DE Campos Thana C
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2020 Apr;29(2):205-217. doi: 10.1017/S0963180119001002.
This paper argues that the existing definition of pandemics is not nuanced enough, because it is predicated solely on the criterion of spread, rather than on the criteria of spread and severity. This definitional challenge is what I call 'the conflation problem': there is a conflation of two different realities of global health, namely global health emergencies (i.e., severe communicable diseases that spread across borders) and nonemergencies (i.e., communicable or noncommunicable diseases that spread across borders and that may be severe). To put this argument forth, this paper begins by discussing the existing and internationally accepted definition of pandemics, its requirements, as well as its strengths (section 1). Section 2 then considers the problem with the standard definition of pandemics (i.e., the conflation problem) and some examples of it. Finally, section 3 evaluates some practical implications of the conflation problem to then explore conceptual clarity as the adequate solution.
本文认为，现有的大流行定义不够细致入微，因为它仅基于传播标准，而非传播和严重程度标准。这种定义上的挑战就是我所说的“ conflation问题”：全球卫生的两种不同现实存在混淆，即全球卫生紧急情况（即跨境传播的严重传染病）和非紧急情况（即跨境传播且可能严重的传染病或非传染病）。为了阐述这一观点，本文首先讨论现有的国际公认的大流行定义、其要求以及优点（第1节）。第2节接着考虑大流行标准定义的问题（即conflation问题）及其一些示例。最后，第3节评估conflation问题的一些实际影响，进而探讨概念清晰作为适当的解决方案。
