Інформація призначена тільки для фахівців сфери охорони здоров'я, осіб,
які мають вищу або середню спеціальну медичну освіту.

Підтвердіть, що Ви є фахівцем у сфері охорони здоров'я.

Мобильная версия

Регистрация Забыли пароль?

Журнал «Медицина неотложных состояний» Том 21, №8, 2025

Вернуться к номеру

Толерантність до ризику: від особистих криз через біологічні загрози та катастрофи до теоретико-правових міркувань

Толерантність до ризику: від особистих криз через біологічні загрози та катастрофи до теоретико-правових міркувань

Авторы: E.D. Chapman (1), K. Maguire (1), R. Oosthuizen (2), T. Tandlich (3), R. Tandlich (1, 4)
(1) - Disaster Management and Ethics Research Group (DMERG), Faculty of Pharmacy, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa
(2) - Rhodes University Community Engagement Office (RUCE), Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa
(3) - Department of Philosophical and Central European Studies, Faculty of Arts (Filozofick Fakulta), University of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Trnava, Slovakia
(4) - Disaster Management Programme, Stenden South Africa, Port Alfred, South Africa

Рубрики: Медицина неотложных состояний

Разделы: Справочник специалиста

Версия для печати


Резюме

У цій статті пропонується трансскалярне пояснення толерантності до ризику пандемії: прийнятність ризику в разі біологічних загроз формується шляхом узгодженості (або не­узгодженості) окремого «кризового менеджера» («спільноти Я») із соціальним, національним та глобальним рівнями управління. Ми реалізуємо цю узгодженість через три взаємодіючі механізми — практику обробки даних, соціальні детермінанти здоров’я та нормативно-правові режими (конституційні повноваження Всесвітньої організації охорони здоров’я, Міжнародні медико-санітарні правила та проєкт Угоди про пандемію) і показуємо, як за різних комбінацій можливостей та підзвітності ризики переміщуються між категоріями прийнятних, терпимих та неприйнятних. Розглядаючи COVID-19 у контексті попередніх пандемій, можна простежити, як докризові ресурси, доступ до медичної допомоги, потоки інформації, що враховують рівність, та політичні рішення (зокрема, обмеження на пересування, управління ланцюгами поставок і публічні комунікації) впливають на пережитий досвід та здатність до подолання труднощів. Важливо, що на перший план висунуто людську діяльність: ті самі системи, що захищають, також можуть створювати й посилювати біологічні загрози — через небезпечні дослідницькі практики, використання озброєння, провали в управлінні або непрозору звітність, у такий спосіб змінюючи пороги толерантності в режимі реального часу. Цей внесок являє собою інтегровану структуру, що поєднує індивідуальне управління кризами із загальносуспільними й міжнародними інструментами, із зазначенням, як підзвітність, прозорість та єдність зусиль перетворюються на пропорційний контроль. Якщо добробут є правом, тоді толерантність до ризику має бути колективною метою, якої слід досягати завдяки узгодженій політиці, практиці громадського здоров’я та інклюзивним системам даних, що можуть утримувати ризик для населення в межах допустимих значень на всіх рівнях.

This paper advances a trans-scalar account of pandemic risk tolerability: the acceptability of risk in biological hazards is constructed by the alignment (or misalignment) of the individual “crisis manager” (the “Community of I”) with social, national, and global governance. We operationalise this alignment through three interacting mechanisms — data practices, social determinants of health, and legal-institutional regimes (WHO constitutional authorities, International Health Regulations, and the draft Pandemic Agreement) and show how, under different combinations of capacity and accountability, risks move between acceptable, tolerable, and intolerable categories. Reading COVID-19 alongside earlier pandemics, we trace how pre-crisis endowments, access to healthcare, equity-attentive information flows, and policy choices (including restrictions on movement, supply-chain management, and public communication) shape lived exposure and coping capacity. Crucially, we foreground human agency: the same systems that protect can also create and compound biological hazards — through dangerous research practices, weaponisation, governance failures, or opaque reporting — thereby reconfiguring tolerability thresholds in real time. The contribution is an integrated framework that links individual crisis management to whole-of-society and international instruments, specifying how accountability, transparency, and unity of effort translate into proportionate control. If wellbeing is a right, then tolerability of risk must be a collective goal pursued through coherent policy, public-health practice, and inclusive data systems capable of keeping population risk within tolerable bounds across levels.


