Declaring an emergency is a dirty work, but someone has to do it. When facing a serious threat to global public health, even if complete evidence is lacking, someone has to take the responsibility to push the red button that activates a chain of coordinated actions (such as cooperation among states and research on vaccines). Choosing to do this, the risk of giving a false alarm is unavoidable.
The Zika virus has been recently identified in Europe after having spread in Brazil, where its first infection was confirmed in March 2015. Despite being relatively mild, this virus is now making headlines, as it could be responsible of a large increase of microcephaly among infants. A connection that pushed Brazil to declare Zika a public health emergency.
The European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research cofunds ASSET project, a resource in case of infectious threats.
ASSET project provides public health authorities with resources, suggestions and tools that could help to draw and review pandemic and epidemic preparedness plans, both national and transnational - introducing Science-in-Society issues, such as those related to ethics and gender.
It makes available a qualified and diverse network of experts in disaster management, public health and risk communication.
A bridge between stakeholders, public health authorities and general public, also through social media in order to encourage listening, improve dialogue, facilitate mutual learning and enhance mobilization.
Just in case.
Institutions, public agencies and authorities can tackle different kinds of crisis by using social media. In the last few months, this has been done successfully in very diverse cases, both defending the reputation of a big oil company from a journalistic inquiry, and managing the response to a terror attack within a city. Even if the type and range of crisis is hugely different, the efficacy of a prompt and wise use of social network gives clues that could be useful when dealing with infectious threats as well.
The consideration of sex and gender are not the most obvious issues that come to mind when discussing epidemics and pandemics. However, sex and gender have an important impact on these issues, since barriers to pandemic preparedness and risk behaviour can often be better understood when viewed from a sex and gender perspective.
Both gender and sex have an impact on experiences and behaviours relating to pandemics, epidemics and vaccination. The difference between sex and gender can be confusing, and the two words are often incorrectly used interchangeably.
Rhett Krawit is a Californian 7-year-old kid. He survived leukaemia after a fight lasted three-and-half years that left his immune system highly compromised. He wants to go to school and he has any right to do so, but he cannot do it safely. Rhett cannot be vaccinated because his immune system is still rebuilding and the presence of unvaccinated children exposes him to diseases like measles and chicken pox, which could be lethal for him. An actual risk, since in almost one fourth of Californian schools the herd immunity has been lost because of vaccine hesitancy and refusal.
This fall, the publishing, by the Italian Minister of Health, of the alarming data showing the drop in vaccine coverage in the country, revived the ardent debate between opponents and supporters of vaccinations, especially online. Adding fuel to the fire was the death of a one-month old child by whooping cough at Sant’Orsola hospital, in Bologna, even if it is still unclear if such a tragedy actually had a significant link with the decrease of vaccine coverage or was just a coincidence.