# COVID-19's long shadow: economic losses, social fractures and the unfinished architecture of pandemic preparedness

**19 October 2026 | Research report | Evidence reviewed through 18 October 2026**

The COVID-19 emergency did not end when governments lifted emergency measures or the World Health Organization ended the international public-health emergency in May 2023. The pandemic altered how households accumulate income and skills, how health risks are distributed, how businesses organize work, and how states finance and legitimize collective responses. Its lasting burden is not one single estimate of output lost. It is a set of linked deficits in health, human capital, social relationships, institutional credibility and public capacity. Some have diminished; others remain only partly measurable. [1][2][3][4]

The next pandemic would not necessarily reproduce 2020. A pathogen's transmissibility, severity, routes of spread, incubation and presymptomatic transmission, immune escape, and availability of tests and treatments would interact with behavior and public policy. Preparedness must therefore be judged by **time to detection, protection of essential services, speed and equity of countermeasure delivery, continuity of education and income, and trustworthiness of communication**, rather than by the number of plans signed. In October 2026, an amended International Health Regulations framework is in effect, the WHO pandemic agreement was adopted in 2025 but its pathogen-sharing annex remains unfinished, and a new WHO intelligence strategy was published in October 2026. [12][13][14][15][17]

The evidence points to an uncomfortable asymmetry: rapidly developed biomedical tools proved that scientific response can accelerate; unequal access to care, social insurance, school continuity and institutional trust showed that technical innovation alone cannot determine social outcomes. A future outbreak that is medically less lethal than early COVID-19 could still produce major economic and psychosocial harm if it occurs alongside weak public budgets, limited health workforce capacity, low public trust or disrupted global supply chains. That is a conditional risk, not a prediction.

## The first error is to measure the pandemic as only a fall in GDP

Mortality records, labor statistics, schooling measures and social surveys describe different periods and outcomes. The WHO estimated **14.9 million excess deaths during 2020–2021** (uncertainty interval 13.3–16.6 million), counting mortality above expected levels from direct infection and indirect disruption. By June 2026, the WHO's cumulative surveillance records listed more than **7 million confirmed reported COVID-19 deaths** since 2020; a later WHO retrospective describes **more than 20 million excess deaths across 2020–2023**. These measures have different coverage and horizons and must not be added together. Confirmed deaths are particularly vulnerable to differences in testing and death registration. [1][12][14]

| Observable consequence | Estimated magnitude | Period and population | What the estimate does not establish |
|---|---:|---|---|
| Excess mortality | 14.9 million (13.3–16.6 million) | World, 2020–2021 | It is not a count exclusively of laboratory-confirmed infections |
| Additional extreme poverty | Approximately 70 million people | World, 2020 | An estimate against a counterfactual, not the entire stock of people in poverty |
| Working-hours loss | 8.8%; 255 million full-time-equivalent annual hours | World, 2020 vs late-2019 reference | FTE equivalent is not 255 million persons dismissed |
| Anxiety and depression prevalence | About 25% increase | World, first pandemic year | Relative prevalence change; not 25 percentage points |
| Potential lost lifetime earnings of affected students | US$17 trillion in present value | World Bank–UNESCO–UNICEF projection, 2021 | Scenario-based future earnings loss, not an observed 2021 payment |
| Post-COVID condition | Around 6 per 100 COVID-19 cases in WHO's 2025 synthesis | Estimates dominated by earlier pandemic periods | Not a fixed risk for each new variant or every infected population |

Data definitions and underlying evidence: WHO, World Bank, ILO, UNESCO/UNICEF and WHO post-COVID synthesis. The observations have different dates, units and denominators; they are **not additive**. [1][2][3][5][6][9]

The poverty shock illustrates this distinction. The World Bank's 2022 assessment estimated that roughly **70 million additional people** entered extreme poverty in 2020, pushing the estimated total to **719 million below US$2.15 a day** under the purchasing-power standard used in that report. Changes in poverty thresholds, population data, exchange-rate conversions and subsequent revisions complicate direct comparison with later series. The estimate does not prove every affected household remained poor in 2026. It does demonstrate how a simultaneous health and employment shock can erase years of prior gains. [2]

The International Labour Organization found **8.8% of global working hours lost in 2020**, corresponding to **255 million full-time jobs' annual hours**. This is an accounting conversion of total hours, not a census of employees made redundant. The crisis eliminated jobs, reduced hours for those still working and caused people to leave the labor force. In the ILO's account, lower-middle-income countries lost **11.3%** of working hours, versus **6.7%** in low-income countries; the difference does not imply that low-income workers experienced less deprivation, since pre-existing informality and nonparticipation shape what paid hours can measure. [3]

```chart
type: bar
title: Working hours lost in 2020, by ILO income grouping
unit: percent of hours relative to Q4 2019; aggregate and groups overlap and must not be summed
World | 8.8
Lower-middle-income economies | 11.3
Low-income economies | 6.7
```

## The economic scar extends from jobs to household balance sheets and state capacity

The sequence of economic damage was not uniform. Face-to-face services and informal workers were highly exposed to restrictions and consumer caution. Businesses with remote-capable jobs, digital sales and easier credit access faced a different shock. Emergency income support, wage-retention schemes and credit guarantees protected employment relationships and solvent businesses in some settings, yet their reach depended on the tax base, administrative capacity, debt sustainability and whether informal workers were registered. The IMF's assessment of economic scarring emphasizes the relatively greater vulnerability of emerging economies with smaller support packages and less timely vaccine access. [3][10]

Over time, pandemic-era supply interruptions, shifts in consumption from services toward goods, freight problems and changes in labor participation interacted with monetary and fiscal responses. Subsequent inflation cannot be assigned to the pandemic alone: energy-price shocks, wars, policy differences and changes in demand also matter. Nor does an increase in public debt prove that all the associated spending was ineffective. The defensible question is what was purchased — prevention, income stability, health capacity or temporary relief — and what future fiscal space remains to finance the next emergency. [10]

Fiscal protection has a distributional consequence. Workers covered by payroll-based insurance or stable public employment can retain income during a shutdown; workers paid daily, migrants, domestic workers and microbusinesses may lose cash income immediately. Credit relief also favors people who can borrow formally. A future pandemic could reproduce or widen that inequality unless continuity measures reach the people not visible in existing payroll and banking records. [3][23]

```flow
Infection and voluntary contact reduction → demand shock to face-to-face work → lost working hours and household income → weaker consumption and debt service
Workplace outbreaks and health-worker shortages → reduced productive and care capacity → delayed treatment, slower output and longer recovery
Income protection, paid sick leave and targeted support → ability to isolate without losing basic needs → stronger adherence and less severe household income shock
```

These are mechanisms with important conditions. Illness and voluntary behavior can depress economic activity even when no legal closure is imposed. Conversely, public restrictions can reduce contacts while imposing costs that vary by sector and duration. A credible retrospective should distinguish the independent effect of policies from the underlying outbreak, rather than attribute all activity declines to lockdown orders.

## Education converted a temporary disruption into a long-duration economic risk

School closure changed more than teaching schedules. It interrupted instruction, peer relationships, meals and identification of problems in vulnerable households. Remote learning retained continuity for some students but depended on connectivity, devices, a quiet room, adult support and teachers equipped to teach remotely. By 2021, the World Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF estimated **up to US$17 trillion in lost lifetime earnings, present value**, for the generation affected by school disruption. This was a forecast, not money removed from the global economy in that year. [5]

OECD PISA 2022 recorded an average **almost 15-point decline in mathematics** and **10-point decline in reading** from 2018 across OECD countries, while science changed little. The OECD explicitly cautions that the declines can only **partly** be attributed to COVID-19: several learning trends had deteriorated beforehand, and the relationship between closure duration and outcomes is not mechanically uniform. Additional work using PISA data links longer closures to greater losses under its model assumptions. The two findings are compatible: closures contributed, but not every observed change is their causal effect. [4]

```chart
type: bar
title: OECD mean PISA score change, 2018 to 2022
unit: approximate score-point change; mathematics value rounded from almost 15; negative means lower score
Mathematics | -15
Reading | -10
```

The delayed economic pathway runs from weaker foundational learning to lower completion, skills and potential earnings, especially when remedial instruction is absent. It is not deterministic. Tutoring, diagnosis of actual learning gaps, teacher support, targeted financing and keeping vulnerable students enrolled can reduce the size of the loss. The 2021 US$17 trillion projection should be periodically re-estimated against realized learning recovery and wages rather than cited as an immutable global fact. [4][5]

Brazil illustrates the distributive mechanism rather than serving as a proxy for every country. A World Bank assessment found that in **November 2020, 27.8% of children in Brazil's North and Northeast regions** were either not enrolled or lacked access to school activities. In **mid-2021**, only about **one-half of children in the poorest household quintile** participated in school activities throughout the week, against roughly **three-quarters in the richest quintile**. This is historical survey evidence of unequal continuity, not a current 2026 enrollment statistic. Regional connectivity, caregiver availability and school support determine who can recover learning losses first. [11]

## Psychological harm was real; explaining it requires more than an isolation narrative

The WHO's 2022 scientific brief estimated a **25% rise in the global prevalence of anxiety and depression during the first pandemic year**. Fear of infection, grief, bereavement, economic insecurity, uncertainty, isolation and the loss of routines all plausibly contributed. Health workers faced unusual exposures and fatigue. Children and adolescents lost social contact during sensitive developmental stages, while older adults and people already living with disabilities or mental-health conditions faced specific barriers. The estimate concerns prevalence during a particular year; it does not mean all affected people remained ill afterwards. [6]

Psychosocial consequences also involve the structure of relationships. Household confinement could increase unpaid caring responsibilities and reduce privacy or access to assistance. UN Women's survey research found elevated reports of violence and diminished feelings of safety during the pandemic, together with economic and food insecurity. Survey reports about violence experienced by a respondent **or someone she knows** must not be presented as direct victimization prevalence among all women. Reporting conditions and differing measures require caution before extrapolating a global causal rate. [7]

The WHO's **2025 social connection report** found that about **one in six people worldwide** experienced loneliness. That is an important indicator of contemporary social vulnerability, but **it is not an estimate of loneliness caused by COVID-19**, and it cannot be subtracted from a pre-pandemic baseline without compatible longitudinal evidence. Loneliness and objective social isolation are also different phenomena. What persists for policy is the need for schools, communities and health services capable of preserving meaningful connections during disruption, with alternatives for people without reliable internet. [8]

```mindmap
Pandemic psychosocial transmission
- Direct illness and bereavement
  - grief and prolonged care responsibilities
  - persistent symptoms and loss of function
- Social organization
  - isolation and disrupted peer relationships
  - domestic safety and unpaid care
  - uneven access to digital connection
- Economic security
  - job loss and uncertain income
  - household debt and food insecurity
- Institutional environment
  - clarity and credibility of communication
  - continuity of mental-health and community support
```

Trust does not follow automatically from either scientific excellence or legal power. Public statements change as evidence evolves, but unexplained revisions can be perceived as contradiction; information vacuums can be filled by misleading narratives; coercive measures can carry unequal burdens when compensation is missing. Transparent disclosure of uncertainty, consistent explanations, local messengers and publication of the evidence behind decisions are therefore integral to preparedness rather than optional communication work. These are institutional mechanisms, not proof that one political model would outperform another in every epidemic.

## Chronic illness and interrupted routine care are separate legacies

A pathogen can create costs after acute infection. In a 2025 synthesis, WHO estimated **roughly six people per 100 COVID-19 cases** developed post-COVID condition, drawing heavily on earlier pandemic periods, with large variation across studies. Fatigue, breathing problems, sleep disruption and cognitive symptoms can limit employment, study and domestic responsibilities. WHO cautioned that newer estimates suggest a lower risk in some populations, but the evidence is limited and concentrated in higher-income countries. It would be wrong to multiply that historical rate by all reinfections in 2026 as if definitions and risk were constant. [9]

COVID-19 also interrupted diagnosis and ongoing treatment for other conditions when staff, beds, protective equipment and transport were diverted. The economic consequences include delayed treatment, productivity losses, additional unpaid care and later expenditures. A health system with more ICU beds but weak primary care, rehabilitation or mental-health services may still struggle with a long aftermath. Rapid epidemic control and continuity of ordinary medical care must therefore be planned together. [1][9][23]

## What another pandemic could cause depends on the agent and the response

There is no scientifically defensible numerical forecast for the next unknown pandemic from COVID-19 totals alone. Different pathogens can spread chiefly through respiratory air, bodily fluids, vectors, water or food; the feasible interventions and social costs differ accordingly. Severity by age, asymptomatic transmission, pre-existing immunity, treatment availability and international coordination determine the burden. Large economic losses may also occur from perceived risk and avoidance behavior well before official measures. A scenario framework can expose the mechanisms without assigning invented probabilities.

