This week, there was a new case of mpox reported in East Sussex, marking the sixth case in the UK since October. Other countries, including France, Germany, and the US, have also seen recent mpox cases as it spreads beyond Africa. In addition, Tanzania confirmed an outbreak of the Marburg virus, which had previously been denied by officials until the WHO reported nine suspected cases and eight deaths.
These incidents highlight the importance of having a global health organization like the World Health Organization (WHO) to track and manage the spread of diseases worldwide.
It’s concerning that new Covid variants are also still a threat. Recent decisions by leaders, like Trump wanting to pull the US out of the WHO, raise questions about how serious we take global health emergencies. The WHO has been crucial in coordinating responses to global health issues since its founding in 1948. While some may argue that the US carries too much financial weight in this organization, it’s important to remember that many factors determine funding contributions. The US does contribute a significant portion, but it’s a complex system that also relies on voluntary donations from countries and private organizations.
President Trump argued that the financial contributions don’t match the population size when comparing the US to China. However, the actual contributions are closer than he claims. The US pays about $130 million in assessed contributions, while China pays around $88 million. This funding model ties into global economic standings, where the US, holding a substantial chunk of the world’s economy, is expected to contribute significantly.
Some criticism against the WHO is its perceived alignment with China during the pandemic’s initial stages. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of WHO, has urged China to provide more transparency regarding the origins of Covid-19. He has faced pushback from China for demanding further investigation into the matter. The WHO is currently working on a “pandemic action accord” to enhance international health cooperation, which underscores the need for a collective effort in handling health crises.
The implications of the US deciding to leave the WHO are troubling. Presidential directives have indicated a halt to US funding for WHO and an exploration of finding other partners for health initiatives. However, no entity can replace the WHO’s global reach and capacity to address not just infectious diseases but also other health emergencies.
Historically, coordinated efforts through the WHO have helped eradicate smallpox, drastically reduced the incidence of polio and tuberculosis, and decreased AIDS-related deaths by nearly 70% in two decades. These achievements show that global cooperation yields great results in public health.
Given the increase in global travel and urbanization, as well as human encroachment on wildlife, the risk of new pandemics is high. A well-supported WHO is crucial to preparing for future health threats.
To strengthen the WHO, nations should collaborate to ensure sustainable funding. Countries like Australia and Brazil can spearhead fundraising efforts in their regions while wealthier nations should also step up. Even some low-income countries have begun contributing to WHO’s new investment case, signaling hope for a more robust collective health response.
