Committee: World Health

Organisation (WHO)
Agenda: The Covid-19 Crisis
Letter from the Executive Board

Greetings delegates,

We are honoured to be on the Executive Board panel of World

Health Organisation (WHO) and we would like to welcome you to
the first edition of LEARN EASY MUN 2021. The study guide
should be treated as a basic reference material to give you a rough
idea about the agenda. This guide shouldn’t be the only research
material, you are advised to carry out your own research on the
agenda and your portfolio. This study guide will give you direction
about the main points of issues which you should consider during
your research.

We, the EB, will be monitoring and moderating the flow of debate
inside the committee. We encourage delegates to not be afraid to
adopt brave stances and throw out bold ideas in debate, and we very
much look forward to what you’ll come up with. The acceptable
sources of information in the levels of credibility are as follows:
1. All UN websites
2. The Country’s official website
3. International Newspapers such as Reuters, BBC and Al Jazeera

Delegates are expected to report to each committee session on time

and maintain its decorum. We also expect delegates to be well versed
in their country’s foreign policy and stance on the agenda. We hope
that the committee has good debates resulting in innovative and
substantive discussions.

For any further queries, feel free to contact the EB

devchikani17@[Link]
prayagbhatt1116@[Link]

Regards,
Executive Board;
Dev Chikani and Prayag Bhatt
Background of the Committee

Founded in 1948, WHO is the United Nations agency that connects

nations, partners and people to promote health, keep the world safe
and serve the vulnerable – so everyone, everywhere can attain the
highest level of health.

WHO leads global efforts to expand universal health coverage. We

direct and coordinate the world’s response to health emergencies. And
we promote healthier lives – from pregnancy care through old age.
Our Triple Billion targets outline an ambitious plan for the world to
achieve good health for all, using science-based policies and
programmes.

In our attempts to simulate WHO we treat it like any other body of the
UN in an MUN.
Introduction

In late December 2019, an outbreak of a mysterious pneumonia

characterized by fever, dry cough, and fatigue, and occasional
gastrointestinal symptoms happened in a seafood wholesale wet
market, the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, in Wuhan, Hubei,
China. The initial outbreak was reported in the market in December
2019 and involved about 66% of the staff there. The market was shut
down on January 1, 2020, after the announcement of an
epidemiologic alert by the local health authority on December 31,
2019. However, in the following month (January) thousands of people
in China, including many provinces (such as Hubei, Zhejiang,
Guangdong, Henan, Hunan, etc.) and cities (Beijing and Shanghai)
were attacked by the rampant spreading of the disease. Furthermore,
the disease travelled to other countries, such as Thailand, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Viet Nam, Germany, United States, and
Singapore. As of February 6, 2020, a total of 28,276 confirmed cases
with 565 deaths globally were documented by WHO, involving at
least 25 countries. The pathogen of the outbreak was later identified
as a novel beta-coronavirus, named 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-
nCoV) and recalled to our mind the terrible memory of the severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-2003, caused by another beta-
coronavirus) that occurred 17 years ago.
2020 archived timeline
31 Dec 2019
Wuhan Municipal Health Commission, China, reported a cluster of
cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, Hubei Province. A novel coronavirus
was eventually identified.

1 January 2020
WHO had set up the IMST (Incident Management Support Team)
across the three levels of the organization: headquarters, regional
headquarters and country level, putting the organization on an
emergency footing for dealing with the outbreak.

4 January 2020
WHO reported on social media that there was a cluster of pneumonia
cases – with no deaths – in Wuhan, Hubei province.

5 January 2020
WHO published our first Disease Outbreak News on the new virus.
This is a flagship technical publication to the scientific and public
health community as well as global media. It contained a risk
assessment and advice, and reported on what China had told the
organization about the status of patients and the public health
response on the cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan.

10 January 2020
WHO issued a comprehensive package of technical guidance online
with advice to all countries on how to detect, test and manage
potential cases, based on what was known about the virus at the
time. This guidance was shared with WHO's regional emergency
directors to share with WHO representatives in countries.

Based on experience with SARS and MERS and known modes of

transmission of respiratory viruses, infection and prevention control
guidance were published to protect health workers recommending
droplet and contact precautions when caring for patients, and airborne
precautions for aerosol generating procedures conducted by health
workers.
12 January 2020
China publicly shared the genetic sequence of COVID-19.

