Interesting question..I agree with Dr.P. Contreras's response.. Maintenance and analysis of the epidemiological records related to the spread of communicable disease should be followed for its better understanding..

Patient/to/illness(disease) ratio, in a given population

(health care system capacity).

https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-are-countries-flattening-the-curve-of-coronavirus-20200317-p54b3g.html

all areas.

Kheepe Lawrence Moremi , shedding more light and focusing on the most vulnerable spots.

Thank you for the piece from the Sydney Herald.

Health care system capacity - I assume this refers to physical and intangible healthcare infrastructure Stephen I. Ternyik .

Please unpack 'Patient to Disease ratio.

Thank you for your time and inputs @ Profs. Amjed L. Jabbar and P. Contreras

From your point of view, Prof. P. Contreras , you believe there should be more innovations on "big data" in healthcare?

Prof. Amjed L. Jabbar are you referring to some early detection or early warning systems?

Kheepe Lawrence Moremi , sure yes Dr. ones that ought to detect disastrous epidemic and/or pandemics as early as possible.

Thank you. What systems do most countries use currently Amjed L. Jabbar ?

Thank you in advance for your response.

Interesting question..I agree with Dr.P. Contreras's response.. Maintenance and analysis of the epidemiological records related to the spread of communicable disease should be followed for its better understanding..

2) low cost innovations

I would go with 1 and 2 in relation to Affordable quality Healthcare especially for the disadvantaged.

In addition, - More technology and intelligence systems for real-time monitoring and proactive response.

Thank you Sachin Suknunan and Carine Temegne Nono

1) low cost innovations that drive quality healthcare to the disadvantaged and;

2) Intelligence, detection systems

Thank you for your time, participation and input Prof. Amina Sultan.

Records and big data.

Of course, innovations in the field of health research after Covid 19 must be oriented towards curative remedies and not for preventive remedies on viruses.

Today, moreover, any innovation for preventive remedies is criticized for the fact that their trials do not rest on a solid basis of ethics respecting the dignity of the human person.

Thank you Prof. Yédéhou Léandre Dossou

Curative medicine

All the areas and aspects of healthcare system need improvement and innovation.

To Prepare for Pandemics and Epidemics, Strengthen Primary Care

https://www.usnews.com/news/healthcare-of-tomorrow/articles/2017-02-15/to-prepare-for-epidemics-strengthen-primary-care

Thank you all for valuable contributions and suggestionds from various experts from calibres. I suggest that the health care system should be intregate innovative technology, more medical equipments and devices should also be availabe for furthe curtain, conttol and preventive measures across schools, shooping malls, hospitals, markets and univetsity.

Dear RG friends, at this point I would like to draw your attention to the following psychological topics:

1) People have not been touched for a long time;

2) People are anxious and insecure;

3) Large numbers of people in the world have come into contact with the loss of loved ones, and with very sick loved ones who have recovered from which it will be a long time before they are completely the old ones.

4) Children have not been at school for a long time, that might have an impact on their socio-emotional develpment.

Stay safe and healthy, Carl

Thank you for your time, contribution and the link shared Chinaza Godswill Awuchi . Your view is that "primary health care" is the first line of defence, as such, it should be resourced?

I think COVID-19 illustrates a number of failings in healthcare, and while some areas definitely are in need of innovation (diagnostics, exposure tracking, etc.) I think the main teachings of COVID-19 are more basic in nature:

- If you spend decades slimming and trimming a health care system, it will not be able to cope with a pandemic

- pandemics are liable to highlight the (otherwise hidden) inequalities in health care.

- with epidemics there is no such thing as "reacting too early". There is only regret of not acting sooner.

- While definitely a medicinal issue, epidemics/pandemics also have social, societal and transnational facets, which - in the current world order - are not easy to address.

RGDS & Stay safe.

Thank you all for your contributions. I believe that research on curative rather than preventive and intelligence innovations should take more focus in research.

P. Contreras I agree with your response.. Quite reasonable. Much regards

I should caution against augmenting international institutions' capabilities, especially bearing in mind their often political nature.

Plus, medical science is university-, national- and international scientist team- based, not a priviledge of an international institution.

