COVID-19 and Ukraine Virtual Press conference transcript - 30 March 2022
Overview
00:00:06
CL I think I am through the list and, with this, let me hand to over to the Director-General for the opening remarks. Unfortunately, I hear we have a little connection issue with the remote line so please standby for a moment until we can get joined by Dr Tedros and the opening remarks.
Dear journalists, you are still standing by for the WHO COVID 19 presser, war in Ukraine and health emergencies. We can start in a moment. Dear journalists, hello and welcome everybody again. Now, it seems we have solved our technical issues.
Welcome again to today’s WHO press conference on COVID-19, the war in Ukraine and other health emergencies. It is Wednesday, 30 March 2022. My name is Christian Lindmeier. We have simultaneous interpretation available in the six UN languages, plus Portuguese and Hindi.
00:05:22
Now, again let me one more time introduce the panel. Remotely, we are joined by Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, as well as by Dr Mike Ryan, Executive Director for WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme. Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, Technical Lead on COVID-19 is with us, as well as Dr Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at WHO, and Joachim Hombach. He is Executive Secretary to the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts or SAGE.
Here, in the room, we have Dr Mariângela Simão, Assistant Director-General for Access to Medicines and Health Products. We also have Dr Bruce Aylward, Senior Advisor to the Director-General and the Lead on ACT Accelerator, as well as Mr Ian Clarke. He is the Incident Manager at WHO for Ukraine. Welcome everybody and, with this, let’s start. I’ll hand to Dr Tedros for the opening remarks.
TAG Thank you. Thank you, Christian. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening. Today, WHO is releasing our updated Strategic Preparedness, Readiness and Response Plan for COVID-19. This is our third strategic plan for COVID-19, and it could and should be our last.
It lays out three possible scenarios for how the pandemic could evolve this year. Based on what we know now, the most likely scenario is that the virus continues to evolve but the severity of disease it causes reduces over time as immunity increases due to vaccination and infection. Periodic spikes in cases and deaths may occur as immunity wanes, which may require periodic boosting for vulnerable populations.
00:07:26
In the best-case scenario, we may see less severe variants emerge and boosters or new formulations of vaccines won’t be necessary. In the worst-case scenario, a more virulent and highly transmissible variant emerges.
Against this new threat, people’s protection against severe disease and death, either from prior vaccination or infection, will wane rapidly. Addressing this situation would require significantly altering the current vaccines and making sure they get to the people who are most vulnerable to severe disease.
So, how do we move forward and end the acute phase of the pandemic this year? It requires countries to invest in five core components. First, surveillance, laboratories, and public health intelligence. Second, vaccination, public health and social measures, and engaged communities. Third, clinical care for COVID-19 and resilient health systems. Fourth, research and development, and equitable access to tools and supplies. And, fifth, coordination as the response transitions from an emergency mode to long-term respiratory disease management.
We have all the tools we need to bring this pandemic under control. We can prevent transmission with masks, distancing, hand hygiene and ventilation, and we can save lives by ensuring everyone has access to tests, treatments and vaccines. Equitable vaccination remains the single most powerful tool we have to save lives.
00:09:22
Striving to vaccinate 70% of the population of every country remains essential for bringing the pandemic under control, with priority given to health workers, older people and other at-risk groups.
I’m surprised that there are some in the global health community who see the 70% target as no longer relevant. Many high and middle-income countries have reached this target and have seen a decoupling between cases and deaths.
Even as some high-income countries now roll out fourth doses for their populations, one third of the world’s population is yet to receive a single dose, including 83% of the population of Africa. This is not acceptable to me, and it should not be acceptable to anyone.
If the world’s rich are enjoying the benefits of high vaccine coverage, why shouldn’t the world’s poor? Are some lives worth more than others? Even as we continue to respond to the pandemic, WHO is also putting in place new measures to help keep the world safe against future epidemics.
Today, we are launching a new strategy to scale up genomic surveillance globally for pathogens with epidemic and pandemic potential. Tomorrow, we launch a new global strategy for arboviruses, the family of viruses spread by mosquitoes that includes Dengue, Zika, Chikungunya and Yellow fever, and which pose a threat to more than half the world’s population.
Now, to Ukraine. WHO continues to work with local and international partners to deliver medical supplies to the hardest hit areas across Ukraine. WHO has now delivered about 160 metric tonnes of supplies. We continue to urge for guarantees of safe passage to deliver supplies to Mariupol and other besieged cities.
00:11:44
We have also issued guidelines for donations, including a list of critical supplies for which support is urgently needed. We are outraged that attacks on healthcare are continuing. Since the beginning of the Russian Federation’s invasion, there have been 82 attacks on healthcare, resulting in at least 72 deaths and 43 injuries, including patients and health workers. Attacks on healthcare are a violation of international humanitarian law and must stop immediately.
Now, to Afghanistan. In Qatar this week, I am participating in two meetings that are seeking to alleviate the suffering of Afghanistan’s people. Yesterday, I joined a meeting convened by WHO and UNICEF to discuss how to address Afghanistan’s health needs and tomorrow I will address a high-level pledging event on supporting the humanitarian response in Afghanistan.
Over 24 million people will need humanitarian assistance this year. They face displacement, drought, food insecurity and malnutrition, COVID-19, and many other health challenges. Last year’s conflict led to major disruptions to essential health services and a significant exodus of health workers. Women and girls are especially at risk from lack of access to health services and lack of access to education. Last week’s decision by the Taliban leadership to ban girls from school is very troubling.
00:13:31
WHO remains on the ground and we remain committed to protecting and promoting the health of the people of Afghanistan. We need donors to do the same. Investing in the health and education of Afghanistan is an investment in the future of people who have suffered so much.
And, now, to Ethiopia. We welcome last week’s declaration of a humanitarian truce in Tigray and we hope that it will lead to rapid restoration of public services, including electricity, telecommunications, banking and healthcare.
However, a week has passed since the truce was announced but no food has been allowed into Tigray yet. Every hour makes a difference when people are starving to death. No food has reached Tigray since mid-December, and almost no fuel has been delivered since August of last year. The siege of six million people in Tigray by Eritrean and Ethiopian forces for more than 500 days is one of the longest in modern history.
Sustaining WHO’s response to all of these emergencies, from the COVID-19 pandemic to Ukraine, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and more, requires the generosity of donors. Under WHO’s Global Health Emergency Appeal for 2022, we require US$2.7 billion to save lives and alleviate suffering around the world.
Finally, let me end with some good news. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of every country having a reliable supply of quality-assured and safe medicines and vaccines, supported by a strong national regulator.
00:15:36
Yesterday, WHO approved Egypt and Nigeria’s medical products regulatory authorities as being at maturity level 3. This means that these regulators are performing well against a set of more than 260 indicators, from authorising medicines and vaccines, to testing, market surveillance and the ability to detect adverse events.
Egypt and Nigeria join Ghana and Tanzania as having stable and well-functioning regulatory systems in Africa and there are several other regulators currently under assessment in all regions. Getting to this level requires significant investment and we thank the governments that are engaging with WHO for their commitment, including Singapore, which was approved as maturity level 4 last month.
These assessments are typical of much of WHO’s work. It doesn’t get many headlines but it makes a massive difference to a country’s ability to deliver medical products that are safe, effective and that meet international standards for quality. Christian, back to you.
CL Thank you very much, Dr Tedros. With this, we open the floor for questions. Let me remind you, in order to get into the queue for questions, please use the Raise Your Hand icon on your screen. The first question goes to Adam Miller, from CBC. Adam, please unmute yourself, and for the others also, please don’t forget to unmute yourself. Adam, please go ahead.
00:17:18
AM Thanks for taking my taking question. The Director-General just said that equitable vaccine remains the single most powerful tool we have to save lives. Canada was ready to donate 20 million doses of the Medicago vaccine to COVAX. Why did the WHO not approve the Medicago vaccine despite the need for more safe and effective COVID vaccines globally? And when will you decide whether or not to adjust your policies on health products linked to the tobacco industry?
CL Thank you, very much. We give it to Dr Mariângela Simão, please.
MS Thank you, Adam, for the question. First of all, let me say that we do have a difference this year in terms of supply because last year we had a very supply-constrained environment. This year we are seeing that supply has stabilised to COVAX and we are pretty much managing the demand from all countries in relation to the vaccines that they want to be delivered through the partnership.
In the case of Medicago, the process for the Emergency Use Listing is still on hold for us to assess better how WHO manages the engagement of the tobacco industry. We are seeing an increasing trend globally of the tobacco industry diversifying their portfolio by engaging with the pharma industry.
So, this process is still on hold but we should have a decision on the continuation or not of the process in the next few weeks. Thank you. But, let me reiterate that supply situation has stabilised. We now need to work on equitable access and maybe my colleague, Bruce, can complement on this information.
CL Dr Bruce Aylward.
00:19:18
BA I think to the point that the Director-General made in his opening remarks and then by Mariângela, we’re now in a situation, fortunately, where we can meet the demands of low and low-middle-income countries in terms of both the volumes of products that they want and the type of products that they want, at least in the near-term and that’s great news, as Mariângela has highlighted.
The big challenge right now is ensuring that they have the support needed to be able to deliver those vaccines, to get them into arms. I think, as all of you are aware on this call, vaccines were held back from low and low-middle-income countries for the first nearly six months-plus that they were available to high-income countries.
That allowed all sorts of problems to fester. Number one, incomplete preparations because they weren’t sure the vaccines were coming, then rumours were fostered, etc. There’s a big hill to climb to try and make sure that the people who really need these vaccines in low and low-middle-income countries get them.
So, our full focus right now is on trying to help countries solve those logistical and other problems, financing problems, to be able to roll the vaccines out. Again, as Mariângela highlighted, our focus is very much on using the available supply. Of course, we are in discussions with everyone who is interested to donate vaccines, etc, again to optimise that in the context of the uptake in countries.
00:20:50
CL Dr Simão
MS Sorry, just complementing that we do have ten other vaccines being assessed for Emergency Use Listing at the moment besides the ones that are already approved. The process is continuing with other vaccines as well, just to ensure that there is enough and there is supply coming now.
CL Thank you very much, also, for these important clarifications. The next question goes to Laurent Sierro, from the Swiss News Agency. Laurent, please unmute yourself.
LS Thank you, Christian, for taking my question. The Swiss Government stated this afternoon that we’ve reached a normal situation and decided to lift all the remaining restrictions on Friday. So, that means no mandatory masks on the public transportation and health centres and no mandatory isolation for the positive cases. As you’ve been vocal in the recent weeks against a bunch of countries for their behaviour, what’s your comment on that? Thank you.
CL Thank you, very much. I think we’ll start with Dr Mike Ryan. Here we go.
MR Do you hear me?
CL Yes, we do.
00:22:21
MR Sorry, some gremlins here. Maria may wish to come on this as well. I think we’ve said consistently that countries that have achieved high levels of vaccination, as the DG just alluded to, had the benefit of being able to open up over the last number of weeks and months.
We’ve obviously advised that that is done careful and consistently with the previous strategies because, depending the strategy that countries had before in terms of the level of exposure their population has had, opening up rapidly and removing all restrictions almost definitely results in a rebound in infections. The question is what impact that rebound will have.
We’ve seen the impact that the sublineage BA.2 has had in Asia and its increased transmissibility and we’re seeing now, I think, some increased pressure on health systems in Europe because of that virus having that extra degree of transmissibility and a lot of reinfections.
