WHO

Sick of it All

By: Sönke Pietsch

After extensively deliberating communicable diseases and organ transplants, it seems as if the delegates have yet another problem on their hands, that wasn’t even mentioned on the MUNUM background guide: “brain deadness”. Luckily, a handful of delegates as well as chairs have jumped right into action to aid their fellow representatives. 

First to the rescue were two members of the dais - with the performance of a second hand show of Jedis fighting, a spinoff that had the whole committee laughing. After this spectacular spectacle, the delegates from Canada and Hungary blessed the committee with an interesting version of High School Musical’s “Breaking Free”, even reacting the opening scene. Not to go unnoticed, the delegate of Jamaica strolled to the front of his room to present to an alternative version of the Gettysburg Address.

Not to go unchallenged, the delegates from Israel, Canada and Hungary quickly followed suit and introduced a resolution to change the Kazakhstan’s name to “Quackastan”. The reason you ask? Kazakhstan is too hard to pronounce. Having made this institutional change, the delegates from Australia, Russia and Vietnam felt a rising sense of jealousy and turned in their version of a “working paper”. In line with what this committee has turned into, they suggested that delegate of Australia become a member of the dias only to “just sit there”.

With the number of chairs greater by one, the new team decided to round out the session by performing a spectacular version of Bohemian Rhapsody. Matching in pitch and intonation, it can clearly be said that these chairs knew what they were doing, at least when it came to singing. The fate of their other responsibilities is yet to be decided. 

WHO’s Lil Uzi Vert?

By: Charlotte Howald

In the process of concluding the topic of mitigating and eradicating communicable diseases, a total of 10 Working Papers have been merged into three, awe-inspiringly named draft resolutions: 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 (formally known as Working Paper: Renegade). With a variety of sponsors and signatories for each draft, there is steady debate criticizing and denouncing specific aspects from each paper, from the lack of funding from NGOs to the extermination of 3500 species of mosquitoes. 

Many delegates compliment Columbia’s and Bulgaria’s Draft Resolution 1.1 for its specifics regarding Public Programs (United Kingdom’s National Health Service) and NGOs (International Medical Corps). Within the paper, long-term solutions for multiple issues are thoroughly discussed including the recruitment/training of healthcare workers, airport security, water sanitation, and malaria. Bulgaria is especially proud of the versatility of the paper as it not only benefits the entirety of the public, it even appeals to anti-vaxxers. 

With seven sponsors and 27 signatories, Draft Resolution 1.2 (written by Syria) does well to emphasize the importance of funding by calling upon the UN General 5th Assembly. Unfortunately, the delegates of the WHO committee disagree with many of the operatives. A clause encouraging the dumping of sewage onto land in an attempt to prevent water contamination was criticized by Iran for infiltrating groundwater instead. Another Operative, clause 8, recommended using killing agents in stagnant water to kill breeding mosquitoes. This brought the Czech Republic to the front to upbraid the committee on the importance of mosquitoes in our ecosystem, saying: “There are 3,500 species of mosquitoes, 200 species suck blood, but only five species of mosquitoes carry malaria.” Ukraine then shared additional concerns regarding “the environmental impact of exterminating all mosquitoes.” 

Distinguished for it’s “incredibly innovative” funding, 1.3 dedicated one/third of the draft resolution to objective clauses explicitly targets need-based funding distributed by WHO and volunteer NGOs. Among other fundamental issues addressed, zoo-tonic diseases (diseases carried by animals and transmitted to humans) are recognized, followed by solutions to “educate communities on...preventive measures,” and “encourage the usage of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). ” As Indonesia mentioned, Draft Resolution 1.3 “targets the elimination of vector-borne diseases” in equatorial, tropical, and coastal regions by requesting donations of “insecticide-treated bed nets” from NGOs such as the Global Malaria Program.

In the midst of a lull in the committee, an incredibly moving speech by the delegate of Belgium brought the representatives to their feet. 