In terms of healthcare, for me, the outbreak has highlighted the need to restructure the national healthcare system in such a way as to provide simultaneous service to more patients if need be (e.g. additional wings to hospitals to be activated only in time of need, temporary recruitment of medical personnel from non-essential private medical practices - e.g. plastic surgery), as global human population has been growing steadily, yet (beyond machinery and surgical techniques) our national healthcare systems have remained pretty much unchanged since WWII.

We also need more physicians and other medical personnel. Each state should take an active interest in encouraging their national growth in numbers - either through domestic education, or (if it is too expensive) - education of its students abroad.

There should be a physician in every ambulance to be able to reach and assist any patient - the survivability of patients with serious conditions will be higher.

Citizens' health is a question of national priority and security.

Tele-medicine consultations are good, but physicians cannot assess patients' medical condition without a tactile contact with them.

Most people are not aware what data as to their condition is pertinent to the medical diagnosis and enter into the field of how they feel in general or how their condition impacts their daily routine, rather than supplying physicians with prioritized, useful data.

The one-to-one virtual interview becomes a protracted interrogation, rather than a medical examination.

Besides, the voice and picture of the patient often depend on the quality of both computers used and the established internet connection between them.

Also, machines and innovations are all good, but they are of little use if there are no PPEs, capability for the production or sourcing of particular medicines and other medical consumatives, as many hospitals routinely save on them to meet expenditure targets and medical personnel is often not acquainted as to proper containment procedures and safe PPE usage (e.g. touching face shield, patients' bed sheets, documents, then face mask and face shield, again, with the same gloved hand - as visible from some news excerpts from around the world).

If national production capabilities of such consumatives and medicines are not feasible, countries should pair up on a regional basis with other countries - one provides the materials, another the technology to turn them into usable products.

Transport between neighbourly countries in cases of an outbreak will be swift, with no glitches.

Throughout global medical emergencies, a single source of both materials and final products (e.g. as in a monopoly poduction-supply chain) would be ill advised.

In terms of data management and analysis, my opinion is that the world's national healthcare systems should be integrated in a global, AI-driven system for data monitoring, analysis and early signalling to identify outbreak sources in time and propose recommended measures at the national and the international level.

As to who is going to administer and support this AI - I propose an international consortium of states, rather than existing international institutions.

Just my 50 cents on the issue... :)

Nothing as extreme as abolishing. Perhaps rethink the future role of.

As Australia showed by being the first country to declare quarantine ahead of WHO's raising of the pandemic flag, the institution's observations/ advice/ recommendations are not mandatory to follow under international law, and thus - non-binding.

Relevant medical specialists within each country evaluate the risks. Based on their informed opinion, governments decide the proper course of action. :)

Thank you Carl HD Steinmetz . You have your finger on the pulse. Compassion, care, mental and overall wellbeing of those that are affected or those living with or related to those that are directly affected is critical.

Dear Carl HD Steinmetz

I agree with you, sir

Thank you فاضل عاشور عبد الكريم for your participation and Andrew Kimwolo for your comment on focus on curative medicines. Thank you Pekka J Buttler for your comments, specifically on the two points raised, inequality and the social, societal and transnational nature of healthcare challenges. Please expand a little bit on these points. I think you are onto something.

Thank you Amina Sultan Prof. P. Contreras and Valeria Tananska for a lively and engaging participation. Just we re busy discussing innovations and focus areas for global, regional and national healthcare systems, see the following developments:-

The one piece talks about the mega unicorns' foray into "healthcare big data." whilst the second talks about the tussle between the US president and WHO. I would like to have your comments on the above.

Very informative interaction..

Thanks for your kind sharing

@Kheepe Moremi sir..

Much regards..be safe 🙏

Wow Kheepe,

We are getting into politics today, are we?

What should I say?

There is a difference between an AI designed with public health in mind and a movie "The circle" (2017)-like scenario.

Also, presidents and prime ministers around the world act on the consensus advice of their advisors - never unilaterally. It would be politically naive to think otherwise. :)

Valeria Tananska

Healthcare is the focus. In line with the above exchanges, I stumbled into references to "data and analytics" and WHO.

