringency index, stringency variability, lockdown date, population density, level of airline passengers and country health security index. Results: It is shown there is a very strong association between the level of airline passengers and covid-19 deaths. The results from regression analysis conducted in this study show significant positive relationships at the 5% level of statistical significance between Deaths from covid-19 and airline passenger levels and stringency variability; significant negative relationships are revealed for stringency index and lockdown date supporting the notion that lock down and social distancing measures mattered and were effective. The Global health security index and population density did not significantly affect deaths. Conclusion: This study highlights the strong link between a country’s airline passengers and covid-19 deaths and found that the lockdown date and stringency measures had a significant effect upon deaths. The implications of the research is that lockdown and stringency measures implemented by governments around the world worked and mattered. Further, the fact that global health security did not affect deaths may indicate better preparedness required to confront future pandemics. Trial Registration: DELETED INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.28.20163394


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael McAleer

A novel coronavirus was reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) in China on 31 December 2019. The WHO named the disease COVID-19 on 11 February 2020. As of 26 February 2020, the disease has been detected on all continents, except for Antarctica. Daily updates on COVID-19 since early February 2020 have made headline news worldwide for much of 2020. This editorial evaluates risk management based on the Global Health Security (GHS) Index of global health security capabilities in 195 countries. The GHS Index lists the countries best prepared for an epidemic or pandemic. COVID-19 is compared with two related coronavirus epidemics, SARS and MERS, in terms of the number of reported human infections, deaths, countries, major country clusters, timelines, and the likelihood of discovering a safe, effective, and approved vaccine.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. e003276
Author(s):  
Matthew J Boyd ◽  
Nick Wilson ◽  
Cassidy Nelson

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic powerfully demonstrates the consequences of biothreats. Countries will want to know how to better prepare for future events. The Global Health Security Index (GHSI) is a broad, independent assessment of 195 countries’ preparedness for biothreats that may aid this endeavour. However, to be useful, the GHSI’s external validity must be demonstrated. We aimed to validate the GHSI against a range of external metrics to assess how it could be utilised by countries.MethodsGlobal aggregate communicable disease outcomes were correlated with GHSI scores and linear regression models were examined to determine associations while controlling for a number of global macroindices. GHSI scores for countries previously exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola and recipients of US Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) investment were compared with matched control countries. Possible content omissions in light of the progressing COVID-19 pandemic were assessed.ResultsGHSI scores for countries had strong criterion validity against the Joint External Evaluation ReadyScore (rho=0.82, p<0.0001), and moderate external validity against deaths from communicable diseases (−0.56, p<0.0001). GHSI scores were associated with reduced deaths from communicable diseases (F(3, 172)=22.75, p<0.0001). The proportion of deaths from communicable diseases decreased 4.8% per 10-point rise in GHSI. Recipient countries of the GHSA (n=31) and SARS-affected countries (n=26), had GHSI scores 6.0 (p=0.0011) and 8.2 (p=0.0010) points higher than matched controls, respectively. Biosecurity and biosafety appear weak globally including in high-income countries, and health systems, particularly in Africa, are not prepared. Notably, the GHSI does not account for all factors important for health security.ConclusionThe GHSI shows promise as a valid tool to guide action on biosafety, biosecurity and systems preparedness. However, countries need to look beyond existing metrics to other factors moderating the impact of future pandemics and other biothreats. Consideration of anthropogenic and large catastrophic scenarios is also needed.


Author(s):  
Banda A. Khalifa ◽  
Enoch J. Abbey ◽  
Samuel K. Ayeh ◽  
Hasiya E. Yusuf ◽  
Richard D Nudotor ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. e0239398
Author(s):  
Enoch J. Abbey ◽  
Banda A. A. Khalifa ◽  
Modupe O. Oduwole ◽  
Samuel K. Ayeh ◽  
Richard D. Nudotor ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document