International Journal of Law in Context Pub Date : 2021-06-10 , DOI: 10.1017/s1744552321000288 Manjari Mahajan
The 2019 Global Health Security Index (GHS Index) assessed the US and the UK as the two countries best prepared to address a catastrophic pandemic. The preparedness rankings of this index have had little correlation with the actual experiences of COVID-19 in various countries. In explaining this disrepancy, the paper argues that better indicators and more data would not have fixed the problem. Rather, the prevailing paradigm of global health security that informs instruments such as the GHS Index needs to be interrogated. This dominant paradigm narrowly conceptualises global health security in terms of the availability of a technical infrastructure to detect emerging infectious diseases and prevent their contagion, but profoundly undertheorises the broader social and political determinants of public health. The neglect of social and political features is amplified in instruments such as the GHS Index that privilege universalised templates presumed to apply across countries but that prove to be inadequate in assessing how individual societies draw on their unique histories to craft public health responses.
2019 年全球健康安全指数 (GHS 指数) 将美国和英国评估为为应对灾难性大流行做好最充分准备的两个国家。该指数的准备程度排名与各国 COVID-19 的实际经验几乎没有相关性。在解释这种差异时，该论文认为更好的指标和更多的数据并不能解决问题。相反，需要询问为 GHS 指数等工具提供信息的全球卫生安全的普遍范式。这种占主导地位的范式狭隘地将全球卫生安全概念化为检测新发传染病和预防其传染的技术基础设施的可用性，但深刻地低估了更广泛的公共卫生决定因素。