From a data point of view, my suspicion is that the focus is on the "now" and "topical." Not necessarily a bad thing, but this has to be balanced with data and data analytics and interventions focused on lifestyle diseases. The outbreak of epidemics accentuate the burden of lifestyle diseases that most countries are sitting with.

I do not know enough about the WHO to comment about them etc.,

I am not butting heads with anybody.

I think I provided my viewpoint. :)

On when the WHO declares a pandemic - it is better to provide info from the source on procedures and guidelines (and only then read other non-specialized attempts for public opinion-swinging from the media) - special reference to phase 4:

https://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/phase/en/

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the current outbreak is based on life-style diseases. Data comes in from around the world of cases of people with no prior health conditions that also get sick and seriously, as well as of people with some inborn illnesses.

:)

Your input and perspective is valuable. The more diverse the perspectives the better for me. I will go through the link. A clash of ideas is welcome. Thank you Valeria Tananska

To clarify your last paragraph, there is no suggestion that "the current outbreak is based on lifestyle diseases," but that "the disease gets accentuated" in people with underlying conditions, including lifestyle diseases.

Thank you Chris William Callaghan for your perspective. To summarise, you believe that radical expansion of "big data, machine learning" etc., in "biomedical research" is what is required. So the issue is about adoption and expanding usage of "technologies" not necessarily about developing new ones?

Thank you for the paper on "A new paradigm of knowledge management:

Crowdsourcing as emergent research and development," Chris William Callaghan

I will digest it and engage further, so far I see interesting concepts in your paper that makes my eyes light - up.

Valeria Tananska The link that you shared is very instructive. I take it that this is a "lifecycle" (for lack of a better word) of the evolution of pandemics, based on historical patterns. If I understand the essence of your point, is that there is enough knowledge about the "general pattern" of epidemics, based on historical knowledge that can be applied in future cases." Is this correct?

Secondly, for my own enlightenment, using the attached as a guide, most parts of the world are currently at either; "sustained or wide-spread" stages?

Discourse is born and gets productive into viable solutions when reliable knowledge and data are thrown into the mix.

I do not see any clash of ideas.

International law and the mandate of international institutions are officially codified and quite explicit in their stipulations.

The raison d' être of international institutions is based on their expected independent, professional judgement and perceived worth in their area of expertise to member-states.

The concept for lifestyle diseases' impact is very difficut to prove scientifically (as, at any given time, there are thousands of bio-chemical processes occuring in the human body - currently they cannot be weighed and evaluated in their entirety + every human body is unique) and thus highly speculated with.

It is rather an attempt to find a common denominator between patients suffering from a similar condition in order to search for a one-size-fit-a-group cure/ management tools.

:)

Thank you for your insights Valeria Tananska . I get your point about "lifestyle diseases."

You have provided a detailed response to the question above (your 50 cents' worth) re: healthcare capacity, flow of information, goods etc., between nation states, the need to have basic tools and equipment and AI integration. The issue of multi-lateral agencies is a topic on its own.

I am reading your second to last note now. Sorry. :)

Past experience (or, medical intelligence of sort) with outbreaks + established medical knowledge on infectious diseases is what state decisions on how to counter future outbreaks are based on...before

either a new, uknown pathogen appears and it behaves quite differently to pathogens that have been detected before, medical knowledge on infectious diseases is updated, or both.

In this respect, the WHO is mandated (through its financial and specialized human resources - pulled from member-states from around the world) to provide reliable medical intelligence and (based on it) recommend the most adequate, scientifically-driven course of action to member-states, in such a way that this recommendation can be sustainably replicated around the world, irrespective of differential levels of economic or healthcare development.

Whether countries chose to abide by WHO's recommendations is up to them.

The WHO does not have the power to impose its supra-national recommendations over national political, or healthcare frameworks.

I think this answers your question.

As to what level of outbreak each country finds itself at, that is not for any of us to say.

First, it is above our pay grade. And second, it is for each country to inform itself and then the world as to the situation within its borders post quarantine.

The major point is to contain and manage the spread within national borders.

If that fails, international legal provisions (International Treaty on International Health Regulations, 2005) kick in:

https://www.who.int/ihr/legal_issues/states_parties/en/

:)

I get it now Chris William Callaghan and you have my full attention. "Innovating the research process." How different is "probabilistic innovation" from "open innovation?" What is the underlying theoretical premise on which it is based? I see you referenced Von Hippel, Nonaka & Takeuchi.

