The mounting death toll from COVID-19 recently prompted The Guardian to declare, “The World Bank's $500m pandemic scheme accused of ‘waiting for people to die’”. Similarly, as the number of deaths from Ebola increased in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), there was outrage in prominent journals. “The World Bank has the money to fight Ebola but won't use it” wrote Garrett in Foreign Policy. Others^{,  ,  ,  ,}  too describe the malfeasance of the financial innovation called the pandemic bond. Hailed by former World Bank president Jim Kim as an instrument that “would rapidly respond to future outbreaks by delivering money to countries in crisis”, critics judge the bond harshly, raising many points we agree with. For example, although the official death toll in the DRC increased to more than 2400 (to date), money from the bond was not released, because the epidemic did not meet predetermined benchmarks for payout. From non-bond sources, the World Bank will release up to US$12 billion for COVID-19 and has released more than $410 million for Ebola in the DRC. What these critiques have not sufficiently considered is that the bond's failure to launch is legal, and the World Bank is not alone in advocating such solutions. Rather, they are likely the future of humanitarian health aid and disaster relief.

中文翻译：

---

金融创新会改变大流行反应吗？

最近因COVID-19造成的死亡人数不断上升，促使《卫报》宣布：“世界银行5亿美元的大流行计划被指控为“等待人们死亡”。同样，随着刚果民​​主共和国（DRC）因埃博拉病毒死亡的人数增加，著名期刊也引起了愤怒。加勒特在《外交政策》中写道：“世界银行有钱抗击埃博拉，但不会使用它。” 其他^{，  ，  ，  ，} 也描述了被称为大流行债券的金融创新的不法行为。评论家们被世界银行前行长吉姆•金（Jim Kim）誉为“将通过向危机中的国家提供资金来迅速应对未来疫情的工具”，批评家们对这种债券进行了严厉的判断，提出了许多我们同意的观点。例如，尽管刚果（金）的官方死亡人数增加到2400多人（迄今为止），但由于该流行病未达到预定的支出基准，因此未释放该债券的资金。世界银行将通过非债券来源向COVID-19发放高达120亿美元的资金，并为刚果民主共和国的埃博拉疫情发放了超过4.1亿美元的资金。这些批评还没有充分考虑到，债券发行的失败是合法的，世界银行并不是唯一一个提倡这种解决方案的人。而是