Even in the context of this being milder, in terms of the population being protected more, there’s still a chance that there can be pressure on the health system. So, each and every government has to look at that. They have to make some choices around that and what they advise people to do.
But what we hope governments aren’t doing is passing back that individual responsibility onto the individuals and not supporting people who want to continue taking precautions, particularly people, themselves, who may be vulnerable.
00:23:54
Sorry, I’m travelling at the moment. I’m not aware of the switch in the Swiss regulations but certainly, from my own personal perspective, I will continue wear my mask on the number 8 bus when I’m coming to work and I think each and every person has to make their own decision regarding the risk and their exposure and potentially their chance of exposing others.
Maria may wish to comment more specifically but, again, we caution governments to be very careful to lift restrictions smoothly, gradually, step by step, and in accordance with the capacity of the health system to cope with any rebound in infection.
CL Thank you very much, Dr Ryan. Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, please.
MK Thanks. Just to supplement what Mike was saying there. Countries are in very different situations globally and they’re going to have to set the policies that fit their needs. What we are saying is to be cautious. What we are seeing at a global level is intense circulation of the Omicron variant, BA.2 in particular, and an increasing proportion of BA.2 around the world among the sequences that are shared.
So, our recommendation continues to be, and you’ll see in our updated Strategic Preparedness, Readiness and Response Plan that was just published online and what the DG spoke to is about a comprehensive approach. We need several elements to not only save lives now, which is primarily focusing on getting vaccination and vaccines to those who need them most in all countries, reaching that 70% target, but 100% of vulnerable people, 100% of frontline workers.
00:25:35
We also need to reduce the spread. If we don’t focus on reducing the spread, as well, we will continue to see further virus evolution and the future of future variants is uncertain. It could be more severe, it could be less severe, and we need to prepare for all those eventualities.
So, we recommend agile approaches. We recommend tailored approaches. I’m calling in from Dubai right now, after spending some time in Manila and spending some in Cambodia and looking at how different countries are still wearing their masks, still trying to distance as much as reasonably possible while getting back to their lives but also focusing on increasing vaccination.
We can do this. We can do this by using appropriate tools to save people’s lives and reduce the spread. So, our recommendations remain to be cautious and, as Mike has just said, individuals will need to take those decisions. I will also continue to wear my mask religiously when I’m out and when I’m around others and we just need to do what we can to save people’s live and reduce the spread. Back to you, Christian.
CL Thank you very much, Maria. The next question goes to Simon Ateba, from Today News Africa. Simon, please unmute yourself.
00:26:51
SA Thank you, Christian, for taking my question. This is Simon Ateba, with Today News Africa in Washington. President Biden just returned to Washington from Europe a few days ago, where he went to rally support for Ukraine and pledge more financial support for the displaced people there.
I was just wondering, since the WHO is still in need of funds to assist the vulnerable population in Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Tigray, Ethiopia, are you in contact with the Biden administration to get those funds, or other counties? Also, on the crisis in Tigray and Ukraine, is the WHO in touch with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali of Ethiopia or Russian President Vladimir Putin, for safe passage to be able to reach the people in need? Thank you.
CL Thank you very much, Simon. I guess we’ll go to Dr Mike Ryan, of the Emergencies Programme. You are on mute.
MR Thank you, Simon. We’ve been very heartened by the response of many donors to the Ukraine response. Again, as I’ve said previously, the horror and the outcry over Ukraine has resulted in WHO receiving or having pledged almost 100% of the funds that we need in the short-term and we’d like to thank the governments who have stepped forward to make those commitments and transfer those funds.
Other very important crises around the world remain underfunded and some of them hugely underfunded, so we’re still not making enough money available to ease the suffering of people all around the world.
The US government have been generous in their financial support to the COVID response and continue to be through USAID and the emergencies part of the State Department, very, very generous in many emergencies around the world.
00:28:52
We have met, myself and Tedros, with Samantha Power, with Sarah Charles. Numerous officials in the US system continue to provide a lot of core support to what we’re trying to do around the world in emergency response. So, we thank them for that.
