Pandemic futures, future preparedness: diverse views in the wake of Covid-19.

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
Hayley MacGregor, Melissa Leach, Alice Desclaux, Melissa Parker, Catherine Grant, Annie Wilkinson, Kelley Sams, Khoudia Sow
{"title":"Pandemic futures, future preparedness: diverse views in the wake of Covid-19.","authors":"Hayley MacGregor, Melissa Leach, Alice Desclaux, Melissa Parker, Catherine Grant, Annie Wilkinson, Kelley Sams, Khoudia Sow","doi":"10.1017/S0021932025100369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The deliberations for the Pandemic Accord have opened an important moment of reflection on future approaches to pandemic preparedness. The concept had been increasingly prominent in global health discourse for several years before the pandemic and had concretised into a set of standardised mainstream approaches to the prediction of threats. Since 2019, the authors and the wider research team have led a research project on the meanings and practices of preparedness. At its close, the authors undertook 25 interviews to capture reflections of regional and global health actors' ideas about preparedness, and how and to what extent these were influenced by Covid-19. Here, an analysis of interview responses is presented, with attention to (dis)connections between the views of those occupying positions in regional and global institutions. The interviews revealed that preparedness means different things to different people and institutions. Analysis revealed several domains of preparedness with distinct conceptualisations of what preparedness is, its purposes, and scope. Overall, there appear to be some changes in thinking due to Covid-19, but also strong continuities, especially with respect to a technical focus and an underplaying of the inequities that became evident (in terms of biosocial vulnerabilities but also global-regional disparities) and, related to this, the importance of power and politics. Here, the analysis has revealed three elements, cutting across the domains but particularly strong within the dominant framing of preparedness, which act to sideline direct engagement with power and politics in the meanings and practices of preparedness. These are an emphasis on urgent action, a focus on universal or standardised approaches, and a resort to technical interventions as solutions. A rethinking of pandemic preparedness needs to enable better interconnections across scales and attention to financing that enables more equitable partnerships between states and regions. Such transformation in established hierarchies will require explicit attention to power dynamics and the political nature of preparedness.</p>","PeriodicalId":47742,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biosocial Science","volume":" ","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biosocial Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932025100369","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The deliberations for the Pandemic Accord have opened an important moment of reflection on future approaches to pandemic preparedness. The concept had been increasingly prominent in global health discourse for several years before the pandemic and had concretised into a set of standardised mainstream approaches to the prediction of threats. Since 2019, the authors and the wider research team have led a research project on the meanings and practices of preparedness. At its close, the authors undertook 25 interviews to capture reflections of regional and global health actors' ideas about preparedness, and how and to what extent these were influenced by Covid-19. Here, an analysis of interview responses is presented, with attention to (dis)connections between the views of those occupying positions in regional and global institutions. The interviews revealed that preparedness means different things to different people and institutions. Analysis revealed several domains of preparedness with distinct conceptualisations of what preparedness is, its purposes, and scope. Overall, there appear to be some changes in thinking due to Covid-19, but also strong continuities, especially with respect to a technical focus and an underplaying of the inequities that became evident (in terms of biosocial vulnerabilities but also global-regional disparities) and, related to this, the importance of power and politics. Here, the analysis has revealed three elements, cutting across the domains but particularly strong within the dominant framing of preparedness, which act to sideline direct engagement with power and politics in the meanings and practices of preparedness. These are an emphasis on urgent action, a focus on universal or standardised approaches, and a resort to technical interventions as solutions. A rethinking of pandemic preparedness needs to enable better interconnections across scales and attention to financing that enables more equitable partnerships between states and regions. Such transformation in established hierarchies will require explicit attention to power dynamics and the political nature of preparedness.

大流行的未来,未来的防范:2019冠状病毒病后的不同观点。
对《大流行病协定》的审议开启了一个重要的时刻,使人们可以反思未来的大流行病防范办法。在大流行之前的几年里,这一概念在全球卫生论述中日益突出,并已具体化为一套预测威胁的标准化主流方法。自2019年以来,作者和更广泛的研究团队领导了一个关于准备的意义和实践的研究项目。最后,作者进行了25次访谈,以了解区域和全球卫生行为体对防范的看法,以及这些想法如何以及在多大程度上受到Covid-19的影响。在这里,提出了对访谈答复的分析,并注意到在区域和全球机构中担任职务的人的观点之间的(不)联系。采访显示,准备对不同的人和机构意味着不同的东西。分析揭示了准备的几个领域,对准备是什么、准备的目的和范围有不同的概念。总体而言,由于Covid-19,人们的思维似乎发生了一些变化,但也有很强的连续性,特别是在技术重点和对日益明显的不平等现象(就生物社会脆弱性而言,也包括全球-区域差距)的低估方面,以及与此相关的权力和政治的重要性。在这里,分析揭示了三个要素,它们跨越了各个领域,但在准备的主要框架内尤为突出,它们在准备的意义和实践中使与权力和政治的直接接触边缘化。它们是强调紧急行动,注重普遍或标准化的办法,以及诉诸技术干预作为解决办法。重新思考大流行防范工作需要加强各规模之间的相互联系,需要关注资金筹措,从而使各州和各区域之间的伙伴关系更加公平。既定等级制度的这种转变将需要明确注意权力动态和准备工作的政治性质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
108
期刊介绍: Journal of Biosocial Science is a leading interdisciplinary and international journal in the field of biosocial science, the common ground between biology and sociology. It acts as an essential reference guide for all biological and social scientists working in these interdisciplinary areas, including social and biological aspects of reproduction and its control, gerontology, ecology, genetics, applied psychology, sociology, education, criminology, demography, health and epidemiology. Publishing original research papers, short reports, reviews, lectures and book reviews, the journal also includes a Debate section that encourages readers" comments on specific articles, with subsequent response from the original author.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信