13 January 2020
Officials confirm a case of COVID-19 in Thailand, the first recorded
case outside of China.

14 January 2020
WHO's technical lead for the response noted in a press briefing there
may have been limited human-to-human transmission of the
coronavirus (in the 41 confirmed cases), mainly through family
members, and that there was a risk of a possible wider outbreak. The
lead also said that human-to-human transmission would not be
surprising given our experience with SARS, MERS and other
respiratory pathogens.

20-21 January 2020

WHO experts from its China and Western Pacific regional offices
conducted a brief field visit to Wuhan.

22 January 2020
WHO mission to China issued a statement saying that there was
evidence of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan but more
investigation was needed to understand the full extent of transmission.

22- 23 January 2020

The WHO Director- General convened an Emergency Committee
(EC) under the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) to assess
whether the outbreak constituted a public health emergency of
international concern. The independent members from around the
world could not reach a consensus based on the evidence available at
the time. They asked to be reconvened within 10 days after receiving
more information.
28 January 2020
A senior WHO delegation led by the Director-General travelled to
Beijing to meet China’s leadership, learn more about China’s
response, and to offer any technical assistance.

While in Beijing, Dr. Tedros agreed with Chinese government leaders

that an international team of leading scientists would travel to China
on a mission to better understand the context, the overall response,
and exchange information and experience.

30 January 2020
The WHO Director-General reconvened the Emergency Committee
(EC). This was earlier than the 10-day period and only two days after
the first reports of limited human-to-human transmission were
reported outside China. This time, the EC reached consensus and
advised the Director-General that the outbreak constituted a Public
Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The Director-
General accepted the recommendation and declared the novel
coronavirus outbreak (2019-nCoV) a PHEIC. This is the 6th time
WHO has declared a PHEIC since the International Health
Regulations (IHR) came into force in 2005.

WHO’s situation report for 30 January reported 7818 total confirmed

cases worldwide, with the majority of these in China, and 82 cases
reported in 18 countries outside China. WHO gave a risk assessment
of very high for China, and high at the global level.

3 February 2020
WHO releases the international community's Strategic Preparedness
and Response Plan to help protect states with weaker health systems.

11-12 February 2020

WHO convened a Research and Innovation Forum on COVID-19,
attended by more than 400 experts and funders from around the
world, which included presentations by George Gao, Director General
of China CDC, and Zunyou Wu, China CDC's chief epidemiologist.
16-24 February 2020
The WHO-China Joint mission, which included experts from Canada,
Germany, Japan, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Russia, Singapore and
the US (CDC, NIH) spent time in Beijing and also travelled to Wuhan
and two other cities. They spoke with health officials, scientists and
health workers in health facilities (maintaining physical distancing).
The report of the joint mission can be found
here: [Link]
[Link]

11 March 2020
Deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity,
and by the alarming levels of inaction, WHO made the assessment
that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.

13 March 2020
COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund launched to receive donations
from private individuals, corporations and institutions.

18 March 2020
WHO and partners launch the Solidarity Trial, an international
clinical trial that aims to generate robust data from around the world
to find the most effective treatments for COVID-19.
Update on Omicron
On 26 November 2021, WHO designated the variant B.1.1.529 a
variant of concern, named Omicron, on the advice
of WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on Virus Evolution (TAG-
VE). This decision was based on the evidence presented to the TAG-
VE that Omicron has several mutations that may have an impact on
how it behaves, for example, on how easily it spreads or the severity
of illness it causes. Here is a summary of what is currently known.

Current knowledge about Omicron

Researchers in South Africa and around the world are conducting
studies to better understand many aspects of Omicron and will
continue to share the findings of these studies as they become
available.

Transmissibility: It is not yet clear whether Omicron is more

transmissible (e.g., more easily spread from person to person)
compared to other variants, including Delta. The number of people
testing positive has risen in areas of South Africa affected by this
variant, but epidemiologic studies are underway to understand if it is
because of Omicron or other factors.