In terms of contacts with the governments, we operate through the United Nations system, through the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, through the UNDSS security architecture as well, and we rely on our UN partners to negotiate the kinds of access that we need.
We’re extremely agile and willing to use any opportunity to get medical support, to get assistance, to get supplies into any places that we can and we’ve managed to get supplies. Ian may wish to speak this, in terms of the specific supplies we’ve been able to send in, but I know we’ve supplied Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson over the last number of weeks in Ukraine. That has also been also facilitated by the UN and other officials.
But we don’t engage at the moment in direct negotiations regarding access. We work through our UN partners to do that but then, at a local level, our frontline staff will work with other partners to try and ensure access to local areas. So, we rely very heavily, as I said, on the UN and on other states to assist with this, to make sure that we can get access.
00:30:24
Again, we speak about Ukraine. There’s a tremendous focus on Ukraine, and rightly so, but as Dr Tedros has said, there are many other areas in the world in which we have real access issues and Tigray being the most acute at the moment in terms of getting even the most basic access to get the most basic supplies, to get the most basic food products into that situation.
So, when we see populations in Ukraine, in Tigray and in other countries who just basically have zero access to life-saving interventions, it’s a world of a difference between that and a conflict situation where we struggle to get aid and assistance in because of conflict and all sides are trying to help in a way, and we struggle just because of the conflict.
It’s a very big difference between that situation and a situation in which access is being actively denied to a population, where the actual cutting off of people is part of the tactics, it’s part of the military strategy. This is what is so unusual about situations like we see in Ukraine, like we see in Tigray.
This is not people caught up in the fog of war, it’s not people just caught up in a conflict, it is people being directly targeted, directly denied and directly used as strategic implements, as chess pieces on a horrific, murderous board that they have no need to be on.
So, I think there is, Simon, a huge difference when we look at these different conflict situations of why huge numbers of people end up in these situations and I think the world needs to look at why we do end up with so many groups of people being used as pawns and pawns of war. It’s very hard to understand, quite frankly.
00:32:31
CL Thank you, Dr Ryan. We’ll go to Mr Ian Clarke, the Incident Manager for Ukraine.
IC Thanks. Just to add to what Mike was saying, Simon, to your question but specifically for Ukraine. In terms of our funding need, we went out with an emergency appeal for the first three months asking for 57 million to cover both Ukraine but also the support to refugees in hosting countries.
Thanks to the generous contributions from multiple donors, including the US, we have close to 100% of the funding that we were asking for and, of course, that’s for the initial three months.
We’re now in the process of working with our health partners, both for Ukraine and hosting countries, to come up with a comprehensive strategic response plan that will cover the healthcare needs for Ukrainians regardless of where they are located, both in Ukraine or in hosting countries, and that will provide a longer-term outlook in terms of the specific activities, the funding requirements across the different health sector partners for probably a year. We’re working on the exact timescale.
Just in terms of the delivery, notwithstanding the access issues, we have been successful in the last couple of days of reaching people in need in the east of the country. Obviously, that’s where the greater need is. In the last two days, we’ve been able to dispatch more than 21 metric tonnes to eight locations, all in areas which are contested.
00:34:01
We tried to get into Mariupol. We have been unsuccessful to date, together with our interagency partners, but we have been able to access places like Kherson and, of course, we will continue to try to access those areas. Thank you.
CL Thank you very much, and maybe to mention that on social media we’ve been distributing a nice overview map which shows where distributions and deliveries were able to reach. Thank you, Mr Clarke. Next question goes to Isabel Saco, from EFE. Isabel, please unmute yourself.
IS Thank you very much. Good afternoon to everyone. It’s about the lockdown in Shanghai. I would like to know if you consider that this is an effective decision to counter the outbreak there or if we have now the tools that would allow to avoid these kind of restrictive measures and if it would be better to take another kind of measure than a lockdown. Briefly, do you consider that this is a good cost benefit, a good measure?