Ключевые слова

COVID-19; ризик; особисті кризи

risk; COVID-19; personal crises

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22141/2224-0586.21.8.2025.1957

Для ознакомления с полным содержанием статьи необходимо оформить подписку на журнал.


Список литературы

  1. Chapman ED, Oosthuizen R. The COVID-19 response and accountability in South Africa. Journal of Emergency Management. 2023;21(8):37-81. doi: 10.5055/jem.0779.
  2. De Villiers K. Bridging the health inequality gap: an examination of South Africa’s social innovation in health landscape. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. 2021;10:19. doi: 10.1186/s40249-021-00804-9.
  3. Pedrosa AL, Bitencourt L, Fres ACF, Cazumb MLB, Campos RGB, et al. Emotional, Behavioral, and Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front in Psychology. 2020;11:566212. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566212.
  4. Dow K, Berkhout F, Preston BL. Limits to adaptation to climate change: a risk approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2013;5(3–4):384-391. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.005.
  5. Fakhruddin BS, Blanchard K, Ragupathy D. Are we there yet? The transition from response to recovery for the COVID-19 pandemic. Progress in Disaster Science. 2020;7:100102. doi: 10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100102.
  6. Madondo R, Restas A, Shwababa S, Stoch EJ, Tandlich R. A theoretical perspective on space-time of disaster risk reduction and management: role of data and its interpretation. Journal of Emergency Management. 2023.
  7. Maguire KA, Alloggio S, Chhetri MBP, Tandlich R. Scale of extraordinarity: a typological analysis and practical definitions of the crisis/emergency/disaster/catastrophe vocabulary. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Secure Slovakia and European Union. 2023. 171-194.
  8. Mokov E. A crisis manager like the head of the enterprise when resolving a crisis within the enterprise. Trilobit. 2022;2/2022. Available from: http://trilobit.fai.utb.cz/a-crisis-manager-like-the-head-of-the-enterprise-when-resolving-a-crisis-within-the-enterprise-key-competencies-of-a-crisis-manager.
  9. Brown CM, Oosthuizen R, Tandlich R. Biological hazards and disaster risk: complexity of causes and solutions, and overview of ma–nagement implications. Transactions of the VSB — Technical University of Ostrava — Safety Engineering Series. 2024;XIX(1):12-29. doi: 10.35182/tses-2024-0002.
  10. Turton A. Our slow-onset sewage disaster is on the verge of becoming a tsunami that will overwhelm us. 2023. Available from: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2023-05-30-slow-onset-sewage-disaster-is-on-the-verge-of-becoming-a-tsunami/.
  11. Lal A, Abdalla SM, Chattu VK, Erondu NA, Lee TL, et al. Pandemic preparedness and response: exploring the role of universal health coverage within the global health security architecture. Lancet Global Health. 2022;10(11):e1675-e1683. doi: 10.1016/s2214-109x(22)00341-2.
  12. Bagrath P, Ambang OA, Walsh H, Chapman ED, Tandlich R. Challenges and cooperation in emergency and disaster risk management: the way forward through COVID-19 and beyond. Journal of Emergency Management. 2023;21(8):9-20. doi: 10.5055/jem.0784.
  13. Titko M, Studen J. The Profession of Crisis Manager in the Context of Disaster Awareness of the Population. Trilobit. 2018;2/2018. Available from: http://trilobit.fai.utb.cz/the-profession-of-crisis-manager-in-the-context-of-disaster-awareness-of-the-population.
  14. Kubas J, Ballay M. Selected aspects of safety as a part quality of life. Trilobit. 2018;1/2018. Available from: http://trilobit.fai.utb.cz/Data/Articles/PDF/a3568331-9de9-4ec9-ad42-8235496e6015.pdf.
  15. Africa S. Human security in South Africa. Strategic Review for Southern Africa. 2015;37(1):178-189. Available from: https://upjournals.up.ac.za/index.php/strategic_review/article/view/219/170.
  16. Kalogiannidis S, Kalfas D, Chatzitheodoridis F, Lekkas E. Role of governance in developing disaster resiliency and its impact on economic sustainability. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2023;16:151. doi: 10.3390/jrfm16030151.
  17. Chandra A, Acosta J, Howard S, Uscher-Pines L, Williams M, et al. Building community resilience to disasters: a way forward to enhance national health security. Rand Health Quarterly. 2011;1(1):6. doi: 10.7249/tr915.
  18. Falagara Sigala I, Sirenko M, Comes T, Kovcs G. Mitigating personal protective equipment (PPE) supply chain disruptions in pandemics — a system dynamics approach. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 2022;42(13):128-154. doi: 10.1108/ijopm-09-2021-0608.
  19. Lalla-Edward ST, Mosam A, Hove J, Erzse A, Rwafa-Ponela T, et al. Essential health services delivery in South Africa during COVID-19: community and healthcare worker perspectives. Frontiers in Public Health. 2022;10:992481. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.992481.