| Conditional scenario | Required conditions | Likely economic and social transmission | Evidence that would change the response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Detectable outbreak contained locally | Early recognition, testing and effective local control | Targeted costs, limited regional trade and care disruptions | Sustained undetected spread or failed tracing |
| Rapid international respiratory spread | Effective transmission before detection, susceptible populations | Absences, healthcare pressure, transport and service demand shocks, renewed social isolation | Reliable severity data, rapid protection and effective indoor-air measures |
| High severe-disease burden | Large clinical demand and constrained workforce | Deferred ordinary treatment, deaths, care losses, reduced production and prolonged grief | Lower-than-feared severity or effective treatment and vaccination |
| Pandemic overlapping financial or supply crisis | Concurrent debt stress, food/energy disruption or export restrictions | Fiscal stress, shortages, inflation and sharper inequality across countries | Functional trade corridors, income insurance and predictable international supply |

These paths are neither mutually exclusive nor forecasts. A less severe pathogen affecting many workers can interrupt services, while a severe but relatively controllable outbreak may impose highly localized rather than universal restrictions. The appropriate decision rule is updated evidence, not automatic repetition of 2020 responses.

```map
title: How exposure and response constraints differ across locations
High-income manufacturing and services hubs | Dense trade and service interconnections | Response depends on care capacity, labor protection and timely supplies
Lower-income urban areas | Informal jobs and crowded housing | Isolation costs and access to clinics vary sharply by neighborhood
Remote and rural communities | Long distances to diagnostics and hospitals | Early detection and follow-up can be delayed even with lower density
International transport nodes | Cross-border movement and logistics continuity | Detection and coordinated rules matter more than a single border announcement
Regions with limited vaccine production | Dependence on external manufacturing and procurement | Contracting, inputs, approvals and distribution affect delivery
```

This is a schematic exposure map, not a geographical forecast or classification of countries into risk ranks.

## The preparedness architecture in 2026 is materially stronger in some functions and incomplete in others

**One Health and prevention at source.** The WHO, FAO, UNEP and WOAH framework connects animal health, human health, environmental change and food systems. In August 2026 the four organizations **extended implementation of their One Health Joint Plan to 2029**. Better veterinary diagnostics, transparent reporting, land-use governance and laboratory capacity can reduce blind spots in zoonotic threats. The plan is cooperation guidance, not proof that an individual country can prevent spillover, and a disease of uncertain origin should never be assigned a source without evidence. [16]

**Detection and information.** WHO's Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence Hub published its **2026–2030 strategy on 10 October 2026**, with an ambition to identify and understand emerging threats **within 24 hours**. It reported work with more than 160 Member States and 190 partners and networks. That is a strategic goal and network scope, **not an independently verified 24-hour global detection performance**. The International Pathogen Surveillance Network announced **US$1.8 million** of new catalytic grants in April 2026 for genomic, wastewater and environmental surveillance in lower-income settings. Grants support experiments in capacity; they are not evidence of universal coverage. [17][18]

**Rules for notification and cooperation.** Amendments to the International Health Regulations entered into force in **September 2025** for the relevant parties, introducing the category of *pandemic emergency* and strengthening coordination and access provisions. The WHO itself cannot impose domestic lockdowns under the IHR. Effective national implementation still depends on legal powers, laboratory reporting, financing and cooperation. [13]

**The unresolved equity bargain.** WHO Member States **adopted the Pandemic Agreement in May 2025**, but adoption did **not** make it operational international law. As of the **12 October 2026 UN political declaration**, negotiations continued on the **Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) annex**, which aims to connect rapid pathogen/sequence sharing with access to vaccines, diagnostics and treatments. The UN declaration renewed political commitments; it did not itself ratify the agreement. WHO indicated the annex could be taken up in May 2027 or earlier, with subsequent signature and ratification steps. The gap matters because countries asked to share specimens and data need credible access to resulting products. [14][15][22]

**Research and production.** CEPI's *100 Days Mission* aims to accelerate development of vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics after a new threat, but it is a target, not a promise of licensed, manufactured and distributed products for every pathogen in 100 days. The WHO-led mRNA technology-transfer programme had **15 partners as of May 2025** and proposed a **2026–2030 phase** to move toward sustainable commercial-grade production. A technology-transfer agreement is not a production line operating at pandemic scale. Regional production also requires quality systems, reagents, intellectual-property arrangements, procurement demand, regulators, cold chains and qualified staff. [19][20]