Also, I would like to have an update on the situation of the vaccines. You mentioned that there are ten candidates in the pipeline. Are these candidates already made or will be made to block the Omicron variants? Thank you.
CL Thank you very much, Isabel. We’re starting with the Shanghai question first and we’ll go to Dr Mike Ryan again for a start and then, most likely, to Maria Van Kerkhove. Mike Ryan, please.
00:36:00
MR We might go to Maria, as well, who might give more details on the situation in China. I think the authorities in China had a very strong approach to suppressing transmission over a two-year period in this pandemic. Those inside or outside can argue if that was the right approach or not but when you look at it in terms of numbers, very, very low attack rates, very low death rates, very low hospitalisation rates and in a situation where society and the economy could continue to function pretty much well through the pandemic.
Obviously, as you then come to the latter parts of the pandemic or what we hope are the latter parts of the pandemic, you then have to have an exit strategy, when you have a higher proportion of your population that are potentially susceptible to disease.
So, that exit strategy for any country has to be careful, especially when you’ve been so successful up to that point. The Prime Minister of Singapore spoke during the week. I thought it was an excellent description of how a country that has had a very aggressive approach to suppressing transmission then exits and gets out of that situation.
And, I’ve said it before, each country comes down the mountain in a different way and it’s very important that we don’t stumble, and when you’re tired and fatigued and you’re at the end of a process it’s easier to make mistakes and make errors. In a sense, there’s a billion people in China. It’s one seventh of the world’s population. It’s very important that that population of citizens exit this pandemic successfully.
00:37:45
I believe having a step-wise, data-driven approach is the best way forward and I’m sure the Chinese authorities will define a strategy that allows them to exit safely, with their population having maximal protection while re-engaging with social and economic life.
It’s always a balance. Every country has had to strike this balance right they way through the pandemic and I believe there are some very smart people in China, good scientists, good public health practitioners who can advise government on how best to create that exit strategy and sustain that strategy over time and bring one billion people through the end of the pandemic, we hope, with the same success as which they’ve managed the first part. Maria.
MK Thanks, Mike. I think a lot of countries are struggling right now to get themselves out of their current situation. We’re in the third year of this pandemic and this virus has a lot of energy left. It’s circulating at such an intense level, at least ten or 11 million cases being reported each week and we know that’s an underestimate because surveillance has changed, testing has stopped or reduced significantly in a number of countries.
As countries find their way through this and find a way to responsibly manage COVID-19, it’s challenging and what we are hoping to see going forward is to strike that balance, to reduce the spread but also to save lives. What we hope not to see is this pendulum swing of all or nothing, lifting everything or having everything in place, and really try to tailor the approach, to use a layered approach and adjust, as necessary.
00:39:33
We are not here to sit and criticise. What we’re here to do is to help and to support governments. We issue the evidence-based policies. We look at the science. We’re all looking at the same data but the policies that countries implement, even at subnational levels, need to take into consideration a number of factors, what there past and current strategy is.
What population level immunity looks like from past infection but also from vaccination. And, in particular, looking at the coverage of vaccination among those who are most at risk, looking at how they have access to other life-saving tools. How they use those tools. How they adjust them. What kind of engagement and empowerment they have of their populations and how this varies over time.
We’re all exhausted from this, everyone around the world is, but unfortunately we’re not out of it and this is what we as an organisation, as WHO, with partners are trying to do as well. What’s the right balance of getting it right and adjusting that as we move forward?
So, we’ll continue to support countries in that but we do know that vaccines work. The COVID-19 vaccines work at preventing severe disease and death, including against Omicron and, in particular, BA.1 and BA.2, which is becoming dominant worldwide. As we move forward we need to look at how vaccines continue to be used going forward, but we can say that they are robust and strong against preventing severe disease and death. They don’t prevent all infections, they don’t prevent all transmissions but they’re not designed for that. So, that’s why we need vaccines and not vaccines only.
