Maria Van Kerkhove speaks at a press conference by the World Health Organization. The public face of which, at more than 250 briefings on COVID, she says that she and her colleagues are now rushing to respond to the “steep” stop of most American foreign aid.
Fabrice Coffrini / AFP via Getty Images / AFP
hide
tilting legend
Fabrice Coffrini / AFP via Getty Images / AFP
Maria Van Kerkhove knows how to operate under stress.
As an epidemiologist and key leader of the World Health Organization during the Pandemic, she was at the forefront to try to fight against the pandemic constantly evolving. It was the face of which in more than 250 media briefings, explaining to the world what scientists learned about the last variant and the disease and death that it could cause.
“I think I only realize now how difficult it was for five years, and responsibility and pressure,” she said.
But for her, this chapter with high issues of her career was in some ways more manageable than the last four months.
President Trump withdrawal of which means that the world body has lost its largest fundaler. And, she said, the cancellation of almost all American foreign aid And collaboration with American health agencies has interrupted rescue work. She says that she and her colleagues are now rushing to understand how to continue to respond to health attacks and prepare for the next pandemic.
Already, the loss of American contributions has encouraged the staff and preparing for the reduction of programs that attack everything, from maternal mortality to the control of malaria.
“It is very difficult for me to understand, as a person, why it happens,” she said. “It’s a very different type of stress.”
Kerkhove, who is now an acting director of the OMS epidemic and pandemic threat management department, was in Washington, DC, last week to pronounce the start to the Georgetown School of Health. NPR spoke with her on Friday May 16 of the first four months of the Trump administration and their impact on WHO, the importance of the Pandemic Agreement officially adopted By the WHO member of the States on Tuesday and how the next generation of global health agents should “kick the tires” of global health care systems.
This interview has been modified for more clarity and length.
What do you plan to say to the Georgetown graduates who enter the health field – in particular global health, at a time of incredible uncertainty?
My message is that they may think that they have chosen the wrong field, but they have absolutely not done it, that the path they are on is the right one. There is no perfect trajectory to what you think your job is going to be. I try to be honest and open that there is no perfect path to a career, but that we must be in this area. And is not the time of retirement. It is actually the time to dig and think of something different. And we need the voice of young people. We need this innovation. We need them to kick the tires and say, hey, you don’t tag so well. We have a different way.
What do you mean when you say “kick the tires”?
I think it’s all we do. Young people wondering how we approach health, how we work in communities, how we could use innovative means to communicate, develop different types of technologies, etc.
By zooming a little, I wonder how you think for the Trump administration to withdraw from who and cancel foreign help grants?
It is not only that the financing had stopped, which is really important, but any technical exchange has also stopped (between American and other experts). Thus, all representatives of the government of the US government have been invited not to speak to us. This sudden judgment of the technical exchange was really harmful.
How so?
I will give you two examples. One is for the flu, where we work with the American CDC because they are a collaboration center. And we have worked with them as part of the global surveillance and response system of the flu, which has been in service for over 70 years to assess and analyze the circulating viruses. Now this system is strong because we have laboratories in 150 countries that are constantly communicating. But leading to a vaccination composition meeting (to discuss the next iteration of the flu vaccine) In February, the United States has stopped talking to us. They finally joined the meeting.
So they told you?
They had permission to join the meeting at a distance, but they are not part of the discussions. They are not at the table. And that has implications.
The second example is that there have been epidemics of Marburg and Ebola, and there are many US government employees in the country who have stopped talking to us in the country. In certain situations, they were not allowed to be in the same room with us or to speak with us (because of the initial external trump administration communications freezing). And this exchange of information to support a government, it is not who or CDC. It is a question of supporting the answer, of having the best people in the field in the responsibility of this government to support them in the judgment of this epidemic. It did not happen.
And what does that mean?
This loss of voice is important. We live in a world where pathogens do not care about the borders or your political affiliation. They will transmit. And when something emerges in a part of the world, it could be in another in 24 to 48 hours. It is really essential that which includes everyone at this table. So when America is withdrawing, it puts the Americans on a daily basis.
What was this period for you as a person who has been very publicly engaged in the response to Covid?
It’s very, very different. During Cavid, we knew how to gather our heads. We knew how to answer questions. We may not have had the answers exactly when we wanted them, but we knew collectively what we had to do. Everyone worked together to fight this new invisible virus.
So for me, there was solidarity, recognition that it is really, really difficult. I only realize now how difficult five years were. And people gathered in the first Trump administration. This technical exchange did not stop. So even if there was an intention to withdraw, this technical exchange continued.
What is happening now is very, very different. I find it hard to understand why it happens. We have planned a tax narrowing. What we did not plan, what I did not expect is the brutal nature in which it (was) stopped. And it is very difficult for me to understand as a person why it happens, because people die as a result of it. Personally, I find it very difficult. It is a very different type of stress for me. It was therefore very difficult.
Do you see a kind of money lining to this crisis? That the best global health system could get out of it?
I think we are going to pass through it and be more effective. But the problem I have with this type of question and this type of thought, even saying aloud, are the people who are affected at the moment, they will not pass. We need innovative voice. We need a new approach on this. But that is not going to help people who suffer right now. And I think that is what is so uncomfortable and useless. And I really have trouble and a lot are really struggling with what is going on worldwide.
Let’s talk a little about the pandemic agreement that WHO member states have spent the past few years writing. Why is it so important?
This is incredibly important at the moment, especially when many countries are retiring inward.
It really shows that we live in an interconnected world and that in the collective interests of all countries to work together for pandemic preparation. Pathogens do not respect borders. They do not care about your political affiliation, the color of your skin, the amount of money you have at the bank. They are looking for all the opportunities they can. We must make sure that we are in the best possible situation in terms of our capacities, in terms of preparation at our time. Because unfortunately it will happen again.
Covid’s inheritance can not only be death and devastation. This must be what has been built.
So what’s built? What is in the agreement?
There are a lot of details in the agreement itself. There are details on what it means to prevent pandemics, looking at either the benefits of pathogens between animals, the transmission between animals and humans – thinking beyond the last pandemic of a coronavirus and reflecting on what this next pathogen could really be? By also examining the management of biography risks in laboratories.
It also examines what it means to actually develop medical countermeasures such as diagnoses, therapies and vaccines, and to ensure equity and equity of the distribution of these products, depending on the risks and needs.
It’s no longer a promise. It’s more than a handshake. It is in fact a writing concretely what must be done.
If the world had this agreement before the Pandemic COVID-19, would it have played differently?
I think there were many elements that could have taken place differently. We could have been in a situation where we would have negotiated access, early access to these vaccines, diagnoses and therapies when they were available. And instead of high -income countries that have access to it and vaccination as many people as possible – of course, governments to protect their people – what we would have liked to see was to vaccinate people at risk in all countries rather than vaccinating everyone in a handful of countries. And that’s what happened during Covid.