Pandemic preparedness is a critical component of global health security, encompassing the strategies, policies, and infrastructure necessary to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks. The ability to mitigate the spread and impact of pandemics relies on a combination of public health systems, scientific advancements, and international cooperation. Over the past several decades, the world has witnessed repeated health crises that have tested these systems, from the HIV/AIDS epidemic to the outbreaks of SARS, H1N1, Ebola, and most recently, COVID-19. Each event has shaped the global approach to pandemic preparedness, revealing both progress and persistent weaknesses.1,2
The COVID-19 pandemic was the most severe stress test of global health infrastructure in modern history. It exposed critical vulnerabilities, including gaps in disease surveillance, supply chain fragility, and disparities in healthcare access. The rapid spread of the virus underscored the need for early-warning systems and international data-sharing agreements, while vaccine development efforts highlighted both the strengths and weaknesses of biopharmaceutical innovation and distribution.3,4 Despite advances in mRNA vaccine technology and accelerated regulatory pathways, uneven access to vaccines and treatments demonstrated the limitations of global cooperation, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.5,6
The urgency of pandemic preparedness is greater than ever, as emerging threats — ranging from zoonotic spillover events to antimicrobial resistance — pose increasing risks. While the COVID-19 pandemic prompted numerous policy changes and funding commitments for future preparedness, many of these measures remain underdeveloped or poorly implemented. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the G20 have both identified gaps in financing mechanisms for pandemic response, while experts continue to call for stronger regional frameworks to mitigate the impact of future outbreaks.7,8 The challenge now lies in sustaining momentum, ensuring that preparedness initiatives are not abandoned in the absence of an immediate crisis.9,10
Further complicating the global preparedness landscape is the recent decision by the U.S. administration to withdraw from the WHO. As one of the largest financial contributors to global health initiatives, the United States has historically played a leading role in shaping pandemic response strategies. The withdrawal raises concerns about reduced funding for critical health programs, diminished cooperation in disease surveillance efforts, and the broader implications for international public health governance.4,11 This shift in policy adds another layer of uncertainty to an already fragile global health ecosystem, making it essential to examine the evolving state of pandemic preparedness.
A Brief History of Pandemic Preparedness Efforts
Pandemic preparedness has evolved over the past several decades as global health organizations, governments, and scientific communities have worked to improve disease surveillance, response mechanisms, and international cooperation. Early efforts to establish frameworks for managing infectious diseases were often reactive, responding to specific outbreaks rather than implementing long-term preventative strategies. However, as new health crises emerged, significant milestones in global health policy and infrastructure began shaping a more structured approach to pandemic preparedness.
Early International Efforts in Disease Surveillance and Response
The origins of modern pandemic preparedness can be traced to early international efforts to monitor and control infectious diseases. The establishment of the WHO in 1948 was a pivotal step in creating a centralized entity for coordinating global health initiatives. Over time, the WHO developed systems for disease tracking, including the International Health Regulations (IHR), which were revised in 2005 to enhance global coordination following the SARS outbreak.2,4 These early frameworks laid the foundation for global pandemic response but remained limited in enforcement and funding, leaving many countries ill-prepared for large-scale outbreaks.
HIV/AIDS Crisis (1980s–1990s) and the Reshaping of Global Health Infrastructure
The emergence of human immunodeficiency virus / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) in the early 1980s marked a turning point in global health preparedness. Initially dismissed or mismanaged by many governments, the epidemic revealed the catastrophic consequences of inadequate disease surveillance, delayed response, and lack of international coordination. In response, new organizations and funding mechanisms were established, including UNAIDS in 1996 and the Global Fund in 2002, which prioritized long-term investments in public health infrastructure.1,6 The HIV/AIDS crisis demonstrated the importance of sustained global funding, the role of public-private partnerships, and the necessity of addressing health inequities, principles that would later influence pandemic response strategies for other infectious diseases.