I can infer, based on Von Hippel's work that I am familiar with, "Democratising Innovations" there is a relationship between your work and the "open innovation" school.

We can fix the "pay grade" issue for you Valeria Tananska . Jokes aside, the essence of the question is to determine whether there are some guidelines which countries can use to determine where they are in the "evolutionary cycle" and what levers to pull to manage what they are facing?

Kheepe Lawrence Moremi, I have no ambitions to work at this level, but, thank you. ;)

I am simply interested in policy making/ implementation/ international law in healthcare that impact medical education, medical personnel, and most importantly the final recipients - patients.

Quality of service and social justice is what I ultimately aim for.

P. Contreras, I am not acquainted with Dr. Ghebreyesus' professional qualifications and/or suitability for the post. Here is his official CV (courtesy of the WHO):

https://www.who.int/dg/election/cv-tedros-en.pdf

It is true that within the EU, Russia, Canada, Japan and other countries, relevant specialists as to viral outbreaks (to my knowledge) have to be physicians first. Their MScs are usually in Microbiology or Epidemiology.

:)

Thank you Prof. P. Contreras for the question. The question, much as it may be interesting, it is outside the ambit of this thread. Thank you Valeria Tananska for the response. I would however, prefer to focus on innovations etc., post COVID-19.

I understandProf. P. Contreras

In my opinion Public Health should require most attention in 3 specific areas. Within public health, I think that areas of study/research emphasis should be the following:

1. Human fertility and reproduction education in an effort to stabilize the size of population.

2. Health education with emphasis on prevention of pandemic diseases. This sector of public health should include also a reorganization of health services.

3. Connecting health to agriculture and food systems. Zoonotic infections have become more frequent with the idea that an industrial scale of food production may be most effective in fulfilling nutrition needs. However, this has proved to have many flaws (including putting at grave risks of contracting diseases its workers and consumers) especially, with outbreaks originating in areas with Confined Animal Farming Operations, or CAFOs.

Thank you for your contribution Bruno Borsari . I am intrigued by points 1 and 3. I get and agree with the need for public health education.

Dear Kheepe Moremi,

We have to reckon with the possibility that Covid-19 may be indicating/signaling that humanity is approaching its carrying capacity. This means that the planet cannot sustain any additional living being. The exponential growth of a population of living organisms (Homo sapiens being the only exception) will convert into a sigmoid curve, which will fluctuate/adjust around its carrying capacity. Ecologists have been pondering about this for a long time and the: Population Bomb (a book) by Paul Erlich illustrated this issue very well in the 1970s. As for point 3. I think the time has come for agriculturists (I was educated to be one of them) to reflect that food production takes place in agroecosystems and these are complex systems that are regulated by ecological principles and laws. Therefore, the idea of food production to respond solely to market demand (in the old Malthusian way) and thus design and manage monocultures is erroneous in these days and time. Ecosystems are complex and adaptable to change as per evolutionary theory. The adaptability and change undergone by viruses is a clear demonstration of evolution in action. Therefore, agriculturists, ecologists, eviolutionary biologists, economists, health professionals and more are needed to educate one another in order to cope with this pandemic challenge, and those that may occur in the foreseeable future. We need to heal from this Covid-19 pandemic however, planet earth needs to heal too from the ongoing abuses caused by extractive economies and linear thinking of prevailing human cultures.

• The crisis also teaches us the lesson of making societies more resilient, better equipped, more adapted to risk and taking threats more seriously. Only with a temporal perspective will we realize how important it would have been to adopt early warning measures and, above all, to act radically in the face of the tremendous challenge that was coming upon us.

• In the same way, the message of staying at home did not have the expected impact, as proof of the high levels of contagion that are still registered in many countries. This makes us think about the need to evaluate the processes of education, good sense, solidarity and support necessary to deal with the crisis.

• Definitively, this process already requires the development of process innovations in the areas of public health, education, production, communication, medical technology (rapid diagnostic kits, treatments, etc.), optimization of social networks (aimed at facilitating scientific information, clear and objective), etc.