**Financing before an emergency.** The Pandemic Fund approved a **US$500 million financing envelope for its third round in December 2024** to support surveillance, laboratories and health workforces in low- and middle-income countries. The approved envelope is not the same as cash disbursed, capacities built or prevention outcomes observed by 2026. Budget lines must ultimately be tested against workforce retention, laboratories functioning between outbreaks, procurement readiness and response exercises. [21]

| Intervention | Verified institutional stage by October 2026 | Remaining test of readiness |
|---|---|---|
| Amended International Health Regulations | Amendments in force for applicable States Parties | National implementation and timely interoperable reporting |
| WHO Pandemic Agreement | Adopted in 2025; PABS annex still under negotiation | Annex, signature, ratification and equitable implementation |
| WHO Epidemic Intelligence Hub | 2026–2030 strategy issued | Measured time from local event to detection and response |
| Pathogen surveillance grants | 2026 grant round announced | Routine sampling, quality and data sharing at scale |
| WHO mRNA technology transfer | Partners established; next phase proposed | Licensed and affordable routine-to-emergency manufacturing |
| CEPI 100 Days Mission | Development-speed objective with funded projects | End-to-end clinical, regulatory, manufacturing and delivery performance |
| One Health plan | Extended through 2029 | Practical surveillance and environmental/veterinary action |
| Pandemic Fund | Financing rounds approved | Verified disbursement and lasting local capacity |

Official status and limitations are documented by WHO, CEPI and the World Bank/Pandemic Fund. [13][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

## A resilient response protects health, income, learning and public legitimacy at the same time

Pandemic planning is often organized as a sequence of medical interventions. But its outcomes depend on mutually reinforcing institutions. **Indoor air quality, ventilation, appropriate respiratory protection and targeted testing** can reduce respiratory exposure while permitting continuity of essential activities when suitable to the pathogen. **Paid sick leave, accessible primary care, income protection and food delivery** make protective behavior economically feasible. **School continuity plans** require both infection-risk reduction and remedial support if classrooms must close. **Mental-health and safeguarding services** should remain accessible even when mobility is disrupted. [6][9][23]

For governments, the key design choice is not an abstract conflict between lives and the economy: illness itself can reduce work and consumption, while poorly designed restrictions impose additional costs. Decisions should be proportional to the observed pathogen, time-limited where appropriate, transparent about trade-offs and revised as evidence changes. Independent review, explicit support for affected workers and workable appeals processes can support confidence without requiring unanimity about every measure.

The same principles apply internationally. Restrictions on medical exports may protect domestic supply briefly but deprive other countries of inputs needed to contain spread. A technically successful vaccine in one region may have limited global protective effect if manufacturing, contracts and distribution exclude regions with ongoing transmission. Preparedness consequently includes interoperable regulation, demand commitments between outbreaks, financing for low-income health systems, logistics and rules that reward timely data sharing. [14][19][20][21]

## The unanswered questions that matter most

Future research should measure **how quickly a signal moves from local detection to verified decision**, and how that time changes when laboratories are underfunded. It should distinguish the **existence of manufacturing facilities from deliverable doses, tests and treatments**; calculate which households can afford to stay home without losing food or housing; and examine whether learning and social connections actually recover after temporary school and community closures. Evaluation should separate biological severity from behavioral response, legal restrictions and international price disruptions.

There is also important contrary evidence to simplistic theories of permanent collapse. Labor markets and economic output recovered in many settings; digital connectivity permitted continuity for some families and firms; vaccines and therapeutics sharply changed the clinical risk in many populations. Long-term mental-health and education trends partly predate COVID-19. These facts weaken any claim that every post-2020 social problem was caused by the pandemic, but they do not erase measured losses among particular groups. [4][9][10]

The decisive lesson is institutional: rapid science cannot substitute for equitable delivery, and a formal preparedness agreement cannot substitute for functioning laboratories, trained workers, local trust, healthy indoor environments, access to food and a credible system for keeping learning and livelihoods intact. By October 2026, the world has additional tools and rules, yet unresolved implementation and international-access questions. The next crisis will test whether those investments operate together when speed matters most.