Severity of disease: It is not yet clear whether infection with

Omicron causes more severe disease compared to infections with
other variants, including Delta. Preliminary data suggests that there
are increasing rates of hospitalization in South Africa, but this may be
due to increasing overall numbers of people becoming infected, rather
than a result of specific infection with Omicron. There is currently no
information to suggest that symptoms associated with Omicron are
different from those from other variants. Initial reported infections
were among university students—younger individuals who tend to
have more mild disease—but understanding the level of severity of
the Omicron variant will take days to several weeks. All variants of
COVID-19, including the Delta variant that is dominant worldwide,
can cause severe disease or death, in particular for the most
vulnerable people, and thus prevention is always key.
Effectiveness of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection
Preliminary evidence suggests there may be an increased risk of
reinfection with Omicron (i.e., people who have previously had
COVID-19 could become re-infected more easily with Omicron), as
compared to other variants of concern, but information is limited.
More information on this will become available in the coming days
and weeks.

Effectiveness of vaccines: WHO is working with technical partners

to understand the potential impact of this variant on our existing
countermeasures, including vaccines. Vaccines remain critical to
reducing severe disease and death, including against the dominant
circulating variant, Delta. Current vaccines remain effective against
severe disease and death.

Effectiveness of current tests: The widely used PCR tests continue

to detect infection, including infection with Omicron, as we have seen
with other variants as well. Studies are ongoing to determine whether
there is any impact on other types of tests, including rapid antigen
detection tests.

Effectiveness of current treatments: Corticosteroids and IL6

Receptor Blockers will still be effective for managing patients with
severe COVID-19. Other treatments will be assessed to see if they are
still as effective given the changes to parts of the virus in the Omicron
variant.
Studies underway
At the present time, WHO is coordinating with a large number of
researchers around the world to better understand Omicron. Studies
currently underway or underway shortly include assessments of
transmissibility, severity of infection (including symptoms),
performance of vaccines and diagnostic tests, and effectiveness of
treatments.

WHO encourages countries to contribute the collection and sharing of

hospitalized patient data through the WHO COVID-19 Clinical Data
Platform to rapidly describe clinical characteristics and patient
outcomes.

More information will emerge in the coming days and weeks. WHO’s
TAG-VE will continue to monitor and evaluate the data as it becomes
available and assess how mutations in Omicron alter the behaviour of
the virus.

Recommended actions for countries

As Omicron has been designated a Variant of Concern, there are
several actions WHO recommends countries to undertake, including
enhancing surveillance and sequencing of cases; sharing genome
sequences on publicly available databases, such as GISAID; reporting
initial cases or clusters to WHO; performing field investigations and
laboratory assessments to better understand if Omicron has different
transmission or disease characteristics, or impacts effectiveness of
vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics or public health and social
measures. More detail in the announcement from 26 November.

Countries should continue to implement the effective public health

measures to reduce COVID-19 circulation overall, using a risk
analysis and science-based approach. They should increase some
public health and medical capacities to manage an increase in
cases. WHO is providing countries with support and guidance for
both readiness and response.
In addition, it is vitally important that inequities in access to COVID-
19 vaccines are urgently addressed to ensure that vulnerable groups
everywhere, including health workers and older persons, receive their
first and second doses, alongside equitable access to treatment and
diagnostics.

Recommended actions for people

The most effective steps individuals can take to reduce the spread of
the COVID-19 virus is to keep a physical distance of at least 1 metre
from others; wear a well-fitting mask; open windows to improve
ventilation; avoid poorly ventilated or crowded spaces; keep hands
clean; cough or sneeze into a bent elbow or tissue; and get vaccinated
when it’s their turn.