Interesting perspectives Bruno Borsari . Net your view is that the "Malthusian Trap" did not fully materialise, hence additional measures are required?

Gonzalo Galileo Rivas Platero

Thank you for your considered and detailed response. Indeed, resilience at all levels, individual, family, community, nation, regions and the entire globe. The same applies to organisations of different forms. The question is how to make systems resilient?

Perhaps a good starting point Gonzalo Galileo Rivas Platero is to unpack the concept of resilience. What is it, how we recognise it and what are some of the underlying theories and empirical research on resilience.

Очевидно, необходимы меры, системы автоматизированного мониторинга состояния здоровья населения Земли. Существуют программы оценки здоровья по радужной оболочке глаза, в все население земли смотрит в телевизоры, компьютеры, планшеты, смартфоны, гаджеты. Чего проще сделать систему, используя суперкомпьютер и большой монитор «Око планеты», отражающий живую картину здоровья населения планеты.

Aleksandra Galkina Thank you for your participation and contribution. Courtesy of Google Translate, below is a suggestion from Google on what you seem to be saying. If this is incorrect, please jump and provide a correct translation:-

"Obviously, measures are needed, systems for automated monitoring of the health status of the Earth's population. There are programs for assessing health by the iris of the eye, and is watching TVs, computers, tablets, smartphones, and gadgets in the entire population of the world. What is easier to make the system using a supercomputer and a large monitor “Eye of the planet”, which reflects a lively picture of the health of the planet’s population."

In summary, your view is that supercomputers are the eye of the planet and by implication, these are what we need to keep an eye on the health of the global population and the outbreak of pandemics. Is this what you are saying?

Bruno Borsari , it is a bit dangerous to talk about population limits.

Let us be mindful (without getting into conspiracy theories) that some people may decide:

a/ to consider "thinning of the herd" as a solution, or

b/ to mass produce synthetic food (e.g. meat for burgers) - with unknown consequences for human anatomy and physiology

World's population may be growing, but, there are places on Earth (underground, under water, in the sky) we have not populated yet. Let us be like Darwin's finches rather than thinned out.

Agriculture is not necessarily a bad thing. It feeds people in mass.

Sadly, permaculture and aquaculture (we cannot eat just lettuce and sprouts) are not efficient enough to feed billions.

Aleksandra Galkina , I am a bit afraid that what you are proposing may not sit well with most people due to invasion of privacy issues.

Due to ever rising program costs, all programs are usually polyvalent - active one-to-one monitoring of people's health directly at home may turn into general intelligence gathering (which is unethical and illegal, esp. if there are no indications that someone has committed a crime).

No one in their right mind would ever agree to becoming someone' recurrent peep/ perv show, their human rights being trampled.

An AI administered by a consortium of countries (with an ethical training and constant human ethical input to it) may thwart such attempts.

Plus, personally, I do not want to go blind from my eyes being scanned constantly (in their retina portion, not the iris, because that is what is usually scanned).

For those of you who are not aware - eyes are part of the brain, the only part of it with direct access to the external environment.

;)

Dear Dr. Tananska,

I am not proposing to "thin the human population" but rather (and through public health education) assist/inform people that we live in finite planet and thus the carrying capacity limits populations' growth. Therefore, the learning of this and similar ecological principles should be conducive to develop understanding about the limitations of living systems and values. This is it! We may be able to live in environment that are unaccessible at present (as you mentioned: the bottom of the ocean, or even in other planets) however, this approach is (in my opinion) only a simplistic/linear and temporary solution. With the present approach to human growth (including economic, technological, etc.) even if some of us would move to Mars, eventually, these people would have to reckon with a carrying capacity.

Food production through industrial agriculture should be revisited and scaled appropriately to the capacity of the landscape in which it is taking place. Instead under the influence of simplistic narratives (we need more food to feed an increasing number of people) fostered by the agroindustry, the monoculture paradigm expands, extracting resources in a ruthless manner and without a minimal remorse of killing and displacing millions of indigenous communities. The population "thinning" has been happening for sometime (unfortunately) and it is still moving on, affecting the most vulnerable and marginal of our species. Now we are all alarmed about the dreadful effects of Covid-19 because the wealthy/knowledgeable/resourceful/industrial countries are affected too. The virus (as I said already) may simply be the ecological, regulatory mechanism that has evolved from our inability to understand and respect biological laws and ecological constraints. We are truly living in the Anthropocene!

In my opinion in the future must find predators of the corona virus through the improvement of the ecosystem around us, so that the virus can be controlled by the spread of the corona virus. Regards

Dear Mr. Moremi, thank you by your comments. Resilience is not in exceptional beings but in normal people and in the natural variables of the immediate environment. That is why it is understood that it is a universal human quality present in all kinds of difficult situations and disadvantaged contexts, war, violence, disasters, mistreatment, exploitation, abuse, and serves to face them and come out strengthened and even transformed from the experience. In this sense, we could think of resilience as transformation and consider that it implies a more complex dimension according to which people are able to resist, protect their integrity despite threats and also come out strengthened, positively transformed by experience. It includes the processes of regeneration, reconversion, personal reorganization and, in its social case, the opening to new opportunities arising from the crisis (ecological, industrial). This perspective emphasizes people's capacities for adaptation to change, the ability to learn, creativity, future orientation, strengths and opportunities, rather than dangers and weaknesses. In some cases, disasters can lead to opportunities to change or improve the poor living conditions of those affected.

Based on the above, at the country level, we could be considering community resilience, which therefore refers to the capacity of the social system and institutions to face adversities and to reorganize themselves later so that improve its functions, its structure and its identity. It identifies the way in which human groups respond to the adversities that as a group affect them at the same time and in a similar way: earthquakes, floods, droughts, attacks, political repression and others, while showing how they develop and strengthen resources that the community already has. It includes both tangible resources, that is, the material, human or procedural resources that protect individuals and compensate for weaknesses, as well as intangible resources, those that enable them to overcome difficulties and achieve a successful adaptation. Faced with Covid19, the society in synergy with decision-makers must design the most appropriate strategies for this global challenge.

Thank you for a detailed response and an interesting perspective Gonzalo Galileo Rivas Platero . Resilience is an interesting concept. I can sense from your response that there is some element of institutional theory behind the concept. I would be interested to hear other views, resilience from an economic perspective and from an "agency theory" point of view

Thank you Basuki Wasis

Which elements of the ecosystem do you believe require some attention and innovation?

Thank you for your time Bruno Borsari and participation. What are the key underlying assumptions behind your "carrying capacity" thesis in relation to this topic?

Are you saying that no matter how much we innovate, tweak or change things, this will not be enough given the carrying capacity, therefore we need to look at other interventions, public education to be specific?

A) More beds in ICUs. B) More respirators. C) Greater preparation in the industry to produce "at a pace of war" a large number of masks and whatever else is needed.

Dear Kheepe Moremi

I thing that spreading of COVID-19 has shown that world health systems require attention and innovation. I believe that healthcare require attention and innovation especially the all three categories; 1) sustaining innovations; 2) low cost innovations; 3) new market innovations.

The spread of the Corona virus showed that health systems in various countries of the world are fragile, weak and need further development during the coming years to face any upcoming health pandemic.

Best Regards

Thank you for your time and contributions Nasser Said Gomaa Abdelrasheed Roberto - Minadeo

More ICU beds, respirators and speed to produce tools and consumables.

Innovation and technological breakthroughs are good and necessary however, we should look also at the big picture here and plan for the distant future. With an estimated addition of about 1 billion people every 10-12 years at the present rate of growth (1.2% per year) how may more people can sustain? One of the most plausible causes of the Covid-19 pandemic appears to be linked to food (especially meat and animal products) whose demand has been skyrocketing in Asian countries, during the last 20 years. In China and India live about the 3/4 of the total human population and the industrial/mass production model that countries adopt to satisfy quickly market demands for meat takes away habitat for animal wildlife. The latter, becoming displaced will most likely encroach with farm animals increasing the probability of transferring pathogens (bacteria, viruses, etc.) to pigs, chickens, cows. For this reason intensive livestock operations are managed with daily use of massive amounts of antibiotics to prevent outbreak of disease within the animal farm populations. This system is being maintained and adopted because economically it is profitable: produce meat that more and more people may afford yet the environmental cost of this modus operandi is ecologically disastrous. Due to selection pressure fostered by the use of antibiotics in farms, microrganisms evolve, mutate and become more challenging to control. When eventually, the pathogen infects humans (farm workers) and humans develop symptoms and contagious, then we have situations like the one we are experiencing now. As medical experts are working hard to find a vaccine for Covid-19 governments should also begin to implement provisions to shift from industrial agriculture to a more humane and small scale type of food production and support to local markets and rural communities. No additional urban sprawls! Rather, provide incentives to revamp rural communities and family farms. A more uniform distribution of the human population in the countryside with farms that are managed ecologically and mainly for the local market, would (in my opinion) reduce the risks of this and future pandemics.