  20. Pugh T, Harris J, Jarnagin K, These MS, Hegmann KT. Impacts of the statewide COVID-19 lockdown interventions on excess mortality, unemployment, and employment growth. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2022;64(9):726-730. doi: 10.1097/jom.0000000000002597.
  21. Oh J, Min J, Kang C, Kim E, Lee JP, et al. Excess mortality and the COVID-19 pandemic: causes of death and social inequalities. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):2293. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14785-3.
  22. Bonotti M, Zech ST. The human, economic, social, and political costs of COVID-19. Recovering Civility during COVID-19. 2021;3:1-36. doi: 10.1007/978-981-33-6706-7_1.
  23. Marx M. Crisis Lab: Consequence Management: Dealing with the Aftermath. 2024. Available from: https://www.crisislab.io/consequence-management-course.
  24. Dattani S. What were the death tolls from pandemics in history? 2023. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/historical-pandemics.
  25. Mordechai L, Eisenberg M. Rejecting catastrophe: the case of the Justinianic plague. Past & Present. 2019;244(1):3-50. doi: 10.1093/pastj/gtz009.
  26. Sarris P. Viewpoint new approaches to the “Plague of Justinian”. Past & Present. 2022;254(1):315-346. doi: 10.1093/pastj/gtab024.
  27. Little LK. Plague historians in lab coats. Past & Present. 2011;213(1):267-290. doi: 10.1093/pastj/gtr014.
  28. Sihn KH. Reorganizing hospital space: the 1894 plague epidemic in Hong Kong and the germ theory. Uisahak — Korean Journal of Medical History. 2017;26(1):59-94. doi: 10.13081/kjmh.2017.26.59.
  29. World Health Organisation (WHO, 2024a). Number of –COVID-19 cases reported to WHO (cumulative total) — World. Available from: https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/cases?n=c.
  30. Karimizadeh Z, Dowran R, Mokhtari-Azad T, Shafiei-Jandaghi NZ. The reproduction rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 different variants recently circulated in human: a narrative review. European Journal of Medical Research. 2023;28(1):94. doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01047-0.
  31. Sharp PM, Hahn BH. Origins of HIV and the AIDS pande–mic. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine. 2011;1(1):a006841. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a006841.
  32. Chang C, Ortiz K, Ansari A, Gershwin ME. The Zika outbreak of the 21st century. Journal of Autoimmunity. 2016;68:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2016.02.006.
  33. Cohen MS, Smith MK, Muessig KE, Hallett TB, Powers KA, Kashuba AD. Antiretroviral treatment of HIV-1 prevents transmission of HIV-1: where do we go from here? Lancet. 2013;382(9903):1515-1524. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61998-4.
  34. Pinkerton SD, Abramson PR. Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(9):1303-1312. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00258-4.
  35. Salvesen von Essen B, Kortsmit K, Warner L, D’Angelo DV, Shulman HB, et al. Preventing sexual transmission of Zika virus infection during pregnancy, Puerto Rico, USA, 2016. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2019;25(11):2115-2119. doi: 10.3201/eid2511.190915.
  36. Boutayeb A. The impact of HIV/AIDS on human development in African countries. BMC Public Health. 2009;9(Suppl 1):S3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-s1-s3.
  37. Risher KA, Cori A, Reniers G, Marston M, Calvert C, et al.; ALPHA Network. Age patterns of HIV incidence in eastern and southern Africa: a modelling analysis. Lancet HIV. 2021;8(7):e429-e439. doi: 10.1016/s2352-3018(21)00069-2.
  38. Hong SA. Toward better pandemic governance and preparedness: South Korea’s whole-of-nation approach to COVID-19. BMC Public Health. 2024;24:2126. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19655-8.
  39. Vilches D, Alburquerque G, Ramirez-Tagle R. Communication: one hundred and one years after a milestone: modern chemical weapons and World War I. Educacin Qumica. 2016;27(3):233-236. doi: 10.1016/j.eq.2016.04.004.
  40. United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. 1925-present. Available from: https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/WMD/Bio/pdf/Status_Protocol.pdf.
  41. Lukowitz DC. Geneva Protocol is signed. 2023. Available from: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/diplomacy-and-international-relations/geneva-protocol-signed.
  42. United Nations (UN, 2010). Resolution adopted by the Ge–neral Assembly on 8 December 2010 (on the report of the First Committee — A/65/410). 65/51: Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Available from: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/65/51.
