Search

In response to shortcomings in epidemic preparedness and response that were revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been numerous proposals for ways to improve preparedness and response financing. Included among these is the World Bank's Pandemic Fund, formerly known as the Financial Intermediary Fund for Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response, which was launched in September 2022. This analysis piece examines the Pandemic Fund, where it fits into ongoing discussions surrounding financing for preparedness and response efforts and discusses emerging apprehensions about the new financing mechanism. Briefly, the Pandemic Fund is not the first time that the World Bank has hosted a financing mechanism to provide support for pandemic response. Notably the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF)-which was launched in 2017 and closed in 2021-was criticised for generally failing to realise its potential. However, the Pandemic Fund seems to be addressing several of these critiques by placing a greater emphasis on prevention and preparedness financing, as opposed to response financing. Still, there is an important need for response funding mechanisms, and concerningly, the Pandemic Fund seems to support response efforts in name only. While it is clearly desirable to prepare for and prevent outbreaks for a multitude of reasons, it is also naive to assume that strengthening preparedness capacities will eliminate outbreaks and the need for response financing altogether. Accordingly, there is a need to complement this new financing mechanism with dedicated funding for responding to infectious disease outbreaks and to closely link this response financing with health security frameworks and instruments., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: The 2020-2021 National Football League (NFL) season had some games with fans and others without. Thus, the exposed group (ie, games with fans) and the unexposed group (games without fans) could be examined to better understand the association between fan attendance and local incidence of COVID-19., Objective: To assess whether NFL football games with varying degrees of in-person attendance were associated with increased COVID-19 cases in the counties where the games were held, as well as in contiguous counties, compared with games without in-person attendance for 7-, 14-, and 21-day follow-ups., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data for all 32 NFL teams across the entirety of the 2020-2021 season. Separate daily time-series of COVID-19 total cases and case rates were generated using 7-, 14-, and 21-day simple moving averages for every team and were plotted against the actuals to detect potential spikes (outliers) in incidence levels following games for the county in which games took place, contiguous counties, and a combination. Outliers flagged in the period following games were recorded. Poisson exact tests were evaluated for differences in spike incidence as well across games with different rates of attendance. The data were analyzed between February 2021 and March 2021., Exposures: Games with fan attendance vs games with no fan attendance, as well as the number of fans in attendance for games with fans., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was estimation of COVID-19 cases and rates at the county and contiguous county level at 7-, 14-, and 21-day intervals for in-person attended games and non-fan attended games, which was further investigated by stratifying by the number of persons in fan-attended games., Results: This included a total of 269 NFL game dates. Of these games, 117 were assigned to an exposed group (fans attended), and the remaining 152 games comprised the unexposed group (unattended). Fan attendance ranged from 748 to 31 700 persons. Fan attendance was associated with episodic spikes in COVID-19 cases and rates in the 14-day window for the in-county (cases: rate ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.00-1.87), contiguous counties (cases: RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00-1.72; rates: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.76), and pooled counties groups (cases: RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.79; rates: RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.28) as well as for the 21-day window in-county (cases: RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.21-1.83; rates: RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.26-1.78), in contiguous counties(cases: RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14-1.65; rates: RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.24-1.71), and pooled counties groups (cases: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.79; rates: RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.35-2.15). Games with fewer than 5000 fans were not associated with any spikes, but in counties where teams had 20 000 fans in attendance, there were 2.23 times the rate of spikes in COVID-19 (95% CI, 1.53 to ∞)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of the presence of fans at NFL home games during the 2020-2021 season, results indicated that fan attendance was associated with increased levels of COVID-19 in the counties in which the venues are nested within, as well as in surrounding counties. The spikes in COVID-19 for crowds of over 20 000 people suggest that large events should be handled with extreme caution during public health event(s) where vaccines, on-site testing, and various countermeasures are not readily available to the public.

In the United States (US), biosafety and biosecurity oversight of research on viruses is being reappraised. Safety in virology research is paramount and oversight frameworks should be reviewed periodically. Changes should be made with care, however, to avoid impeding science that is essential for rapidly reducing and responding to pandemic threats as well as addressing more common challenges caused by infectious diseases. Decades of research uniquely positioned the US to be able to respond to the COVID-19 crisis with astounding speed, delivering life-saving vaccines within a year of identifying the virus. We should embolden and empower this strength, which is a vital part of protecting the health, economy, and security of US citizens. Herein, we offer our perspectives on priorities for revised rules governing virology research in the US.

The article discusses the importance of proactive biological surveillance in detecting and containing infectious diseases. It emphasizes the limitations of event-based surveillance, which relies on individuals seeking healthcare, and proposes the use of pathogen agnostic wastewater surveillance as a proactive approach. Wastewater testing, coupled with next-generation sequencing (NGS), can detect a wide range of viruses and provide early warning of emerging and novel pathogens. The article suggests the development of national guidelines for pathogen agnostic wastewater surveillance in high-risk areas, such as locations with animal agriculture and international ports of entry. The implementation of such a system would require standardized protocols, bioinformatics pipelines, and interagency collaboration. The article concludes that shifting from event-based surveillance to proactive surveillance will greatly benefit global health and biological defense. [Extracted from the article]