Page 58
In some cases, implementation of some NPIs, such as travel restrictions and quarantine, might be pursued for social or political purposes by political leaders, rather than pursued because of public health evidence. WHO should rapidly and clearly articulate its opposition to inappropriate NPIs, especially when they threaten public health response activities. Many NPIs, particularly those falling under social distancing, require support and acceptance by the public. As these measures inherently limit civil liberties by restricting individuals’ movements, assembly, and social interaction, they can be a source of substantial opposition from affected individuals and populations. Providing strong evidencedbacked reasoning for the necessity of NPIs, including the predicted impact they will have in containing the outbreak, will be all the more crucial. WHO and national leaders will play a principal role in implementing NPIs and communicating the role and necessity of these measures to the public; therefore, they should collect and disseminate research to support their decision to use NPIs. 9. National governments should strengthen biosaftey around high-impact respiratory pathogens. Biosafety needs to become a national-level political priority, particularly for countries that are funding research with the potential to result in accidents with pathogens that could initiate high-impact respiratory pandemics. All nations should be advised to adopt national-level comprehensive biosafety norms for research involving high-impact respi- 74 ratory pathogens. Countries that fund such research should have oversight systems in place that consider the risks and benefits of this kind of work, and they should have maximally stringent biosafety requirements for any laboratory that is allowed to pursue this type of research. WHO should develop stronger interest and capability in monitoring this kind of research and advising member nations about the risks and benefits surrounding it. 10. National governments need to prepare for the deliberate use of a respiratory pathogen. Any attacker that successfully deploys a bioweapon (as opposed to conventional weapons) should be presumed to have substantial biological scientific abilities, particularly if it is discovered that the pathogen has been engineered. If a bioweapon is used that causes a high-impact respiratory epidemic or pandemic, that would suggest a great degree of capability and sophistication in the attacker. Such an attacker might try to improve the chance of success by deploying the bioweapon simultaneously in multiple locations. It may be that such an attack is done without claiming responsibility, or without public notification that a release has occurred. Widespread dissemination of a bioweapon could overwhelm traditional outbreak surveillance and control efforts. In the event of a rapidly moving respiratory epidemic or pandemic, governments, either on their own or with the help of other countries of WHO, would need to be able to quickly employ