  43. United Nations (UN, 2012). Resolution adopted by the Ge–neral Assembly on 3 December 2012 (on the report of the First Committee — A/67/409). 65/51: Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Available from: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/67/35.
  44. United Nations (UN, 2002). Resolution adopted by the Ge–neral Assembly (on the report of the First Committee — A/57/510). 57/62: Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Available from: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/57/62.
  45. United Nations (UN, 2001). Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly (on the report of the First Committee — A/55/559). 55/33: General and complete disarmament. Available from: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/55/33.
  46. United Nations (UN, 2004). Resolution adopted by the Ge–neral Assembly on 3 December 2004 (on the report of the First Committee — A/59/459). 59/70: Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Available from: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/59/70.
  47. United Nations (UN, 2007). Resolution adopted by the Ge–neral Assembly on 6 December 2006 (on the report of the First Committee — A/61/394). 61/61: Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Available from: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/61/61.
  48. Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). 1972-present. Avai–lable from: https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BWC-text-English-1.pdf.
  49. McElheny VK. World biologists tighten rules on “genetic engineering” work. New York Times; 1975. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/28/archives/world-biologists-tighten-rules-on-genetic-engineering-work-world.html.
  50. Martini M, Gazzaniga V, Bragazzi NL, Barberis I. The Spa–nish influenza pandemic: a lesson from history 100 years after 1918. Journal of Preventative Medicine and Hygiene. 2019;60(1):E64-E67. doi: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2019.60.1.1205.
  51. Pai H. History and epidemiology of bacillary dysentery in Korea: from Korean War to 2017. Infection and Chemotherapy. 2020;52(1):123-131. doi: 10.3947/ic.2020.52.1.123.
  52. United Nations (UN, 2024). Charter of the United Nations: Chapter IX — International Economic and Social Co-operation — Article 57. Available from: https://legal.un.org/repertory/art57.shtml.
  53. World Health Organisation (WHO, 1948–2024). Constitution of the WHO. Available from: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf.
  54. World Health Organisation (WHO, 2025a). Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS). Available from: https://www.who.int/initiatives/global-influenza-surveillance-and-response-system.
  55. Hay AJ, McCauley JW. The WHO global influenza surveillance and response system (GISRS) — a future perspective. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. 2018;12(5):551-557. doi: 10.1111/irv.12565.
  56. World Health Organisation (WHO, 2024c). FLUNET. Available from: https://www.who.int/tools/flunet.
  57. World Health Organisation (WHO, 2017). International Health Regulations 2005. Available from: https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2017-06/international_health_regulations_2005.pdf.
  58. Bromberg M. A critical appraisal of the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (2005) in times of pandemic: it is time for revision. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 2020;3:1-8. doi: 10.1017/err.2020.26.
  59. World Health Organisation (WHO, 2025b). Revised draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. Available from: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb9/A_inb9_3-en.pdf.
  60. Reuters News Agency. German spy agency concluded –COVID virus likely leaked from lab, papers say. 2025. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/.
  61. Looi MK. Will we ever know where COVID-19 came from? British Medical Journal. 2024;386:q1578. doi: 10.1136/bmj.q1578.
  62. Defenceweb. Border security: COVID-19 contributed to decrease in rhino poaching — Creecy. 2021. Available from: https://www.defenceweb.co.za/security/border-security/covid-19-contributed-to-decrease-in-rhino-poaching-creecy/.
  63. O’Brien K, Bjordam T, Bethell C. You matter more than you think: quantum social change for a thriving world. Oslo: Change Press; 2022.
  64. Iheanetu CU, Maguire KA, Moricov V, Alloggio S, Tandlich R. Utilitarian qubit, human geography and pandemic preparedness in the 21st century. Sustainability. 2023;15(1):321. doi: 10.3390/su15010321.
  65. United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2017). National Incident Management System (third edition). Available from: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_nims_doctrine-2017.pdf.

Вернуться к номеру