00:41:10
CL Thank you very much, Maria Van Kerkhove. For the second part, which was on ten EUL or Emergency Use Listed vaccines, Dr Mariângela Simão, please.
MS Thank you. Maybe Maria has answered part of the issue because we actually need all vaccines that work. We need vaccines that are effective against the variants and that are effective against multiple variants. The Emergency Use Listing process, it’s an assessment of the quality of manufacturing, of efficacy and safety.
This is very important because, at the stage we are right now, we need different platforms. These ten vaccines that I mentioned that are being assessed right now, they are also of different platforms. Again, we need vaccines that are more effective in preventing transmission and we need vaccines that also focus on multiple variants. So, this is the stage we are right now. Thank you.
CL Thank you very much. Let’s move on. Pardon me. Dr Bruce Aylward. Sorry.
BA I just want to come in quick because it was such an important point that was raised but it’s just an opportunity to reaffirm that the vaccines that we have now work extremely well to achieve our primary goal which is reducing, of course, severe disease and death, saving lives, number one, taking pressure of the health systems, number two, and ensuring societies and economies can function again as close as possible to normal.
00:42:48
I think it’s important that we really be super clear. These vaccines, almost every one of them for which we have data on, appear to do a great job preventing severe disease and death irrespective of the variant that we’re facing. So, the important thing right now, yes, maintain the R&D agenda, of course, but the key thing is the point Dr Tedros made in his opening comments. It’s getting more doses into more people as quickly as possible.
CL Thank you very much, Dr Aylward. A very important addition and apologies for not catching it immediately. The next question goes to Daniel Payne, from Politico. Daniel, please unmute yourself.
DP Thank you for taking my question. The Director-General talked about the WHO sticking to the 70% goal of vaccinating all populations but, as he said, there are other groups that are looking to move away from that to just 90% of high risk populations.
I’m wondering what would the impacts be if more groups did that, moved away from that 70% goal, and is the WHO agreeing to that 90% goal of at-risk populations as an intermediate goal on the way to 70%, including boosters, which is what that university report advocated for? Thank you.
CL Thank you very much, Daniel. I think we’ll start with Dr Bruce Aylward.
00:44:19
BA Daniel, thanks so much, and thanks especially for how you framed the question. To the first point, what happens if more groups move away? Well, if more groups move away from the 70% target, we have more transmission in the world, we have more people that die and eventually we have more variants that emerge and possibly frustrate all the progress that’s been made so far through incredible cooperation around the world to try to get out of this crisis.
It’s short-sighted because right now the bottom line, Daniel, is we simply don’t know this virus well enough. There’s lots of uncertainty and, in the face of that uncertainty, what we do know is the virus will continue to evolve. What we do know is it will continue to surprise us and what we do know is if people are not vaccinated they will pay the consequence of those surprises.
What we’re worried about is exactly what the Director-General said. Now that the North is largely protected, there’s this emerging narrative that maybe you don’t need that same level of protection everywhere in the world and that logic is difficult to follow. Yes, there may be choices that countries want to make but those are the decisions of those countries.
To your question, Daniel, an important one as well. Do we subscribe to the goal of 90% in the high-risk populations? I don’t want to be the one who decides which 10% don’t get the vaccine among high-risk populations. Everyone needs to be offered the vaccine among the healthcare workers, the high-risk populations, etc, and as we move down from that.
00:46:06
Now, every time we say, well, let’s make it 90%, let’s make it 80%, let’s make it 70% and we bring that number down, what are we doing? Are we making it easier for us to high a target or making it easier for the virus to continue to spread? We have to be super clear. There are consequences every time we notch these things back and the wrong people are going to pay the price for those consequences. It won’t be the people who are ascribing to those changes.
So, for all of those reasons, we remain very much that the right thing from a public health view is to get as many vaccinated as possible to reduce the amount of disease, suffering, death and get the world back to normal. We don’t subscribe to the view that there should be a different standard for people in rich countries versus others.