WHO will continue to provide updates as more information becomes

available, including following meetings of the TAG-VE. In addition,
information will be available on WHO’s digital and social media
platforms.
Second Wave
Many countries have seen a two-wave pattern in reported cases of
coronavirus disease-19 during the 2020 pandemic, with a first wave
during spring followed by the current second wave in late summer
and autumn. Empirical data show that the characteristics of the effects
of the virus do vary between the two periods. Differences in age range
and severity of the disease have been reported, although the
comparative characteristics of the two waves still remain largely
unknown. Those characteristics are compared in this study using data
from two equal periods of 3 and a half months. The first period,
between 15th March and 30th June, corresponding to the entire first
wave, and the second, between 1st July and 15th October,
corresponding to part of the second wave, still present at the time of
writing this article. Two hundred and four patients were hospitalized
during the first period, and 264 during the second period. Patients in
the second wave were younger and the duration of h ospitalization
and case fatality rate were lower than those in the first wave. In the
second wave, there were more children, and pregnant and post-partum
women. The most frequent signs and symptoms in both waves were
fever, dyspnea, pneumonia, and cough, and the most relevant
comorbidities were cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus,
and chronic neurological diseases. Patients from the second wave
more frequently presented renal and gastrointestinal symptoms, were
more often treated with non-invasive mechanical ventilation and
corticoids, and less often with invasive mechanical ventilation,
conventional oxygen therapy and anticoagulants. Several differences
in mortality risk factors were also observed. These results might help
to understand the characteristics of the second wave and the
behaviour and danger of SARS-CoV-2 in the Mediterranean area and
in Western Europe. Further studies are needed to confirm our
findings.
Impact of Covid-19 on Various Sectors
1. Tourism
International tourism expected to decline over 70% in 2020, back to
levels of 30 years ago.

 The world is facing an unprecedented global health, social and

economic emergency as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 Travel and tourism is among the most affected sectors with a
massive fall of international demand amid global travel
restrictions including many borders fully closed, to contain the
virus.
 According to the latest issue of the UNWTO World Tourism
Barometer, International tourist arrivals (overnight visitors) fell
by 72% in January-October 2020 over the same period last
year, curbed by slow virus containment, low traveller
confidence and important restrictions on travel still in place, due
to the COVID-19 pandemic
 The decline in the first ten months of the year represents 900
million fewer international tourist arrivals compared to the
same period in 2019, and translates into a loss of US$ 935
billion in export revenues from international tourism, more
than 10 times the loss in 2009under the impact of the global
economic crisis.
 Asia and the Pacific saw an 82% decrease in arrivals in January-
October 2020. The Middle East recorded a 73% decline, while
Africa saw a 69% drop this ten-month period. International
arrivals in both Europe and the Americas declined by 68%.
 Data on international tourism expenditure continues to reflect
very weak demand for outbound travel. However, some large
markets such as the United States, Germany and France have
shown some shy signs of recovery in the recent months.
 While demand for international travel remains subdued,
domestic tourism continues to grow in several large markets
such as China and Russia, where domestic air travel demand has
mostly returned to pre-COVID levels.
  Based on current trends, UNWTO expects international
arrivals to decline by 70% to 75% for the whole of 2020.
This would mean that international tourism could have returned
to levels of 30 years ago.
 The estimated decline in internationals tourism in 2020 is
equivalent to a loss of about 1 billion arrivals and US$ 1.1
trillion in international tourism receipts. This plunge in
international tourism could result in an estimated economic loss
of over US$ 2 trillion in global GDP, more than 2% of the
world’s GDP in 2019.
 Looking ahead, the announcement and the roll-out of a vaccine
are expected to gradually increase consumer confidence and
contribute to ease travel restrictions.
 UNWTO’s extended scenarios for 2021-2024 point to
a rebound in international tourism by the second half of
2021. Nonetheless, a return to 2019 levels in terms of
international arrivals could take 2½ to 4 years.