Bruno Borsari , I never said you were suggesting thinning of the herd, but let us consider all available options to us here on Earth, before dreaming of conquering space, going to Mars and other planets.

Such a plan would be tens of years in the making. I want to fly outside Earth too, but we have not found a solution to passing unharmed through Van Allen's radiation belts yet. Dead spacenauts are of little use to the future of humanity. ;)

Temporary solutions buy time for grander plans.

It is easy to discuss the benefits of ecology, when one comes from an economically developed country, fed since 19th century by the principles of industrial production.

Yet, there are countries where people are dreaming of food production at the industrial scale, as for them, mass hunger is an everyday reality. :)

Dear Dr. Tanaka,

I have been living and working for years in developing countries, trying to assist local people to increase food security. Based upon my experiences (mainly in west Africa and central America I can tell you that Industrial agriculture has not accomplished much to alleviate mass hunger. Land grabbing in the tropics is carried out by greed and ruthless corporation that do not care much about the livelihood of local people. Community organizers in those countries (central and south America) are being killed as we speak to protect the lucrative interests of corrupt and fascist governments and the international corporations they support. Going to Mars is NOT the answer! Agroecology is showing clearly that food production can be achieved successfully through local resources and knowledge. Ecological farming methods are as productive (or even more productive) that the methods employed by industrial agriculture. Moreover, food produced through agroecology approaches does not require the use of agrichemicals, it is protective of resources and does not require the 40% of the energy derived from oil to be produced. Most importantly (since the them hear is public health) industrially produced food is laden with residues of biocides that affect human health and shorten human life span. These foods are sold at cheap prices (or even donated) to poor/indigent folks. However the regular consumption of these poor-quality foods debilitates the population with terrible, chronic diseases (diabetes, hypertension, allergies) since an early age. The food system requires a radical and fast change towards a more environmentally sound form of agriculture. The main barrier to make this happen is posed by a neoliberal economy and populist governments that at present are ubiquitous, all around the world.

Thank you for your views and perspectives Bruno Borsari . I understand that healthy diet would be considered a subset of "health" and to some extent healthcare. Could we confine ourselves to "innovation and change" in healthcare post covid-19 and triggered by covid-19 and not any other variables such as "over-population etc.,

You sound like you feel very strongly about that part of the discussion. May a suggest a different thread please.

It is unfortunate that you ask me to leave this discussion thread Mr. Moremi. After all, I was trying to instill some holistic and more systemic thinking in this discussion. The Covid-19 issue however, remains a complex issue and a serious challenge to a sustainable future of humanity. A focus solely on "innovation" remains linear and mechanistic and (I am afraid) will lead to no change at all for a durable improvement/s, in the long run.

No Bruno Borsari

You were not asked to leave, but to confine yourself to the topic. I like systems thinking and systematic thinking.

More than happy to entertain and engage with you, but this thread is fairly specific.

Thank you for wanting to retain me in this discussion thread. However, I cannot "confine" my thinking within the boundaries of the topic because this thinking remains reductionist. Let' say that I will step away for a while and read further comments from the sideline. I hope others will react to this brief exchange. Thanks!

Thanks for understanding Bruno Borsari .

In short, all of them.

Kheepe Moremi... thanks for this important question.

Actually .. I agree with Dr. Bruno Borsari

Thank you for your contribution Ahmed Hamdan Lafta and for your intellectual sympathy with Bruno Borsari 's views. Much appreciated.

Research on medical technology and on the generations of various viruses should be undertaken, as even nowadays in COVID-19 situation we are getting many useful insights from research on Coronavirus family, SARS , etcetera.

