Monitoring, Surveillance and Rapid Response Capabilities

In regards to the monitoring of global health, the 4 points to consider in the article Jen posted are definitely relevant.

1. Improving the technology and methods for population health measurement
I feel that as technology advances, we are able to shift how we measure the health of populations. We will be able to do it easily and quickly and provide reliable information. As technology advances, we will have no choice but to update our system of measurement. With every new method comes initial criticism, but as more and more people see the reliability in the new technology or method, the information will be accepted.

2. Strengthening national capaicty & motivating governments to collect and analyze useful health data
National capacity is definitely important in collecting and analyzing health data. We can have all the technology in the world and the most advanced method of measurement, if the nation is unable to utilize the new technology or method, health data will not be collected or analyzed correctly. Governments are definitely key stakeholders. Whether we like it or not, everything on this planet is political. It will be the biggest uphill battle anyone can face if there is no political backing in the idea.

3. Establishing global norms and standards for what are the core health related measurements & how to measure them
I feel this is an idealistic point. It seems easy to sit everyone down and establish global norms and standards for what are the core health related measurements and how to measure them, but the hard part is getting everyone to sit down at the same table. If we are unable to get everyone to participate and agree to meet, how are we able to establish global norms? Again governments and heads of organizations need to realize how pressing this issue is before collaboration is able to begin.

4. Reporting to the globe valid, reliable, & comparable assessments of inputs, service delivery & achievements for health
This is definitely key. Once people see valid, reliable, and comparable assessments of inputs, service delivery and achievements for health, people are more likely to jump on the wagon and adopt the new idea. This is like what we talked about the other class, we have the innovators or technology enthusiasts, early adopters or visionaries, early majority pragmatists, late majority conservatives, and laggards or skeptics. We have to cross "The Chasm" of monitoring health globally before we are able to monitor health globally.

Implementation of a "gold standard" is definitely the key. We will not be able to cross "The Chasm" of monitoring health globally until we are able to provide reliable information to prove to the early majority pragmatists, late majority conservatives, and laggards or skeptics.

I do see where the skeptism of the WHO comes from and do agree to some degree. Whether people side with WHO or against WHO should not matter. A strong new health monitoring organization is definitely a necessity. This new organization will not only make those skeptical of WHO feel at ease but also gain the support of those who side with WHO because of the strong leadership and sole role of monitoring.

I don't know about everyone else, but I would be lost if I was not able to fly. I love traveling and the thought of having to drive everywhere, let alone places where driving is impossible to get to, is scary. I, like most people in this century, like to have things fast; I like fast internet, eating fast, getting to places fast, and experiencing the fast life. Even though it is a pain to travel on planes, I feel we will finally get back to a happy medium where most if not everyone feels at ease in flying again. Til that day comes, I am going to continue to fly and travel the world or wherever the plane can take me. :o)