SARS (2003) and H1N1 (2009): Strengthening Global Pandemic Frameworks
The 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) served as a wake-up call for pandemic preparedness. The rapid spread of the coronavirus, along with its high fatality rate, forced the WHO and national governments to reevaluate their response strategies. One major outcome was the 2005 revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR), which expanded global requirements for disease surveillance and reporting. Despite these improvements, SARS revealed significant weaknesses in early detection and containment strategies.2,4
The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic was the first large-scale test of these revised frameworks. While the response was faster than during SARS, challenges remained, particularly in vaccine distribution and public communication. The H1N1 pandemic highlighted the complexities of balancing preparedness with proportional response, as early fears of a severe pandemic led to large-scale vaccine purchases that were later deemed excessive.2 Lessons from H1N1 influenced subsequent pandemic planning, emphasizing the need for adaptable vaccine development and distribution strategies.
Ebola (2014–2016): A Turning Point for International Preparedness Funding
The 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa underscored the dangers of underfunded health systems and slow international response. The outbreak overwhelmed local healthcare infrastructure and revealed critical gaps in global emergency response coordination. International agencies, including the WHO, were widely criticized for their delayed reaction, prompting significant reforms in pandemic preparedness funding and operational strategies.7,8
One of the most significant outcomes of the Ebola crisis was the establishment of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme in 2016, designed to improve outbreak response speed and efficiency. Additionally, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was founded in 2017 to accelerate vaccine development for emerging infectious diseases. These initiatives reflected a growing recognition that pandemic preparedness required sustained investment rather than reactive emergency funding.8
Lessons Learned and Institutional Changes Before COVID-19
By the late 2010s, pandemic preparedness had become a recognized global priority, but many of the proposed reforms remained underfunded or inconsistently implemented. The WHO, G20, and other organizations issued repeated warnings about the risks of emerging infectious diseases, yet preparedness efforts often struggled to secure long-term political and financial commitment.5,10
Despite progress in vaccine technology, outbreak surveillance, and response frameworks, the world remained vulnerable to a large-scale pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic would soon expose these weaknesses, demonstrating that while lessons had been learned from past outbreaks, they had not been fully institutionalized into global health systems. The failures in early detection, containment, and equitable vaccine distribution during COVID-19 revealed the ongoing challenges in translating pandemic preparedness policies into effective action.
The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Global Stress Test
The COVID-19 pandemic was the most significant global health crisis of the modern era, revealing both the strengths and weaknesses of pandemic preparedness systems. As the virus spread rapidly across the world, it exposed fundamental gaps in health infrastructure, emergency response mechanisms, and global cooperation. While unprecedented scientific achievements, particularly in vaccine development, demonstrated the potential of modern biotechnology, the uneven distribution of these successes highlighted persistent inequities. The pandemic also reshaped public health policies and funding priorities, leaving lasting effects on global preparedness for future outbreaks.
The Scale and Impact of the Pandemic
The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the end of 2019 and its rapid escalation into a global pandemic in early 2020 tested pandemic preparedness frameworks at every level. Despite years of warnings from health experts about the risk of novel respiratory viruses, many nations were unprepared for the scale of the crisis. COVID-19 exposed major weaknesses in global health preparedness, including inadequate disease surveillance, insufficient stockpiles of medical supplies, and fragmented international coordination.3,12 The virus overwhelmed healthcare systems in both high-income and low-income countries, underscoring the fragility of even the most advanced medical infrastructures.
Beyond its direct health effects, COVID-19 caused severe disruptions to economies and supply chains worldwide. Governments imposed lockdowns and movement restrictions, leading to significant economic downturns, job losses, and disruptions in global trade.9,13 The pandemic also exposed vulnerabilities in pharmaceutical and medical supply chains, leading to shortages of essential equipment such as ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and even basic medicines.
The effectiveness of government responses varied widely across countries. Some nations, such as New Zealand and South Korea, implemented aggressive testing, contact tracing, and lockdown measures early on, limiting the spread of the virus and reducing fatalities.14 Others, including the United States and Brazil, experienced higher infection and mortality rates due to delayed responses, inconsistent public health messaging, and political resistance to containment measures.6 The divergence in national responses illustrated the critical role of political leadership, public trust in health institutions, and pre-existing healthcare system capacities in determining the effectiveness of pandemic management.
What Worked and What Didn’t
Despite these challenges, the COVID-19 pandemic also demonstrated some of the greatest scientific and logistical achievements in public health history. One of the most significant successes was the rapid development and deployment of vaccines. The use of mRNA technology enabled the first vaccines to be developed, tested, and authorized for emergency use in less than a year, a remarkable achievement compared to traditional vaccine timelines.3,5 However, vaccine access was highly uneven, with wealthier countries securing the majority of early supplies while lower-income nations faced delays, highlighting deep inequities in global health systems.
In contrast, the pandemic response was marked by failures in early detection, transparency, and communication. Initial delays in acknowledging and responding to the outbreak in Wuhan, China, as well as conflicting guidance from health organizations, hindered a swift global response.4,8 Many governments failed to act decisively in the early weeks of the pandemic, missing opportunities to contain the spread before it escalated.
The role of misinformation and political influence further complicated the response. False claims about COVID-19 treatments, vaccine safety, and the severity of the virus spread rapidly on social media, undermining public trust in health authorities.2,10 Some political leaders downplayed the severity of the crisis or promoted unproven treatments, leading to confusion and resistance to evidence-based health measures. The politicization of mask-wearing, lockdown policies, and vaccine mandates further exacerbated divisions and weakened collective public health efforts.
A crucial lesson from the pandemic was the importance of global data sharing and surveillance networks. While initiatives such as the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) enabled the rapid sharing of genomic sequences of the virus, many countries were slow to contribute critical epidemiological data, delaying coordinated responses.7,9 Strengthening international disease monitoring systems and ensuring transparency in reporting emerging threats remain key priorities for future preparedness efforts.
The Lasting Effects of COVID-19 on Global Health Policy
The COVID-19 pandemic has left a lasting impact on global health policy, scientific investment, and pandemic preparedness strategies. One of the most significant developments has been the acceleration of mRNA technology and biotech investments. The success of mRNA vaccines has paved the way for further research into their applications for other infectious diseases, as well as potential uses in cancer treatment and personalized medicine.3,13
Policymakers have also recognized the need for reforms in vaccine equity, manufacturing, and supply chain resilience. Initiatives such as COVAX aimed to improve vaccine distribution to lower-income countries, though challenges in implementation revealed persistent funding and logistical barriers.4,6 Efforts to decentralize vaccine manufacturing, particularly in Africa and Asia, are ongoing in an attempt to reduce dependency on a few global suppliers.
The pandemic has also influenced long-term funding and structural changes in global public health systems. Many governments have increased investments in public health infrastructure, pandemic preparedness funds, and research into emerging infectious diseases.1,8 However, as the immediate crisis has subsided, concerns remain that political and financial support for pandemic preparedness may wane, leaving the world vulnerable to future threats.
Where Pandemic Preparedness Stands Today (or Yesterday, Anyway)
Despite the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19, pandemic preparedness remains an evolving global effort. Countries, health organizations, and private sector stakeholders have made significant advancements in disease surveillance, response frameworks, and vaccine manufacturing. However, persistent gaps in funding, infrastructure, and political will continue to threaten the effectiveness of future responses. The current landscape of pandemic preparedness reflects both progress and major challenges that must be addressed to mitigate future health crises.
Global Readiness and Current Gaps
In response to the failures exposed by COVID-19, the WHO developed a new Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (PPR) framework to improve global coordination. This initiative aims to strengthen early-warning systems, accelerate vaccine and therapeutic development, and enhance equitable access to medical resources during health emergencies.4 A key focus of the PPR framework is ensuring that preparedness plans are integrated into national health strategies rather than remaining isolated emergency measures. However, its success depends on sustained international cooperation and financial commitments from member states.
A major challenge identified in the G20’s report on financing gaps in pandemic preparedness is the lack of dedicated and sustainable funding for global health security. While the pandemic spurred temporary increases in health-related funding, long-term investments remain inconsistent, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The report emphasizes the need for stable financial mechanisms, such as a global health security fund, to ensure preparedness efforts are not abandoned between crises.7 Many governments are now shifting focus toward economic recovery, raising concerns that pandemic preparedness will once again become a secondary priority.
