Effective management of a pandemic due to a respiratory virus requires public health capacity for a coordinated response for mandatory restrictions, large-scale testing to identify infected individuals, capacity to isolate infected cases and track and test contacts, and health services for those infected who require hospitalization. Because of contextual and socioeconomic factors, it has been hard for Latin America to confront this epidemic. In this article, we discuss the context and the initial responses of eight selected Latin American countries, including similarities and differences in public health, economic, and fiscal measures, and provide reflections on what worked and what did not work and what to expect moving forward.

No abstract

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

The Lancet COVID-19 Commission Task Force for Public Health Measures to Suppress the Pandemic was launched to identify critical points for consideration by governments on public health interventions to control coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Drawing on our review of published studies of data analytics and modelling, evidence synthesis and contextualisation, and behavioural science evidence and theory on public health interventions from a range of sources, we outline evidence for a range of institutional measures and behaviour-change measures. We cite examples of measures adopted by a range of countries, but especially jurisdictions that have, thus far, achieved low numbers of COVID-19 deaths and limited community transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Finally, we highlight gaps in knowledge where research should be undertaken. As countries consider long-term measures, there is an opportunity to learn, improve the response and prepare for future pandemics.

preparedness and response plans, global governance for health, essential role fo schools of public health, investment in training and education, professionalisation of public health, digital public health competencies Statement of the Global Network for Academic Public Health (including ASPHER) ABOUT THE GLOBAL NETWORK FOR ACADEMIC PUBLIC HEALTHThe Global Network for Academic Public Health (GNAPH) is an alliance of regional associations that represent schools and programs of public health around the world. GNAPH is focused on enhancing academic public health worldwide through mutual learning and collaborations between academic public health institutions globally to improve and protect the health of people and the planet [1].

La Red de las Américas para la Equidad en Salud (RAES) es una red multidisciplinaria que promueve el intercambio de conocimientos y la acción intersectorial para la equidad en salud y los derechos humanos en las Américas. Los objetivos de la RAES consisten en: 1) compartir experiencias exitosas en el desarrollo de intervenciones, considerando la determinación y los determinantes sociales, para lograr respuestas participativas y comunitarias en salud; 2) analizar los impactos sanitarios, sociales, políticos, ambientales y económicos de la pandemia de COVID-19; 3) identificar los efectos de la atención de la pandemia en las poblaciones de mayor riesgo por su edad y las condiciones de salud preexistentes; 4) examinar la situación de las fronteras y de los movimientos de población en la propagación de la pandemia y de sus efectos en las poblaciones migrantes; 5) proponer estrategias para asegurar el acceso a la atención integral de las mujeres gestantes, con el fin de reducir el sufrimiento, la morbilidad y la mortalidad materna y neonatal; y 6) analizar vulneraciones de derechos humanos y del derecho a la salud de poblaciones históricamente marginalizadas, incluyendo habitantes en situación de calle y otras comunidades que dependen de los espacios públicos y de la calle para sobrevivir. Los modelos analíticos y de intervención para la equidad en salud de la RAES se desarrollan desde varios enfoques, como la medicina social, la epidemiologia social, la antropología médica, la ecología humana y el de Una salud.

The Health Equity Network of the Americas (HENA) is a multidisciplinary network that promotes knowledge sharing and intersectoral action for equity in health and human rights in the Americas. The objectives of HENA are: 1) to share successful experiences in the development of interventions, considering the social determinants and determination of health, to achieve participatory and community-based health responses; 2) to analyze the health, social, political, environmental and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic; 3) to identify the effects of pandemic care on populations most at risk because of their age and pre-existing health conditions; 4) examine the situation at borders and population movements in the spread of the pandemic and its effects on migrant populations; 5) propose strategies to ensure access to comprehensive care for pregnant women in order to reduce maternal and neonatal suffering, morbidity, and mortality; and 6) analyze violations of human rights and the right to health of historically marginalized populations, including street dwellers and other communities that depend on public spaces and the street for survival. The analytical and intervention models for health equity at HENA are based on various approaches, including social medicine, social epidemiology, medical anthropology, human ecology, and One Health.

No abstract