### Sources

1. World Health Organization, *Global excess deaths associated with COVID-19, January 2020–December 2021* (2022): https://www.who.int/data/stories/global-excess-deaths-associated-with-covid-19-january-2020-december-2021
2. World Bank, *Global Progress in Reducing Extreme Poverty Grinds to a Halt* (5 October 2022): https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/10/05/global-progress-in-reducing-extreme-poverty-grinds-to-a-halt
3. International Labour Organization, *World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2021* (2021): https://www.ilo.org/publications/world-employment-and-social-outlook-trends-2021
4. OECD, *PISA 2022 Results, Volume I: Changes in performance and equity, 2018–2022* (2023): https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_53f23881-en/full-report/changes-in-performance-and-equity-in-education-between-2018-and-2022_036321c5.html
5. UNESCO, World Bank and UNICEF, *Learning losses from COVID-19 school closures could impoverish a whole generation* (6 December 2021): https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/learning-losses-covid-19-school-closures-could-impoverish-whole-generation?hub=343
6. WHO, *COVID-19 pandemic triggers 25% increase in prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide* (2 March 2022): https://www.who.int/news/item/02-03-2022-covid-19-pandemic-triggers-25-increase-in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-depression-worldwide
7. UN Women, *Measuring the shadow pandemic: Violence against women during COVID-19* (24 November 2021): https://data.unwomen.org/publications/vaw-rga
8. WHO, *From loneliness to social connection: charting a path to healthier societies* (30 June 2025): https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978240112360
9. WHO, *Post COVID-19 condition (long COVID)* (26 February 2025): https://www.who.int/vietnam/news/fact-sheets/detail/post-covid-19-condition-%2528long-covid%2529%E2%81%A0
10. IMF, *Healing the Pandemic's Economic Scars Demands Prompt Action* (17 May 2022): https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2022/05/17/blog-healing-the-pandemics-economic-scars-demands-prompt-action
11. World Bank, *Pobreza e desigualdade no Brasil: pandemia complica velhos problemas* (14 July 2022): https://www.worldbank.org/pt/news/press-release/2022/07/14/pobreza-e-desigualdade-no-brasil-pandemia-complica-velhos-problemas-e-gera-novos-desafios-para-populacao-vulneravel
12. WHO, *COVID-19 Global Risk Assessment — Version 10* (6 August 2026): https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-global-risk-assessment--version-10
13. WHO, *Amended International Health Regulations enter into force* (19 September 2025): https://www.who.int/news/item/19-09-2025-amended-international-health-regulations-enter-into-force
14. WHO, *World leaders renew commitment to protect the world from future pandemics* (25 September 2026): https://www.who.int/news/item/25-09-2026-world-leaders-renew-commitment-to-protect-the-world-from-future-pandemics
15. WHO, *UN political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response* (12 October 2026): https://www.who.int/hongkongchina/news/detail-global/12-10-2026-who-welcomes-adoption-of-united-nations-political-declaration-on-pandemic-prevention-preparedness-and-response
16. WHO and One Health Quadripartite, *One Health Joint Plan extended to 2029* (14 August 2026): https://www.who.int/news/item/14-08-2026-quadripartite-collaboration-extends-the-one-health-joint-plan-of-action-to-2029
17. WHO, *Public health intelligence for a safer world: strategy 2026–2030* (10 October 2026): https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/B09930
18. WHO, *International Pathogen Surveillance Network launches second round of catalytic grant financing* (17 April 2026): https://pandemichub.who.int/news-room/news/item/17-04-2026-international-pathogen-surveillance-network-launches-second-round-of-catalytic-grant-funding
19. CEPI, *Progressing the 100 Days Mission* (31 January 2025): https://cepi.net/progressing-100-days-mission-greater-global-health-security/
20. WHO, *mRNA Technology Transfer Programme's Phase 2.0* (13 June 2025): https://www.who.int/news/item/13-06-2025-mrna-technology-transfer-programme-s-phase-2.0-discussed-with-partners-on-the-sidelines-of-g20-summit
21. World Bank/Pandemic Fund, *The Pandemic Fund Announces Third Round of financing* (19 December 2024): https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2024/12/19/the-pandemic-fund-announces-third-round-of-funding-marking-another-milestone-in-pandemic-preparedness
22. WHO, *Member States advance negotiations on pathogen access and benefit-sharing* (18 September 2026): https://www.who.int/vanuatu/news/detail-global/18-09-2026-member-states-advance-negotiations-on-pathogen-access-and-benefit-sharing-ahead-of-un-general-assembly-meeting-on-pandemics
23. WHO, *World report on social determinants of health equity* (6 May 2025): https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/B09387