Remember, we’re having this conversation at a time when globally 64% of the world has had at least one dose and 60% has had two doses of vaccines, high-income countries. We’re having this conversation now at a time when high-income countries have 80% of their population covered with one dose and 75% for two and even upper-middle-income countries, 76% with two doses. It’s the low-income countries, 11%. Now, we’re staring to say do they need to get to 70%? If we need it for the high and upper-middle-income countries, we need it for everyone.
CL Thank you very much, Dr Bruce Aylward. The next question goes to Simone McCarthy, from CNN. Simone, please unmute yourself.
00:47:43
SM Thank you for taking my question. Good evening from Hong Kong. It’s been one year since the release of the report from the WHO-led mission to Wuhan. In that report there were some specific recommendations for identifying the origin of the virus or getting closer to a good hypothesis, such as testing blood bank samples, tracing back market supply chains and re-examining Wuhan hospital patient data.
I’m wondering if the WHO is aware whether China has done these studies and, if so, if the results have been shared with the WHO? I’m also interested about what your expectations are for SAGO and for a next phase of studies into the origins. Does this remain a priority? Thank you.
CL Thank you very much. Maybe we’ll start with Maria Van Kerkhove on this one.
MK Sure. I can start. Absolutely, studying the origins of this pandemic and being prepared or better prepared for the next one remains a very high priority of WHO and partners around the world, scientists and public health professional around the world.
SAGO, our Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins on Novel Pathogens, has been meeting regularly and they are outlining a global framework for how each time this does happen, that there are a comprehensive set of studies that are done when and where the first cases are reported from known epidemic and pandemic potential pathogens or the next disease X.
00:49:21
This group has been discussing what the elements of the framework are, everything from environmental studies, to animal studies, to human studies, phylogenetic work, all the way at looking at biosafety and biosecurity in labs around the world. The also have a specific responsibility to assess where we are in our understanding of the origins of this pandemic.
They will be issuing their first report to us, to WHO, in the coming weeks. We’re hoping that this will be ready soon and what they are starting to do, and they’re not finished. I want to be perfectly clear that the SAGO’s work has just begun. In their first report that they issue, it will be a preliminary report to us, to WHO. It will not be complete and I’m pretty sure in bold at the top it will say this is a preliminary report, the work is ongoing, it’s not yet finished.
But they will look at what studies have been done since the WHO joint China report was published a year ago, looking at what has been completed since then and making recommendations about what still needs to be done.
What we can say is that we still don’t know the origins, fully, of this pandemic and a lot more work needs to be done, looking at market systems, looking at animal trade, looking at animal susceptibility, looking at any samples that tested positive anywhere in the world prior to the first detection of the cases in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, looking at biosafety, biosecurity. There’s so much work that continues to need to be done.
00:50:57
So, this is a priority for us. We have had some updates from our Chinese scientists around what work has been done but what we can say is that it’s not yet finished. So, hopefully, this report will be issued to us soon and we will be releasing that information as soon as possible, but I do want to reiterate again that his work will be preliminary.
The job of the SAGO is not to find the origins. The job of the SAGO is to advise WHO on studies that are necessary to gather evidence to really better understand the different hypotheses that are out there and, first and foremost, to outline a framework for the study for each and every time this happens.
CL Thank you very much, Maria. We’re coming slowly to the end. The last question goes to Ari Daniel, from the NPR, National Public Radio. Ari, please unmute yourself. Ari, are you there? Can you still hear us? If so, please unmute yourself. It seems we have lost him and that means we’re at the end of it for today.
Thank you all very much. The transcript will be posted tomorrow and, of course, we’ll send the audio files and the DG’s remarks right after the briefing. I thank you and I’ll hand back to Dr Tedros for closing.
TAG Thank you. Thank you, Christian. Thank you to all members of the press for joining us today and see you next time.
00:53:00