Department of Medical Science and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2023 Aug;27(16):7868-7880. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202308_33442.
This review aimed to compare the different responses of countries to the pandemic, their National Health Systems, and their impact on citizens' health. This work aimed to create a narrative plot that connects different discussion points and suggests organizational solutions and strategic choices in the face of the pandemic. In particular, this work focused on public health organizations, specifically the European Union and vaccination politics. It is also based on a case report series (about the United States, Germany, Vietnam, New Zealand, Cuba, and Italy), where each country has responded differently to the pandemic in terms of political decisions such as vaccination type, information to citizens, dealings with independent experts, and other specific country factors. In comparing the various models of care systems response to the pandemic, it emerges that: we have found some (few) good practices, but without global coordination, and this is obviously not enough. It is now quite clear that there cannot be a "good answer" in a single nation. Uncoordinated local responses cannot counter a global phenomenon. The second point is that the general context must be considered from a strategic point of view. With the threat of new pandemics (but also of health disasters linked to climate change, pollution, and wars), humanity finds itself at the crossroads between investing in a "democratic" management of international bodies but without power (and at the mercy of the need for funds with consequent conflicts) or in some new leadership proposals that advocate efficiency and problem-solving (and that would probably be able to implement it) but that would place processes totally outside of the public's control.
本综述旨在比较各国对疫情的不同反应、其国家卫生系统及其对公民健康的影响。这项工作旨在创建一个叙事情节，将不同的讨论点联系起来，并在面对大流行时提出组织解决方案和战略选择。特别是，这项工作侧重于公共卫生组织，特别是欧盟和疫苗接种政策。它还基于一系列案例报告（关于美国、德国、越南、新西兰、古巴和意大利），每个国家在疫苗接种类型、向公民提供的信息、与独立专家的交往以及其他特定国家因素等方面对疫情的反应都不同。在比较各种医疗保健系统应对疫情的模式时，结果表明：我们发现了一些（很少）良好做法，但没有全球协调，这显然是不够的。现在很明显，一个国家不可能有一个“好的答案”。协调不力的地方应对措施无法应对全球现象。第二点是，必须从战略角度考虑一般背景。随着新的大流行（以及与气候变化、污染和战争有关的健康灾难）的威胁，人类发现自己处于这样的十字路口：是投资于国际机构的“民主”管理，但没有权力（而且受制于对资金的需求，从而产生冲突），还是支持一些新的领导力提案，这些提案主张提高效率和解决问题（并且可能能够实施），但这将使这些进程完全脱离公众的控制。