“In the words of Lil Uzi Vert: ‘now’s our time.’ The delegate of Belgium stands by [those words]. Now is our time to vote on resolutions.” Amid three unceasing voting procedures, the committee successfully passed Resolution 1.1 and 1.3. Congratulations, WHO. The IPC wishes you the best of luck on your succeeding topic: Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism.

WHOse resolution?

By:  Amita Gowda

Multiple working papers are being distributed all around the WHO committee room. With such a large assembly, it is no surprise that from the 10+ papers, only  one carries a name that every Gen-Zer should recognize: Renegade. Working paper Renegade focuses on a database with records of every communicable disease to predict and prevent outbreaks before they happen. Renegade shares this  database establishment with another working paper (Currently sponsored by Iran). With the world being at the peak of its Digital Era, it’s no surprise that many papers are focusing on technological developments that could help in eradicating communicable diseases.

Another working paper, written by Latvia and a few other sponsors, was less hesitant to mention they had almost 75 signatories from their committee of almost 100. The paper was not shy and “covered pretty much everything,” as a sponsor Latvia said. It covered water filtration, education in schools, herd immunization, and airport security to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Debatably the most popular working paper is one sponsored by the delegation of Australia, which criminalizes intercourse with the sole intent of stopping natural reproduction. As a result of this prohibition, genetically modified humans will take over, with the idea that the new generation will be immune to every disease, and all communicable diseases would be eradicated.

There are many complaints about many of the resolutions. A group of delegates, already done with their resolution, voiced their complaints about the Renegade resolution. In shortened form, it is apparently “vague” and not at all a solid resolution. At the same time, one of Renegade’s sponsors was complaining that all of the other resolutions were the exact same resolution in different words. Overall, the IPC hopes the WHO committee finds a resolution that works for everybody.

Running out of Sick Days: The Problem of Mitigating and Eradicating Communicable Diseases

By: Bella Kephart

For centuries, disease has wreaked havoc worldwide. Despite the revolutionary technology that has insured the elimination of some deadly diseases such as smallpox and polio, countless lives are lost each day to disease. At the root of the issue of disease is widespread by poverty, a lack of proper hygiene, and a dearth of well-trained medical professionals, specifically in developing nations. HIV, AIDS, and malaria are just a few examples of deadly diseases that claim lives each day, while many victims and their families remain unaware of their symptoms and how to prevent them.

The World Health Organization Committee is currently convening to propose a solution. Over the last 24 hours, WHO has worked tirelessly to find a cost-effective, long-term plan to appropriate resources to target global health. Many nations argue that the United Nations should allocate funds to maximize the potential of practical, short-term solutions such as sending immunizations and water purification systems. Other nations such as Tanzania, Bosnia, and India disagree, saying the problem needs to be addressed at its source: the lack of education regarding disease awareness. They agree that implementing programs to educate about the causes and preventative measures of disease, especially for the younger generations, is a plausible solution. “If more people are educated about the causes of the problem, it would prevent them from the start and less people would be affected by the diseases,” explained Erum Al-Zawawi of Tanzania. 

As always, the problem of funding remains. Potential solutions have been introduced, such as the utilization of NGOs, the World Bank, or the United Nations Fifth Assembly. The most popular solution, however, lies in re-directing financial aid from the World Health Organization budget itself. “WHO has a lot of funding, but it needs to be directed… it’s too focused on specific diseases rather than [general health] infrastructure,” said Jacquie Molloseau of the Republic of Korea. The problem of streamlining communication between countries regarding funding also remains. Katie McCarthy of Bulgaria argues that “We need to take out the middle-man and establish closer relationships between countries in order to improve the efficiency of funding.” 

The WHO Committee still has much to discuss, and has yet to bring forward any drafted resolutions. Amidst the flurry of placards and the bustle of determined delegates, there is no clear answer as to what the most direct and effective solution is, or how to pay for it. However, there is no doubt that the committee is well on its way to expunging this global epidemic.