To address these gaps, regional pandemic response capabilities are being strengthened. Countries and organizations are investing in decentralized health systems to ensure that outbreak responses are not solely dependent on international coordination. For example, the African Union's Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has taken a more active role in vaccine production and distribution to reduce reliance on external suppliers.5 Similarly, efforts in Asia and Latin America have focused on improving local disease surveillance and emergency stockpiles.10
Public–private partnerships and collaborations within the biopharmaceutical industry have also played a significant role in pandemic preparedness advancements. The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines highlighted the potential of private-sector innovation when paired with government funding and regulatory flexibility. Programs like CEPI and partnerships between biotech companies and global health organizations have accelerated vaccine and therapeutic development timelines.9,14 However, challenges remain in ensuring that these advancements are equitably distributed and that public funding is used efficiently without prioritizing corporate profits over global health needs.
Challenges to Effective Pandemic Preparedness
One of the greatest threats to pandemic preparedness is chronic underfunding and political instability. Many governments invest in health security only in response to immediate crises, leading to cycles of panic and neglect. The Ebola outbreak of 2014, the H1N1 pandemic of 2009, and COVID-19 all triggered temporary increases in funding, but once the crises subsided, resources were often redirected elsewhere.1 The G20 has repeatedly warned that without stable, long-term investments in health systems, the world remains vulnerable to future pandemics.7
Vaccine nationalism versus global health solidarity emerged as a major issue during COVID-19, as wealthier nations secured early access to vaccines while lower-income countries faced significant delays. Despite the efforts of COVAX and other global initiatives, disparities in vaccine access highlighted the need for stronger international agreements to ensure equitable distribution during future health emergencies.3,8 Many low- and middle-income countries are now prioritizing domestic vaccine production to reduce dependency on Western manufacturers, but challenges in infrastructure and technology transfer persist.
Another critical barrier to preparedness is the rise of misinformation and the erosion of public trust in science. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how false information about vaccines, treatments, and the virus itself could spread rapidly, influencing public behavior and undermining health measures. Vaccine hesitancy fueled by misinformation prolonged the pandemic and contributed to preventable deaths.12 Public health agencies are now working to combat misinformation more proactively, but trust in institutions remains fragile in many parts of the world.13
Finally, emerging threats such as avian flu, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and climate-driven pandemics pose additional risks to global health security. Scientists have warned that climate change is increasing the likelihood of zoonotic spillover events, where diseases jump from animals to humans. Additionally, the overuse of antibiotics is contributing to the rise of drug-resistant infections, which could lead to pandemics that are far more difficult to contain than COVID-19.6,14 Despite these warnings, investment in AMR research and climate-related health initiatives remains insufficient, leaving the world vulnerable to new and evolving threats.
While significant progress has been made in pandemic preparedness since COVID-19, many of the same challenges that existed before the pandemic remain. Funding gaps, political instability, misinformation, and inequitable access to healthcare resources all threaten the world’s ability to respond effectively to future outbreaks. Strengthening global cooperation, investing in public health infrastructure, and addressing systemic vulnerabilities will be essential to ensuring that the next pandemic does not catch the world off guard once again.
The Impact of the U.S. Withdrawal from Global Cooperation
The decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the WHO marks a significant shift in global health policy, with far-reaching implications for pandemic preparedness and response efforts. As one of the largest financial contributors to the WHO, the United States has historically played a leading role in shaping international public health strategies. The withdrawal threatens funding stability, weakens global surveillance networks, and raises concerns about the effectiveness of future pandemic response efforts. While international organizations and health experts have criticized the move, the broader consequences of this decision will continue to unfold in the coming years.
The Decision to Leave WHO
On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order formally withdrawing the U.S. from the WHO.11,15 This marked the second attempt by Trump to sever ties with the organization, following an earlier effort in 2020 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. That initial withdrawal was reversed by the subsequent administration, but the recent decision reaffirms the administration’s skepticism toward global health governance and its preference for unilateral approaches to health security.
The withdrawal is particularly consequential given the U.S. role as a major funder and influencer of global health policies. The country has historically provided approximately 18% of the WHO’s total budget, funding programs related to disease surveillance, outbreak response, vaccine development, and health system strengthening.4,7 This funding has supported initiatives such as polio eradication, maternal and child health programs, and efforts to combat antimicrobial resistance. The loss of U.S. financial support raises concerns about the sustainability of these programs, particularly in low-income countries that depend on WHO-led interventions.
This move is not without precedent. Past attempts to withdraw from the WHO have been met with significant pushback, both domestically and internationally. The first attempt in 2020 was heavily criticized by public health experts, political leaders, and allied nations, leading to its reversal in 2021.1 Additionally, the U.S. House of Representatives recently issued a report warning of the risks associated with disengaging from global health institutions, emphasizing that a lack of participation could weaken U.S. influence in shaping international health policy.16 Despite these concerns, the administration has justified its decision by arguing that the WHO is ineffective and overly influenced by other geopolitical interests, echoing rhetoric from the initial 2020 withdrawal attempt.
Consequences for Global Pandemic Preparedness
One of the most immediate consequences of the withdrawal is the loss of U.S. funding for WHO initiatives. The organization relies on member contributions to finance emergency response programs, vaccine distribution, and health infrastructure development in vulnerable regions. Without U.S. contributions, there is an increased risk of funding shortfalls, which could delay responses to emerging outbreaks and hinder ongoing disease prevention efforts.7,11
Another major impact is the reduced ability of the United States to access global disease surveillance networks and early warnings about potential pandemics. The WHO plays a critical role in monitoring infectious disease outbreaks worldwide, coordinating information-sharing among countries, and facilitating rapid responses to emerging health threats. By withdrawing, the United States loses access to these data-sharing agreements, potentially delaying its ability to detect and respond to new pandemics.9 This could have serious national security implications, as the country may be forced to rely on fragmented or delayed intelligence from other sources.
Beyond funding and surveillance, the U.S. withdrawal could weaken global vaccine and outbreak response systems. During COVID-19, international collaboration was essential in the rapid development and distribution of vaccines. The WHO’s COVAX initiative played a key role in facilitating equitable vaccine access, ensuring that low-income countries received doses alongside wealthier nations. With the U.S. stepping away from WHO-led initiatives, global vaccine distribution efforts may suffer, increasing disparities in access to lifesaving immunizations.10,15 Additionally, the absence of U.S. leadership in pandemic response efforts could create a power vacuum, potentially allowing other countries to exert greater influence over global health governance.
Reactions from Global Health Organizations and Experts
The decision has been met with widespread criticism from global health organizations, allied nations, and public health experts. WHO officials have expressed deep concern over the withdrawal, warning that it could undermine global efforts to combat future pandemics and disrupt key health programs worldwide.4,11 The organization has emphasized the need for continued U.S. participation, urging the administration to reconsider its stance.
Beyond the WHO, experts have warned of the risk of U.S. exclusion from critical health policy decisions. Global health governance is increasingly being shaped by multilateral agreements and partnerships, many of which rely on WHO coordination. By withdrawing, the United States risks being sidelined in key discussions on pandemic preparedness, vaccine development, and international health regulations.3,15 This could diminish the country’s ability to influence future policies and strategies, ultimately reducing its global leadership role in health security.
Despite the withdrawal, calls for renewed multilateralism remain strong. Many global health leaders argue that the challenges posed by future pandemics require greater international cooperation, not less. Advocates of multilateral engagement emphasize that pandemics do not respect national borders and that a collective approach is the only viable solution for preventing and mitigating health crises.1,13 Some policymakers have suggested alternative frameworks for maintaining international health collaboration, including regional agreements and bilateral partnerships, but the long-term consequences of U.S. disengagement from WHO remain uncertain.
Conclusion
The history of pandemic preparedness has been shaped by a series of health crises that have tested global response systems and revealed persistent weaknesses. From early international disease surveillance efforts to the lessons learned during the HIV/AIDS crisis, SARS, H1N1, and Ebola, each outbreak contributed to incremental improvements in global health infrastructure. Yet, when the COVID-19 pandemic struck, it became evident that despite decades of warnings and preparation, the world remained fundamentally unprepared. The pandemic exposed major gaps in healthcare capacity, supply chain resilience, and global coordination, reinforcing the need for a more robust and proactive approach to preparedness.
While significant progress has been made in vaccine development, pandemic response frameworks, and public health funding, many of the same vulnerabilities that hindered the COVID-19 response remain unaddressed. Current global preparedness efforts, including THE WHO’s PPR framework and the G20’s focus on financing gaps, represent steps in the right direction, but they require sustained investment and political commitment. Regional pandemic response capabilities and public–private partnerships have strengthened preparedness efforts in some areas, yet challenges such as underfunding, vaccine nationalism, misinformation, and emerging infectious threats continue to pose significant risks.
