Advertisement

Concluding Remarks

  • Iris Hunger
  • Lisa D. Rotz
  • Goran Belojevic
  • Vladan Radosavljevic
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series A: Chemistry and Biology book series (NAPSA)

Abstract

The case studies collected in this book illustrate the considerable ­differences in bioterrorism threat perception, levels of biopreparedness, and views on how to balance general public health efforts and biopreparedness measures. While investing too little in biopreparedness leaves countries ill-equipped for a potential disaster, spending too much might create a threat in itself, for example, by redirecting resources away from dealing with everyday health threats. Countries, regardless of perceived threat or economic capacity, should aim to develop and maintain a public health system capable of a well-planned, well-rehearsed, and rapidly executed response to natural health emergencies. Such a system will diminish the consequences of both a naturally occurring health emergency and a bioterrorist attack, should it occur.

Keywords

Public Health System Emergency Preparedness Lassa Fever Disease Surveillance System International Health Regulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    ECDC (2010) Joint ECDC and EMCDDA threat assessment. Anthrax outbreak among drug users, UK and Germany. Update: 11 February 2010. http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/activities/sciadvice/Documents/2010-02-11-TA_anthrax_IDU_ECDC-EMCDDA.pdf. Accessed 6 Jun 2012
  2. 2.
    ECDC (2011) Annual epidemiological report. Reporting on 2009 surveillance data and 2010 epidemic intelligence data. 2011, pp. 63–64, 215–216. "http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/publications/1111_sur_annual_epidemiological_report_on_communicable_diseases_in_europe.pdf" Accessed 6 Jun 2012Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haas WH, Breuer T, Pfaff G, Schmitz H, Köhler P, Asper M, Emmerich P, Drosten C, Gölnitz U, Fleischer K, Günther S (2003) Imported Lassa fever in Germany: surveillance and management of contact persons. Clin Infect Dis 2003(36):1254–1258. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/10/1254.full.pdf. Accessed 4 Jun 2012
  4. 4.
    Parashar UD, Anderson LJ (2004) Severe acute respiratory syndrome: review and lessons of the 2003 outbreak. Int J Epidemiol 33(4): 628–634. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/4/628.full.pdf+html. Accessed 4 Jun 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robert Koch Institute (2011) Final presentation and evaluation of epidemiological findings in the EHEC O104:H4 outbreak. Germany 2011. Robert Koch Institute. September 2011. http://www.rki.de/EN/Home/EHEC_final_report.pdf. Accessed 4 Jun 2012

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iris Hunger
    • 1
  • Lisa D. Rotz
    • 2
  • Goran Belojevic
    • 3
  • Vladan Radosavljevic
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Research Group for Biological Arms Control, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker Centre for Science and Peace ResearchUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)AtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Hygiene and Medical Ecology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  4. 4.Military AcademyUniversity of DefenceBelgradeSerbia
  5. 5.Medical Corps HeadquartersArmy of SerbiaBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations