Motsoaledi: Agreement serves as a monumental step to countering future pandemics

JOHANNESBURG - Minister of Health Aaron Motsoaledi said the pandemic agreement serves as a monumental step towards countering any future pandemics in the world.
The minister was speaking during his address at the fourth G20 Health Working Group meeting in Johannesburg.
The week-long discussions are aimed at strengthening global preparedness for future pandemics and strategies to ensure vaccine equity.
Just in May, the 78th World Health Assembly adopted the second international health treaty, formally known as the Pandemic Agreement.
Commenting on the move, Motsoaledi said the pandemic agreement serves as a legally binding instrument for preventing future pandemics and improving response mechanisms.
He added that the historic agreement is built on several key pillars, one being that all countries have affordable access to pandemic-related health products.
"The Pandemic Agreement was adopted with the overwhelming support of 124 member states, a clear global consensus on the need for a new path forward. The resolution adopted by the 78th world health assembly is of paramount importance as it represents the formal, political culmination of the entire INB process.'
The minister also mentioned that the agreement signifies a collective commitment from member states.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

IOL News

a day ago

• IOL News

Unclaimed bodies in South Africa's mortuaries drop below 3,000, says Motsoaledi

Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi says there has been a general improvement in the management of unclaimed bodies in allstate mortuaries in provinces, as the number stood at 2,858 in February 2025, compared to 3,186 in August 2024. Image: Chris Collingridge / Independent Newspapers The number of unclaimed bodies at state mortuaries is showing signs of improvement, with figures reported at the end of February, revealing that the tally has dropped to 2,858, a decline from the 3,186 recorded in August 2024. This was disclosed by Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi when he stated that there was a total of 3,819 pauper burials between April 2024 and April 2025 when he responded to parliamentary questions from ANC and Rise Mzansi parliamentarians. Motsoaledi said the total number of unclaimed bodies in state mortuaries due to next-of-kin being unknown stood at 2,858 as at the end of February. 'There has been a general improvement in the management of unclaimed bodies in all provinces. The total number of unclaimed bodies stood at 2,858 in February 2025, compared to 3,186 in August 2024,' he said. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Motsoaledi stated that the number of unclaimed bodies did not remain static since families come forward to claim their loved ones, or the unclaimed bodies were buried as paupers. 'To date, the total number of pauper burials conducted in all provinces between 30 April 2024 and 30 April 2025 stood at 3,819.' He named Limpopo, Kwa-Zulu Natal, North West, Eastern Cape, and the Western Cape as the provinces that have made progress in the management of unclaimed bodies. Motsoaledi's responses showed that KwaZulu-Natal recorded 695 uncollected bodies in February, down from 1,527 recorded six months earlier, while the North West reduced the unclaimed bodies from 166 to 132. The Eastern Cape reduced its numbers from 526 to 485, and the Western Cape decreased the uncollected bodies from 299 to 176. The Free State also showed a decrease in uncollected bodies from 93 to 65, while Limpopo recorded a decrease from 315 to 267. However, Gauteng saw an upsurge from 176 uncollected bodies to 868 during the same period, Northern Cape recorded an increase from 31 to 71, and Mpumalanga's numbers increased from 53 to 99. Motsoaledi said the management of unclaimed bodies remained a collaborative effort between the Departments of Health and the SAPS, which was responsible for the identification of the unknown bodies and the tracing of the next of kin, and the municipalities that allocated burial sites and conducted pauper burials. The situation of uncollected bodies was complicated by illegal foreign nationals who sometimes provided wrong names when attended to in healthcare facilities.

IOL News

3 days ago

• IOL News

When it comes to Freedom of Expression, the WHO Pandemic Agreement says nothing

The writer says that the next time a pandemic strikes—and there will be a next time—we cannot look to Geneva for guidance on how to preserve open debate and protect democratic norms. Image: File THE World Health Organization's long-awaited Pandemic Agreement has finally been adopted. At over 30 pages, it is comprehensive in ambition - addressing everything from vaccine access to supply chain resilience. But when it comes to one of the most critical ingredients for effective public health in a democracy - freedom of expression - the Agreement has remarkably little to say. In fact, it says almost nothing. Take, for instance, this key provision: 'Each Party shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies.' This sounds constructive. But read it again. 'As appropriate'? According to whom? And what policies, exactly? The Agreement doesn't say. It offers no guidance on whether open public debate - complete with disagreement, critique, and messy facts - is essential to building trust in science and public institutions. Nor does it warn against the dangers of censorship during public health crises. It simply leaves it to each country to decide for itself what 'appropriate' means. In other words, it takes no position. And this is precisely the problem. In the name of trust, governments during the COVID-19 pandemic did not always build it - they sometimes undermined it. South Africa offers two powerful examples. First, Dr Glenda Gray, one of the country's most respected scientists and then-president of the Medical Research Council, publicly criticised aspects of the government's lockdown measures. The reaction from the Department of Health was swift: the Director-General requested that her employer, the Medical Research Council, investigate her. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This wasn't scientific debate. It was an attempt to silence a dissenting voice. It was only after public uproar that the matter was dropped. Second, consider the ivermectin litigation saga. In December 2020, South Africa's medicines regulator, SAHPRA, triggered a controversy by incorrectly stating in a press release that ivermectin was 'not indicated … for use in humans', despite the fact that the drug had long been registered for certain human indications in South Africa. Some might label SAHPRA's statement as misinformation or even disinformation, but more plausibly, it was simply a careless - though consequential - error by a public authority. Yet the same press release went further, threatening with criminal enforcement against members of the public seeking to import ivermectin - an unnecessarily heavy-handed stance that swiftly provoked litigation. These are not stories from some distant autocracy. They happened here, in South Africa. And they highlight an uncomfortable truth: even well-meaning public institutions can slip into authoritarian habits under the pressure of a public health crisis. The antidote to authoritarian drift - and to official error - is freedom of expression. In Democratic Alliance v African National Congress, the Constitutional Court affirmed that freedom of expression is valuable not only for its intrinsic worth but also for its instrumental role in a democratic society. It informs citizens, fosters public debate, and enables the exposure of folly and misgovernance. It is also vital in the pursuit of truth—both personal and collective. If society suppresses views it deems unacceptable, those views may never be tested, challenged, or proven wrong. Open debate enhances truth-finding and allows us to scrutinise political claims and reflect on social values. This is why the South African Constitution enshrines freedom of expression - not as a luxury for peacetime, but as a safeguard for moments of crisis. Our Constitution was written with the memory of repression in mind. And it is precisely when fear and uncertainty tempt governments to silence dissent that its protections matter most. One might have expected an international agreement on pandemic response to affirm these same values. Yet the WHO Pandemic Agreement retreats into vagueness. It speaks of 'trust' and 'solidarity,' and warns against 'misinformation and disinformation,' but avoids the real issue: how should a democratic society respond when public health policies are contested? How do we protect space for critical voices? Instead of offering a principled stand, the Agreement offers a shrug. Countries are told to act 'as appropriate.' That could mean encouraging open dialogue—or it could mean criminalising dissent. The WHO doesn't say. And that silence speaks volumes. Professor Donrich Thaldar Image: University of KwaZulu-Natal

Daily Maverick

6 days ago

• Daily Maverick

Minister Motsoaledi's big HIV treatment jump: Is it true?

More than half a million people previously diagnosed with HIV have started on HIV treatment since the end of February, the health minister says. But can a big jump in 10 weeks really be? We look at the numbers At a glance Last month, the health minister said that more than half a million previously diagnosed people with HIV have been started on treatment since the end of February. But can it really be, especially since the gap to getting 95% of people diagnosed with HIV on medication has been hovering around 1 million for the past five years? Critics say they're sceptical about the minister's figures, and that the country will close the gap by December. We dive into the numbers to see what the picture looks like. Numbers are powerful. They can also be dangerous — if not used correctly. When the health minister said last month that 520,700 more people previously diagnosed with HIV have started on treatment since the end of February, the number sounded astounding. The health department's goal before the end of the year is to find 1.1 million people who know they have HIV but have either never started treatment or fell out of treatment. In his words, the department has reached 'more than 50% of the target' it set out to achieve by the end of the year. If that gap is closed, South Africa would have met two of the three so-called 95-95-95 goals the country signed up for as part of the United Nations plan to end HIV/Aids as a public health threat by 2030. However, knowing exactly how much the gap is closing is tricky, because people who know they have HIV may start and stop and then restart treatment again later – sometimes several times – during the course of their care. In fact, a study from the Western Cape shows that close to half of people on medication stop at least once, and that some even pause and then restart up to three times. So, many of the 520,700 previously diagnosed people Motsoaledi says are now on medication could, at least in theory, very well be people who are counted repeatedly as they cycle in and out of treatment. But because the patient information system isn't digitally centralised – most clinics still keep track of their clients on paper, which means different facilities can't easily access one another's records – someone who stops treatment at one clinic can easily be counted as a new start at another, rather than a restart. The set of UN targets aim for 95% of people in a country with HIV to know their diagnosis, 95% of those being on treatment and 95% of those taking medication having such low levels of virus in their bodies that they can't infect someone through sex. 'The reason that we [were] able to reach half a million within a short space of time, was because of weekly check-in meetings with provinces, where reports that come from the ground are verified in the presence of all provincial colleagues before they are regarded as final figures for reporting,' the minister said. But simply counting better isn't the same as doing better, and critics called the reported progress 'inconceivable'. Why? For the last few years, the number of people with HIV who have gone on treatment has crept up very slowly, so much so that the gap to 95% has remained more or less the same for about five years. (At the moment just more than 80% of people diagnosed with HIV are on treatment.)* Moreover, that was while treatment programmes had funding, and US-backed money for HIV projects was in place. So now, at a time of funding shortfalls, the closure of programmes and the government scrambling to plug the holes, could nearly half of the number of people who need to get treatment really have been added in just 10 weeks? We dive into the data to get a sense of what the numbers really mean. Mind the gap In 2021, South Africa was about 1.2 million people short of its 95% treatment goal; by 2025 the shortfall will likely be 990,000. That means that the gap – that is, the difference between where the country actually is and where it wants to be when it comes to HIV treatment – has closed by about 210,000. So there's been progress, but it's been slow: in total, only about 700,000 more people are on HIV medication today than five years ago. 'Getting that last 1 million or so people on treatment is not simple,' says Kate Rees, public health specialist at the Anova Health Institute. Part of the reason for this, she says, is that a large proportion of the group needed to close the gap are people who have in fact been on antiretrovirals before, but have since stopped. Sometimes people miss an appointment to get a refill of their medicine because they can't afford to take time off work to go to the clinic ,or they might have moved to another province or district and so they don't go back to the facility where they first got their prescription, she explains. The longer the interruption lasts, the more hesitant people are to go back, she says, because they dread being treated poorly or getting 'kicked to the back of the queue' for having missed an appointment, with people such as sex workers, trans folk or men who have sex with men especially facing judgement. 'The health service expects people to be very rigid with their appointments, but life just is not like that,' Rees says Slow progress To get a sense of the progress towards meeting the UN's second target in its 95-95-95 cascade, it's best to look at the difference in the total number of people on HIV treatment from year to year, says Leigh Johnson, one of the lead developers of the Thembisa model, which is used to report South Africa's official statistics to UNAids. Although the number of people on medication is increasing, the number grows less and less each year. For example, in 2020, about 291,000 more people were on treatment than in 2019. By 2021, though, the number had grown only by about 225,000. Current forecasts from the model are that the total number of people on treatment will grow by only around 160,000 this year. But that's based on programmes running as they have up to now — and with recent upsets because of US funding cuts, it may be an unreasonable assumption, Johnson says. Part of the reason for the small net gain every year is that although many people sign up for medication in a year, many also stop coming back to get their scripts refilled. Of those who drop out of treatment, some might choose to restart within a couple of months again, while others may pause their treatment for more than a year. In 2023, for example, roughly 793,500 people who had been on treatment before weren't any longer, but about 728,000 who received medication were restarters, Thembisa numbers show. So even though some people who stop taking their medication might not restart – or restart quickly –the total number who are on treatment still grows; it's just slow-going. This means getting a handle on how close to – or far from – the 95% treatment mark South Africa is, is more dynamic than simple addition. Stops, starts and restarts 'There will always be people who interrupt their treatment,' says Rees. 'It's not possible to keep everyone perfectly in the system all the time — that's life.' But what's important, she says, is to make those pauses as short as possible by helping people to get back on medication quickly and easily – without judgement. Gesine Meyer-Rath agrees. She's a health economist at HE2RO, a health economics research group at the University of the Witwatersrand, and focuses on how the government can get the most bang for its buck in its HIV programme. Data in the Thembisa model shows that over the years, the number of people starting medication for the first time – in other words, those who have never been on treatment before – has shrunk, but at the same time counts of restarters have grown. Her group's analyses have shown that honing in on keeping people on HIV treatment is the best way to go – especially now that funding is shrinking – and that 'we can close the 1.1 million gap through improved retention alone'. But to plan sensibly, she explains, policymakers should know how many people are first-time starters, how many pause treatment but then restart, and how many stop and don't come back at all. 'The more detail programme planners have in the data, the better,' she says. 'The [government's] Close the Gap campaign has a lot of good ideas, but having the right numbers of where the gap is that we want to close is crucial, as is keeping these numbers accurate as we progress.' This is exactly where things can become tricky in future if the holes left by the US funding cuts aren't plugged. Because of the US aid withdrawal, about 40% of South Africa's HIV data capturers will likely have lost their jobs by September, Bhekisisa reported last month, and this means the information needed to shape where money has to be spent to make real progress in ending Aids as a public health threat over the next five years simply might not be available. 'The less data we have, the more we're flying blind, which leaves space for bickering over the data that is still there,' says Meyer-Rath. DM