The recent decision by the Trump White House to withdraw from WHO introduces new uncertainties into the global health landscape. As a key financial contributor and strategic partner in global pandemic preparedness, the United States withdrawal raises concerns about funding shortfalls, reduced disease surveillance capabilities, and weakened international response mechanisms. While global health leaders continue to advocate for multilateral cooperation, the long-term effects of U.S. disengagement remain to be seen.
Moving forward, pandemic preparedness must be treated as a continuous priority rather than a reactionary measure. This requires not only increased funding for health security but also sustained political will to implement long-term strategies. Investment in scientific innovation, including next-generation vaccines, diagnostics, and surveillance technologies, will be crucial in mitigating future health crises. Strengthening international collaboration — whether through WHO, regional agreements, or new multilateral frameworks — remains the best path toward building resilience against future pandemics.
The world cannot afford another cycle of panic and neglect when it comes to pandemic preparedness. The COVID-19 crisis demonstrated that global health security is interconnected and that no country is immune to the consequences of an uncoordinated response. Ensuring a proactive, science-driven, and globally coordinated approach will be essential to preventing the next pandemic and minimizing its impact when it inevitably arises.
Our parent company, That’s Nice, is committed to supporting the companies and innovators driving the next wave of pharma and biotech innovation. To celebrate That’s Nice’s 30th anniversary, Pharma’s Almanac is diving into 30 groundbreaking advancements, trends, and breakthroughs that have shaped the life sciences, highlighting the industry-defining milestones our agency has had the pleasure of growing alongside. Here’s to 30 years of innovation and the future ahead!
References
1. Sirleaf, Ellen Johnson and Helen Clark. “Report of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response: making COVID-19 the last pandemic.” The Lancet. 398: P101–103 (2021).
2. Bourrier, Mathilde S and Michael J Deml. “The Legacy of the Pandemic Preparedness Regime: An Integrative Review.” Int. J. Public Health. 4 Dec. 2022.
3. Williams, B Adam, et al. “Outlook of pandemic preparedness in a post-COVID-19 world.” npj Vaccines. 8: 178 (2023).
4. Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord. World Health Organization. 10 Jun. 2024.
5. Beishuizen, Berend HH, et al. “A systematic literature review on public health and healthcare resources for pandemic preparedness planning.” BMC Public Health. 24: 3114 (2024).
6. Lal, Arush, et al. “Pandemic preparedness and response: exploring the role of universal health coverage within the global health security architecture.” Health Policy. 10: E1674–E1683 (2022).
7. Analysis of Pandemic Preparedness and Response (PPR) architecture, financing needs, gaps and mechanisms. World Health Organization and the World Bank. 22 Mar. 2022.
8. Narayanasamy, Shanti, et al. “Lessons From COVID-19 for Pandemic Preparedness: Proceedings From a Multistakeholder Think Tank 2023.” Clinical Infectious Diseases. 77: 1635–1643 (2023).
9. Maccaro, Alessiam et al. “Pandemic Preparedness: A Scoping Review of Best and Worst Practices from COVID-19.” Healthcare (Basel) 11: 2572 (2023).
10. Agampodi, Suneth, et al. “Global pandemic preparedness: learning from the COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution.” Expert Review of Vaccines. 23: 761–772 (2024).
11. “What does Trump's move to quit WHO mean for U.N. agency and global health?” Reuters. 21 Jan. 2025.
12. Khorram-Manesh, Amir, Krzysztof Goniewicz, and Frederick M. Burkle Jr. “Unleashing the global potential of public health: A framework for future pandemic response.” Journal of Infection and Public Health. 17: 82–95 (2024).
13. Kamalrathne, Thushara, et al. “Epidemic and Pandemic Preparedness and Response in a Multi-Hazard Context: COVID-19 Pandemic as a Point of Reference.” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 21: 1238 (2024).
14. Rogers, Christopher J, et al. “Preparing for the next outbreak: A review of indices measuring outbreak preparedness, vulnerability, and resilience.” Preventative Medicine Reports. 35: 102282 (2023).
15. Park, Alice. “What Leaving the WHO Means for the U.S. and the World.” Time. 21 Jan. 2025.
16. After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations. U.S. House of Representatives, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. 4 Dec. 2024.