8040NRS Assignment 2: H1N1 Influenza Outbreak Critique

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak, examining its global impact and the international response. It critically assesses the actions taken by organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international health bodies, evaluating the effectiveness of prevention strategies, surveillance systems, and the implementation of international health regulations. The report delves into the challenges faced, particularly in resource-poor countries, and critiques the role of factors such as transportation and ecology in the spread of the disease. It also explores the 'One Health' approach and its significance in addressing the outbreak. The report concludes with a critique of the overall response and offers recommendations for future outbreak management, emphasizing the need for improved surveillance, resource allocation, and international cooperation to mitigate the impact of future pandemics.

Running head: H1N1 Influenza
TITLE: H1N1 INFUENZA
NAME
UNIVERSITY
SUPERVISOR

H1N1 Influenza 2
Introduction
The rise in the rate of infectious diseases is a vital issue in the global health perspective.
Prevention of the infectious diseases such as influenza is important to reduce the burden in the
health domain. Many infectious disease have only infected the human race in recent times. One
of the H1N1 influenza outbreak took place in the United States in 2009 (Girard, 2010). The viral
strain was first found in America and it disseminated into other nations via movement of infected
individuals. It must be emphasized that any infectious disease can spread globally very quickly if
proper prevention measure are not taken at the initial stages. In the current scenario of widely
spread infectious diseases, there is a need of disease prevention system in order to prevent the
hazardous impact of the infectious disease. The surveillance system is an essential means as it
can control the disease before its occurrence (Steel Fisher, 2010). In addition, the preventive
measures delay the dissemination of the causal organism and minimizes the risk factor. The aim
of the article is to critically assess the global disease outbreak. It will also evaluate the
international response against the H1N1 outbreak and the risk associated with the disease
outbreak.
World health Organization (WHO) and international health regulations took the preventive
measures and involved over 196 nations to deal with the health disaster by identifying the
disease and highlight the preventive measures (Xu, 2010). Moreover, as indicated by the health
system identification of the illness is the duty of the social insurance units. The pandemic flu was
the uncontrollable tragedy that lasted for nearly a year and killed more than 12000 individuals in
the United States in 2009 and the flare-up of the illness can be damaging for different countries
and populations. As per the International Health Regulations (IHR), the flare-up of such ailments
can be limited by correct recognition of the malady and the attention to the general population
against the infection (Brien, 2012).
WHO is in charge of devising the strategies against the pandemic flu. The strategies formulated
by the WHO have 3 motives. It includes the history and dangers of the specific irresistible
malady. Also, it incorporates the discovery procedure of the specific infection on the grounds
that the appropriate identification and observation of the illness can limit the flare-up of the
sickness. Finally, the preventive measures and the information of the prescription is part of the
three point’s agenda. The board of trustees for the location of the malady is one of the real

H1N1 Influenza 3
advances against the episode of the infection (Mena, 2016). In order to assess the H1N1
influenza, the scholarly articles are consulted and google scholar is used to retrieve information.
Moreover, the peer reviewed articles of last 10 years were searched to design the action plans
against the disease and to highlight the major reason behind the wide spread of disease.
Outbreak and Response
The H1N1 influenza was first found in United States and spread quickly in other countries
(Wrammert, 2011). The H1N1 influenza killed more than 12,000 people in a year in the United
States of America and this disease breakout is a sign of concern for people at global level. Death
toll across the globe was huge lies between the ranges of 151700 to 575400. WHO declared on
August 10, 2010 that the pandemic has ended. Although, this particular strain is still in
circulation and emerge as seasonal influenza virus. The global response towards the disease
breakout is a positive sign after the initial breakout as the disease spread very quickly in different
countries (Chowell, 2011). The researchers have indicated that the sudden health crisis is taken
very seriously throughout the world and the medications are designed against the infection to
stop the impact of the particular disease. After the immediate response towards the disease, the
death rate goes down this year in comparison with the last two years. The current pandemic is
the first one which comes under the setting of international rules and standards and the response
of the world is quite serious. The purpose of the response of the global world is to reduce the
outbreak and to minimize the intensity of the outbreak.
The evaluation of the response of national and international response is quite well and the
preventive measure was taken by the State and the WHO. The preventive measures started with
the establishment of a Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS). It played a
vital part in the prevention strategy of influenza by studying the trend of the diseases and has the
State association such as the National influenza center and the CDC influenza division.
Moreover, influenza surveillance in the United States was done with the effort of various
national and international partners and data centers as well. The purpose of the surveillance
system is to find out the activities of the virus, to highlight the data of the illness in hospitals
because of influenza, to find out the regular changes in the influenza virus and quick monitoring
and response to the outbreak (Chowell, 2011).

H1N1 Influenza 4
The prevention and control activities to minimize the outbreak of influenza is the fundamental
goal of the health association. WHO designed the framework which comprises of a range of
factors. Firstly, the WHO explains the elements which contributed in the spread of the disease
such as the means of transportations and eco system. To limit the means of transportation, using
the tolls and mask is the preventive measure in context of the outbreak. Secondly, to observe and
regulate the activities of the subject of particular disease is the part of the framework. The
activities comprises of coughing in the public, hand wash and minimize the transportation
activities as this disease is a droplet infection.
International response includes the prevention strategies to minimize the outbreak and these
techniques involve both medical as well as non-medical prevention strategies. The medical
preventive measures comprise of the medications which reduce the outbreak and reduce the
effectiveness of the infectious disease. On the contrary, the non-medical strategies comprise of
the isolation of the patient and the screening process. One Health is a multi-disciplinary dealing
with the risk factors that are associated with health (Kumar, 2010). This approach suggests that
the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems are interrelated with each other and the
occurrence infectious disease needs to be addressed. According to the One Health perspective,
the spread of the H1N1 influenza is dangerous and this particular approach received a significant
response from various health institutions and other organizations as well. WHO, World Bank,
US center for disease control and prevention, European Commission, US department of health
and agriculture contributed in the management of the risk (Li, 2013).
International health organizations joined hands with the WHO to prevent the spread of this
outbreak. According to the one health perspective, infectious diseases create an adverse impact
on the health of the people and these are the reasons for rising mortality rates in the past few
decades. Moreover, humans are the major reason behind the wide spread disease of influenza
because of the traveling pattern. The researches have highlighted that the increase in the pattern
of transport is the major reason behind the spread of the disease (Vries, 2010).
WHO stated that the massive spread of H1N1 influenza is one causes the death of several people.
WHO guidelines indicate that the prevention of the H1N1 is necessary due to the number of
deaths it caused (Hui, 2010). Prevention of the disease is significant to minimize the impact.
However, WHO and other international health organizations assessed the infectious disease and

H1N1 Influenza 5
reported that all pandemic diseases are hazardous for health because people are not immune
towards the particular disease. The assessment of the transportation pattern is very important to
minimize the widespread of the dangerous disease because the means of transportation is the
major reason behind the widespread of the disease (Li, 2013).
According to the researches, the infectious diseases such as influenza spread through the
transport system and this strain virus can not only spread in human beings but also impacts the
ecosystem and can be destructive for the human lives as well. Ecology plays a vital role in the
spread of the outbreak.
Role of international health regulation
IHR made efforts to control the spread of influenza. IHR bring improvement in health
governance and design the model of preventive measures against influenza to respond to the
public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs). The IHR combines the state
parties to develop the surveillance system to detect and control the widespread of the disease.
Moreover, the state parties include the trade associations as well because the transport system is
the major reason behind the disease spread. The implementation of health regulations is difficult
for developing nations due to the lack of resources (Tilston, 2010).
According to the international health regulations, it is very much difficult to identify and assess
the infectious disease and more specifically if the disease is new to the countries. The
surveillance system and models are very much necessary to control this widespread disease
which causes the number of deaths in a very short period of time. The prevention and
surveillance system of the international health standards and WHO includes the assessment and
the monitoring of the particular infectious disease (Li, 2013).
The international health regualtions joined the hand with WHO and designed the
surveillance system to monitor the epidemiological effect of HIN1 influenza. The monitoring
team comprises of the team of clinical specialists, and the personals of various health
organizations who seek the major reason behind the disease and identify the preventive measures
against this historical outbreak (Shrestha, 2011). Moreover, the system claims that all the well-
resourced countries must report the WHO in the case of observing any suspect of this infectious

H1N1 Influenza 6
disease in the country. However, the countries who are not enjoying the good resources are very
much challenging for the WHO and international health standards as well (Kumar, 2010).
The European center of the disease prevention and control with the collaboration of the WHO
took measures in the countries to manage the risk of pandemic influenza. The disease spread in
the United Kingdom as well and cause the death of a number of people. (To& K. K, 2010).
Critique and Evaluation
H1N1 influenza is a dangerous and infectious disease who causes death to the number of people.
This is the widely spread disease and the major sign of concern for global health. The influenza
was first detected in the United States in 2009 but spread in other countries as well. The response
from other countries and international organizations are very immediate in perspective of the
disease and the United Kingdom give major importance to the disease as well, as it kills more
than 12000 people in the United States (Worobey, 2014).
The response of the WHO and other international health organizations depict the importance of
the infectious disease. If the national and international response is evaluated, the WHO prevents
the spread of the disease using one health perceptive by taking a couple of measures (Wu, 2010).
Firstly, the development of the monitoring system which played a part in the risk management
because the proper monitoring system gives the proper data to the WHO through which the risk
management is easy. However, the response from a few countries is very much challenging for
the WHO and international health organizations as well. The countries observe the deaths from
the cases of influenza but unable to respond well due to the lack of health resources (Tilston,
2010).
The assessment programs from the health institutes of the United States and other countries
comprise of the evaluation of the means of transportation because the virus is spread through the
transportation system. It is further evaluated that, the ecosystem played a part in the transfer of
the infection. Moreover, the one health perspective indicates that the ecosystem, animals, and
humans are interlinked with each other and play a part in the spread of disease (Nguyen-Van-
Tam, 2010). In the evaluation of the response, the WHO and other organizations seeking
preventive measures by using one- health perspective. In response to the disease, the WHO
introduces a couple of factors to prevent the spread of disease. Firstly, the monitoring of this

H1N1 Influenza 7
infectious disease through surveillance system which includes the rate of spread, the reason
behind the outbreak of the disease to different countries and the means of the outbreak as
well (Zarychanski, 2010).
The global reaction contains the anticipation systems to limit the episode and these procedures
involve both therapeutic and non-restorative aversion strategies. The restorative preventive
measures contain the drugs which lessens the flare-up and decreases the success of this
irresistible malady (Sullivan, 2010). In actuality, the non-therapeutic treatment contains the
seclusion and the screening procedure. The one wellbeing is the multi-disciplinary methodology
who manages the hazard factors that are related to wellbeing (Goldfarb, 2011). As indicated by
the one wellbeing point of view, the spread of the H1N1 fluid perilous and this specific
methodology get a critical reaction from different wellbeing establishments and different
organizations too. The World wellbeing Organization (WHO), World Bank, US place for
sickness control and counteractive action, European Commission, US branch of wellbeing and
farming had an impact to deal with the hazard (Vijaykrishna, 2010).
The assessment and monitoring allow the WHO to prepare well against the management of the
disease. Secondly, the biological and non-biological measures played a part to prevent the spread
of this infectious disease. The biological treatment includes the medications and the vaccinations
of the disease to reduce the rate of death because people are not immune to the
disease (Campbell, 2010). Moreover, the non-biological treatment comprises of assessment,
evaluation of the disease through different measures. Moreover, the awareness of infectious
disease and its adverse effects must be part of preventive measures. The awareness includes the
risk minimization by taking some precautionary measures like avoid contacting to others because
this virus spread through means of transportation (Li, 2012).
Response Plan
Pandemic influenza in one of the most dangerous diseases and WHO and international health
regulations give importance to risk management. The 2013 guidelines of the WHO focuses on
developing the plan against pandemic influenza. Moreover, the plan is based on the facts and
lessons learned from the past. Moreover, the WHO claims that the risk and disaster management
plan must be flexible and in accordance with the benefit of the society as well. The WHO global