"Research on medical technology and different cohorts of viruses." Thank you Muhammad Faraz Mubarak

Very infomative Prof. P. Contreras

Would be interesting to hear voices from the field in terms of their take. I am Valeria Tananska is tuned in.

Given the current development phase of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic causing Covid-19 disease, it is essential to conduct innovative research to create a vaccine and other effective therapeutic therapies. In addition, it is necessary to conduct research in the field of analyzing the possibility of creating new types of SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus due to the specificity of the mutation, developing the characteristics of immunity mechanisms generated by plasma collected from people who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus and recovered from the disease Covid-19. In addition, it is necessary to continue research in the field of correlation analysis between the applied epidemiological and sanitary safety principles and the scale of epidemic reduction. The results of these studies will be helpful, among others, to improve research processes whose purpose is to diagnose the scale of the relationship between the applied epidemiological and sanitary safety rules and introduced, legally sanctioned restrictions on the movement of people in public places, staying in home quarantine, and temporary closing companies, institutions and service facilities of specific sectors and branches of the economy and the scale of changes in economic processes, changes in economic growth, production, consumption, income, investments, unemployment, the situation on the labor market, etc. In this way, it will be possible to improve interventionist and anti-crisis measures used in individual countries health care policy, functioning of specific public sector institutions and applied pro-development fiscal and monetary policy instruments as part of coordinated, anti-crisis social policy economic crisis and reducing the scale of the global economy recession in 2020. Another interesting issue within the above issues of conducting innovative research projects is e.g. the analysis of correlations between the development of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic and specific processes, objectives and effects of implementing ICT, Internet and Industry 4.0 information technologies into business processes implemented in enterprises, institutions public and financial, the growing importance of the Internet in the field of remote data transfer, communication, development of e-logistics, electronic payments, cybersecurity and other aspects of electronic economy, which jointly contribute to the currently digitizing processes of the economy.

Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

It is clear that the outcry in virtually every country about the lack of equipment and supplies to test for and protect against COVID-19 will lead countries to reexamine their supply chains for critical health and livelihood related products.

This will lead to a surge of nationalism with respect to the need to produce pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and equipment domestically. Even countries that traditionally had no capability in these areas will seek to develop the same.

The realization that the economic costs of a pandemic can be huge, far surpassing investments in research and prevention, will lead to billions more dollars of investment in research, vaccines, therapeutics, and non-medical methods of prevention.

Source: https://www.devex.com/news/after-the-pandemic-how-will-covid-19-transform-global-health-and-development-96936

Transparency in information about the spread of the disease and early precautions.

Thank you Alaa Fadhil

Valid points. Transparency is key Sule Akkoyunlu but hard to implement due to the state of geo-politics and mistrust amongst some nations.

I agree Alaa Fadhil

Thank you for a considered and detailed response Dariusz Prokopowicz . See below my summation of your response. Is this a "close enough" account.

Thank you Sadanand Pandey for a thoughtful response. I am in alignment. Nationalism and attempts at import substitution and localisation of production of certain items and the investments that go with the policy choices on "localisation."

I am a layman in the topic and I do not know anything about the theory which you mention above. For this reason may be my answer is a truizm but in my opinion after the pandemia our policymakers should rethink and change their approach to expenses on healthcare. In general instead of spending billions of dollars on weapons of mass destruction they should spend much more money on healthcare. Instead of thinking how to kill their enemies, policymakers should focus on thinking how to treat their own citizens and build proper healthcare systems. In fact many countries have very well developed arms and try to conquer space but their societies suffer and die beause of lack of the access to basic medical services. If the first step is made and more money is spent on healthcare, the second step is to decide if the money should be spent on 1) sustaining innovations; 2) low cost innovations; 3) new market innovations. The approach probably should be different in different countries. From economic point of view it depends on the competitive advantages which a particular country posess. Then is the role for experts and the theoretical approach plays important role. But for sure there is a need to spend much more money on healthcare. And we should not to prioritise one area of innovations at the cost of other one but to push the decisionmakers to spend more on healthcare in general, and then develop all of these areas which you mentioned. Then is time for heated discussions among experts which area is more and which one less important.

Testing Kits