Vaccine
Unfair distribution and its effect
The scientific community has succeeded in producing coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in record time; however, some
countries are just receiving their first doses while others, such as the
United States of America, have had vaccines since December 2020.
The gap between available vaccines and vaccinated people raises
concerns around production of vaccines, rates of vaccination,
coordination between agencies, vaccine hesitancy and global health
equity. We propose that the approach to COVID-19 vaccination needs
to address key ethical and social justice concerns.
We believe that four issues are key to understanding current
challenges to COVID-19 vaccination. First, vaccines have historically
led to positive outcomes for the poor, but not without good
stewardship. Vaccines have health and economic effects that help the
poor, such as improving productivity, reducing severity of disease and
costs, and promoting physical and mental health. However, the global
uptake of vaccines has often been higher in richer segments of society
compared to the poor, especially in the initial stages of rollout.
National governments and international actors need good stewardship
to monitor and course correct such differential uptake to ensure equity
in delivery. COVID-19 vaccination programmes need to be pro-poor
from the beginning to reduce economic vulnerability of those at
higher risk.
Second, COVID-19 has affected some groups more than others, and
COVID-19 vaccines should not do the same. The incidence of
COVID-19 has been higher, and its severity more acute, in
economically disadvantaged, minority and vulnerable
populations. Widespread racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19
infection and mortality is seen with disproportionately higher impact
in vulnerable populations. These insights provide learning
opportunities to inform an equitable vaccination programme; current
disparities in procurement of COVID-19 vaccine mean that 90% of
people in low- and middle-income countries are unlikely to receive
the vaccine in 2021. The risk is that vulnerable groups will not receive
the vaccine first, or at the right time, and will be the last to be
protected, further compounding existing health inequities.
Third, COVID-19 has led to poverty, but vaccines must not do the
same. The impact of COVID-19 has been seen across all spectrums of
socioeconomic status, yet it affects those in the lower socioeconomic
categories in many more ways. The pandemic has led to the deaths of
main income earners and to loss of critical jobs, caused families to use
up their savings and made the lives of the urban poor harder. The true
impact of financial burden, for instance in impoverishing health
expenditures is yet unknown. For example, with nearly 71% of the
United States population not having the option of working from
home, the financial implications of restrictions and closed workplaces
will be massive in the long term.
Fourth, vaccination programmes rely on real-time data and COVID-
19 vaccine programmes must do the same. National vaccination
programmes have always been about managing rollout at scale, and
require timely reporting of supply chains, distribution and coverage
indicators. For example, data on quantities of vaccines supplied by
manufacturers and doses administered in each country provide critical
benchmarking information for those who implement vaccination
programmes and for policy-makers. Dynamic assessments of vaccine
programmes are now technologically possible and must be accessible
to the population; transparency helps with accountability and builds
trust in the vaccine, especially in vulnerable segments of the
populace.
We use the issues described above to propose the use of the term
vaccine poverty to approach vaccination programmes. First, this term
highlights the poverty of vaccination – those needing vaccines do not
get them, or do not get them at the right time, representing a health
system failure of delivery. Second, the term refers to the poverty
caused by lack of vaccines; as long as some population groups remain
unprotected, they are liable to contract the disease and succumb to its
consequences. Third, the term refers to poverty of allocation, when
needed resources have not been optimally allocated to the production
and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine.
National and global health systems and their leaders can prevent
vaccine poverty. COVID-19 is still a national and international crisis
and requires a strong and transparent vaccination programme. The
current crisis in India heightens our fears of how vaccine poverty can
affect national and local health inequity. Our call to action is to
prevent and address vaccine poverty to avoid exacerbating health
inequities.
Effect of vaccine on Covid-19 cases
If you are one of those still indecisive about whether to go for Covid-
19 inoculation or not, you must go through the findings of the United
States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC)
latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
According to the report, deaths from causes other than Covid-19 are
lower in those who received the jabs than those who did not. The
authors have analysed data of 11 million Americans, including 6.4
million vaccine recipients and 4.6 million unvaccinated individuals,
during December 2020 and July 2021.
Several reports have already highlighted how Covid-19 vaccines have
helped decrease the risk of hospitalisations, severe illnesses and
deaths. According to another US health department report,
vaccinations have reduced nearly 1.07 lakh hospitalisations and
39,000 deaths among senior citizens aged 65 years and above.
As per the data, in the highly vulnerable age group of 85 years and
above, those who’ve received both doses of mRNA-based Pfizer-
BioNTech or Moderna vaccines have a death rate of 68.5 for Pfizer
and 65.7 for Moderna per 1,000 vaccine recipients per year. At the
same time, among unvaccinated people, the death rate is 187.6 per
1,000 individuals per year.
Additional links for Research
FOR EFFECT OF CORONA VIRUS ON MENTAL HEALTH -
[Link]
mental-health-services-in-most-countries-who-survey

FOR EFFECT OF CORONA VIRUS ON EDUCATION -

[Link]
[Link]

FOR ANY UPDATE ON VACCINATION -

[Link]

FOR CASE STUDY-

[Link]
cd=&ved=2ahUKEwip1_K8xev0AhVOyzgGHSq5AEYQFnoECAoQ
AQ&url=https%3A%2F%[Link]%2Femergencies%2Fdisea
ses%2Fnovel-coronavirus-2019%2Fcountry-case-
studies&usg=AOvVaw0dDqE1gOjJ2-9ollur_u0h