H1N1 Influenza 8
health model is one the prime focus of the guidelines which comprises of the responsibilities of
the WHO in managing the health disaster (Monsalvo, 2011).
The response of the national and international communities depicts that, influenza is a
death causing infectious disease and the particular virus change its nature at regular interval.
Moreover, the couple of lessons learn from the past response of state and international
community. Firstly, trend of the particular disease is the helpful assessment to control the disease
because, an infectious disease can be controlled by controlling the trends. Secondly the source of
outbreak need to assess which is generally the movement of an individual. For instance, Hendra
virus spread quickly in the Queensland and causes number of deaths. The main cause behind the
outbreak of such disease is the close proximity of the horses and flying horses. The investigation
found that, contact of bat saliva and urine is considered as one of the major reasons in the context
of destructive outbreak (Girard, 2010).
The future plan to prevent the outbreak comprises of three major elements. Firstly, the
non-pharmaceutical measures played a vital part which comprises of the screening process to
delay the outbreak. Secondly, an implementation the one health movement is one of the major
elements and play a part in the control process. One health movement put the efforts to minimize
and reduce the risk of outbreak and depicts that, the health of animals, plants and ecosystem are
interconnected with each other such as, the movement of horses and other animals also
responsible for the outbreak. The one health campaign highlight the reasons of outbreak with the
control solution to bring future improvement. At last, the use of antiviral medicines is effective
preventive measure is the future (Wrammert, 2011). The influenza disease spread quickly and
put an adverse impact on the health so the improvement in the surveillance system plays a part in
the monitoring of the disease. In health care settings, it is vital to identify the cases of influenza
and control the activities of the induvial suffering from the disease because the outbreak occurs
due to the movement of an individual. The vaccination of infectious disease is an effective
measure to prevent the population from influenza. The preventive measures reduce the intensity
of the outbreak of influenza or play a part in the delay of a particular disease (Wrammert, 2011).
Conclusion
On the basis of the above discussion and analysis it can be concluded that, the H1N1 influenza
was one of the dangerous infectious diseases and the outbreak of such hazardous disease is

H1N1 Influenza 9
destructive for the health of the human population. The H1N1 flu murdered over 12,000
individuals in a year in the United States and the disease breakout is an indication of concern for
the general population at the global level. The worldwide reaction towards the disease breakout
was massive in light of the fact that the sickness spread across the nations rapidly. WHO
investigations reported that the unexpected health emergency was paid attention all through the
world and the medications are structured against the contamination to stop the effect of the
specific infection. After the prompt reaction towards the disease, the mortality rate lowered as
compared to previous years. The given pandemic is the first which goes under the setting of
global guidelines and norms and the reaction of the world is very genuine. The reason for the
reaction of the worldwide world is to lessen the episodes and to limit the power of the flare-up.
Pandemic flu in a standout amongst the most perilous ailments and WHO and universal
wellbeing guidelines offer significance to the hazard the board. The 2013 rules of the WHO
center on the building up the arrangement against the pandemic flu. Besides, the arrangement
depends on the certainties and exercises which gained from the past. WHO worldwide heath
model is one the prime focal point of the rules which includes the duties of the WHO in dealing
with the health fiasco. In addition, the investigation is viable in dealing with the hazard in light
of the fact that the WHO treat the nations as per the pattern of wellbeing wins in the general
public.
The international health regulation united the hand with WHO and planned the reconnaissance
framework to screen the epidemiological impact of the HIN1 flu. The observing group involves
the group of clinical pros and the personals of different wellbeing associations who look for the
significant purpose for the sickness and distinguish the preventive measures against this
verifiable flare-up.
REFERENCES
Brien, S., Kwong, J. C., & Buckeridge, D. L. (2012). The determinants of 2009 pandemic
A/H1N1 influenza vaccination: a systematic review. Vaccine, 30(7), 1255-1264.

H1N1 Influenza 10
Chowell, G., Echevarría-Zuno, S., Viboud, C., Simonsen, L., Tamerius, J., Miller, M. A., &
Borja-Aburto, V. H. (2011). Characterizing the epidemiology of the 2009 influenza
A/H1N1 pandemic in Mexico. PLoS medicine, 8(5), e1000436.
Campbell, A., Rodin, R., Kropp, R., Mao, Y., Hong, Z., Vachon, J., ... & Pelletier, L. (2010).
Risk of severe outcomes among patients admitted to hospital with pandemic (H1N1)
influenza. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(4), 349-355.
Fineberg, H. V. (2014). Pandemic preparedness and response—lessons from the H1N1 influenza
of 2009. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(14), 1335-1342.
Girard, M. P., Tam, J. S., Assossou, O. M., & Kieny, M. P. (2010). The 2009 A (H1N1)
influenza virus pandemic: A review. Vaccine, 28(31), 4895-4902.
Goldfarb, I., Panda, B., Wylie, B., & Riley, L. (2011). Uptake of influenza vaccine in pregnant
women during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. American journal of obstetrics and
gynecology, 204(6), S112-S115.
Hui, D. S., Lee, N., & Chan, P. K. (2010). Clinical management of pandemic 2009 influenza A
(H1N1) infection. Chest, 137(4), 916-925.
Kumar, S., Havens, P. L., Chusid, M. J., Willoughby Jr, R. E., Simpson, P., & Henrickson, K. J.
(2010). Clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of children hospitalized with 2009
pandemic H1N1 influenza A infection. The Pediatric infectious disease journal, 29(7),
591-594.
Kumar, D., Michaels, M. G., Morris, M. I., Green, M., Avery, R. K., Liu, C., ... & Marr, K. A.
(2010). Outcomes from pandemic influenza A H1N1 infection in recipients of solid-
organ transplants: a multicentre cohort study. The Lancet infectious diseases, 10(8), 521-
526.

H1N1 Influenza 11
Libster, R., Bugna, J., Coviello, S., Hijano, D. R., Dunaiewsky, M., Reynoso, N., ... & Santucho,
F. (2010). Pediatric hospitalizations associated with 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1)
in Argentina. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(1), 45-55.
Li, G. M., Chiu, C., Wrammert, J., McCausland, M., Andrews, S. F., Zheng, N. Y., ... &
Mulligan, M. (2012). Pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine induces a recall response in
humans that favors broadly cross-reactive memory B cells. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 9047-9052.
Li, Y., Myers, J. L., Bostick, D. L., Sullivan, C. B., Madara, J., Linderman, S. L., ... & Principi,
N. (2013). Immune history shapes specificity of pandemic H1N1 influenza antibody
responses. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 210(8), 1493-1500.
Monsalvo, A. C., Batalle, J. P., Lopez, M. F., Krause, J. C., Klemenc, J., Hernandez, J. Z., ... &
Dalurzo, L. (2011). Severe pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza disease due to pathogenic
immune complexes. Nature medicine, 17(2), 195.
Miller, E., Hoschler, K., Hardelid, P., Stanford, E., Andrews, N., & Zambon, M. (2010).
Incidence of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 infection in England: a cross-sectional
serological study. The Lancet, 375(9720), 1100-1108.
Mena, I., Nelson, M. I., Quezada-Monroy, F., Dutta, J., Cortes-Fernández, R., Lara-Puente, J. H.,
... & Rambaut, A. (2016). Origins of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in swine in
Mexico. Elife, 5, e16777.
Nguyen-Van-Tam, J. S., Openshaw, P. J. M., Hashim, A., Gadd, E. M., Lim, W. S., Semple, M.
G., ... & Enstone, J. E. (2010). Risk factors for hospitalisation and poor outcome with
pandemic A/H1N1 influenza: United Kingdom first wave (May–September
2009). Thorax, 65(7), 645-651.
O’riordan, S., Barton, M., Yau, Y., Read, S. E., Allen, U., & Tran, D. (2010). Risk factors and
outcomes among children admitted to hospital with pandemic H1N1
influenza. Cmaj, 182(1), 39-44.
SteelFisher, G. K., Blendon, R. J., Bekheit, M. M., & Lubell, K. (2010). The public's response to
the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(22), e65.

H1N1 Influenza 12
Sullivan, S. J., Jacobson, R. M., Dowdle, W. R., & Poland, G. A. (2010, January). 2009 H1N1
Influenza. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 64-76). Elsevier.
Shrestha, S. S., Swerdlow, D. L., Borse, R. H., Prabhu, V. S., Finelli, L., Atkins, C. Y., ... &
Brammer, L. (2011). Estimating the burden of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in the
United States (April 2009–April 2010). Clinical Infectious Diseases, 52(suppl_1), S75-
S82.
Tilston, N. L., Eames, K. T., Paolotti, D., Ealden, T., & Edmunds, W. J. (2010). Internet-based
surveillance of Influenza-like-illness in the UK during the 2009 H1N1 influenza
pandemic. BMC public health, 10(1), 650.
To, K. K., Hung, I. F., Li, I. W., Lee, K. L., Koo, C. K., Yan, W. W., ... & Luk, W. K. (2010).
Delayed clearance of viral load and marked cytokine activation in severe cases of
pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza virus infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 50(6), 850-
859.
Vijaykrishna, D., Poon, L. L. M., Zhu, H. C., Ma, S. K., Li, O. T. W., Cheung, C. L., ... & Guan,
Y. (2010). Reassortment of pandemic H1N1/2009 influenza A virus in
swine. Science, 328(5985), 1529-1529.
van der Vries, E., Stelma, F. F., & Boucher, C. A. (2010). Emergence of a multidrug-resistant
pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(14), 1381-
1382.
Wrammert, J., Koutsonanos, D., Li, G. M., Edupuganti, S., Sui, J., Morrissey, M., ... & Mehta,
A. (2011). Broadly cross-reactive antibodies dominate the human B cell response against
2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza virus infection. Journal of Experimental
Medicine, 208(1), 181-193.
Writing Committee of the WHO Consultation on Clinical Aspects of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009
Influenza. (2010). Clinical aspects of pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus
infection. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(18), 1708-1719.

H1N1 Influenza 13
Wu, J. T., Ma, E. S., Lee, C. K., Chu, D. K., Ho, P. L., Shen, A. L., ... & Lin, C. K. (2010). The
infection attack rate and severity of 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza in Hong
Kong. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 51(10), 1184-1191.
Worobey, M., Han, G. Z., & Rambaut, A. (2014). Genesis and pathogenesis of the 1918
pandemic H1N1 influenza A virus. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 111(22), 8107-8112.
Xu, R., Ekiert, D. C., Krause, J. C., Hai, R., Crowe, J. E., & Wilson, I. A. (2010). Structural basis
of preexisting immunity to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza virus. Science, 328(5976),
357-360..
Xu, R., McBride, R., Nycholat, C. M., Paulson, J. C., & Wilson, I. A. (2012). Structural
characterization of the hemagglutinin receptor specificity from the 2009 H1N1 influenza
pandemic. Journal of virology, 86(2), 982-990.
Zarychanski, R., Stuart, T. L., Kumar, A., Doucette, S., Elliott, L., Kettner, J., & Plummer, F.
(2010). Correlates of severe disease in patients with 2009 pandemic influenza (H1N1)
virus infection. Cmaj, 182(3), 257-264.