Today should be a unique day in the history of polio. If all goes according to plan, it will be the last annual World Polio Day before the disease is eradicated. However, now is not the time for celebration or complacency; while we know how to eliminate polio, we have not yet finished the job.
Consider this: in August 2014, the WHO declared the Ebola crisis in West Africa a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC); it lifted that status in March. In May 2014, the WHO declared the international spread of wild poliovirus a PHEIC as well; yet that status is still active today, leaving one to wonder if world leaders are paying sufficient attention.
They should be. The continuing polio PHEIC is endangering the success of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), into which the world has invested US$15 billion since it was launched in 1988, and it threatens global health generally.
For starters, the GPEI effort to interrupt poliovirus transmission could miss its latest target date; unfortunately, it would not be the first time. By the original 2000 target date, the incidence of polio had been reduced by more than 99 percent from an estimated 350,000 cases in 1988. However, since then, a long, stubborn “tail” of infection has persisted, mainly in remote, poor regions and conflict zones. The effort to tackle these lingering cases is laborious and it remains incomplete, despite PHEIC status.
To be sure, there have been some successes, such as in India, which was certified polio-free in 2014, and in Nigeria, which interrupted transmission the same year.
However, there have also been setbacks: This year, Nigeria suddenly had two new cases among children from an area that had just been liberated from the militant group Boko Haram.
The two other polio-endemic countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan, missed their last year’s eradication target and have had to extend it by another year, at a cost of US$1.5 billion. The root causes of both countries’ missed deadlines will require delicate, skilled political handling to resolve. They include internal conflicts that make children inaccessible to public-health professionals, opposition by some religious leaders, and public mistrust of national governments and international initiatives.
Eradicating polio is expensive, but it would cost tens of billions of US dollars more to fight the disease in perpetuity. Politicians and policymakers should be reminded that a polio-free world would be a global public good, that eradication is by far the best bargain, and that sustained financing and political support is necessary to ensure the GPEI’s success.
However, it is also important to ensure that valuable assets and practices built up by the GPEI over time are not squandered once polio is gone. These include cold chains to preserve vaccines during transport from factories to patients; established “immunization days” and negotiated “days of tranquility” in conflict zones, when vaccinations can be administered; trained healthcare workers; and systems for surveillance, laboratory analysis and rapid response. These assets have proved their worth in combating other diseases: Nigeria was able to stop Ebola’s spread during the West Africa outbreak owing to its efficient polio-tracking system.
However, the reality is that countries will be able to absorb GPEI assets into their health systems only if they are supported financially, logistically and politically. A major effort will be required to transfer materials to where they are needed, and to coordinate surveillance and laboratory operations. Doing so would not only boost global-health security and resilience for the next outbreak; it would also help us reach the UN Sustainable Development Goal for universal healthcare coverage.
More broadly, lessons from the GPEI and other eradication efforts must not go unlearned.
In 1980, smallpox became the first disease in people to be successfully eradicated, and there were prior unsuccessful campaigns against hookworm, yaws, yellow fever and malaria. However, many lessons that were already known by the 1980s went unheeded for too long — such as the importance of tackling remote infection reservoirs and maintaining high immunization levels everywhere so that health systems are not overwhelmed.
A complex array of political pressures, motives and aspirations determines which lessons we take from history and which new global health targets we set for ourselves. World Polio Day is thus an occasion to urge politicians to renew their commitments to polio eradication and to apply lessons from the GPEI to improve health everywhere.
In the fight against polio, the world is largely relying on the generosity of the US, Rotary International, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and European countries such as Germany, Norway and the UK — with additional political support from others such as Monaco. Other European countries and the European Commission itself should do more to contribute to the eradication effort.
While G7 member states renewed their commitment to eliminating polio at a summit in Japan earlier this year, a subsequent G20 summit in Hangzhou, China, where two-thirds of the world’s population was represented, made no reference to it; nor did the G77 group of 134 developing countries at its last meeting.
That is not good enough. After years of effort, it is now clear that only a strong, consistent, worldwide commitment to full eradication can end the polio emergency.
Ilona Kickbusch is director of the Global Health Center at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies and an adjunct professor at the institute in Geneva, Switzerland. Stephen Matlin is a senior fellow at the center. Michaela Told is executive director of the center.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers