THE WORLD HEALTH

ORGANISATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.Welcome Letter

2.COMMITTEE HISTORY:
a.INTRODUCTION
b. MANDATE
c. POWER AND FUNCTIONS
d. CONCLUSION

3.AGENDA:
a.Introduction
b.Process of Roadmap development

4.CASE STUDIES:
a.HEALTH WORKERS
b.SOCIODEMOCRATIC GROUP
c.SOCIAL/EMPLOYMEN GROUP

5.Questions A Resolution Must Answer (QARMAs

6. Websites recognized by MUNs

WELCOME NOTE
GREETINGS DELEGATES,
I am Avinash Madnani. I am also one of you. I started MUN in 2020. It’s
my pleasure to welcome you all to the World health organisation of Star
MUN. Hope you will enlighten the conference. Everything you do in
conference matters. I don’t believe in the quantity of speaking but in the
quality of speaking. Winning in conferences is not everything but the
experience you receive and you use that experience in future matters. In
january of 2020 I didn't know what MUN is but now I have plenty of
successful MUNs. May some of you be the future leaders and the speaker in
the World Health Organisation or any other UN bodies. For being a future
leader the hard work should be started at an early age. It doesn't matter
how much experience you have in the past. The only thing important is how
you as a delegate deal with situations at a global level. Diplomacy comes
overnight; it's a way of emotion expressed by delegates. Marking will be on
everything speech, decorum, diplomacy,questions you raised. It's my
personal suggestion not to use pronouns in any conference you are
representing a country you have dignity. Any personal harm will not be
tolerated. If someone hurts you by any means you can contact me.If you do
not know any procedure you can contact me anytime.

REGARDS AVINASH MADNANI (HEAD CHAIR)

COMMITTEE HISTORY
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization (WHO) was established in 1945 as the
result of a meeting of the UN Conference on International Organizations.
1. The Constitution of the World Health Organization was approved the
following year, and in 1948, the first session of the World Health Assembly
convened to decide what the priorities of the organization would be.

2. Over the years, many of those priorities have remained on WHO's

agenda - malaria, maternal health, and nutrition, for instance, and
unfortunately, remain relevant to this day – alongside newly recognized
public health challenges, such as mental health and HIV/AIDS. Since its
inception, WHO has been successful in eliminating or making scarce
numerous threats to global health.

3. Smallpox, once a worldwide epidemic, was last documented in 1977

thanks in large part to a program led by WHO.

4. A comparable campaign is still underway to eradicate polio, and

although some milestones have not been met, the extent to which the
disease is found throughout the world has diminished drastically.

5. The rates at which infants and children are vaccinated against

potentially deadly diseases have climbed impressively since WHO first
began its campaign to ensure childhood immunization in 1974.

6. These are among only a few of the Organization’s accomplishments, and

the list continues to grow.
MANDATE
The mandate of the WHO can be read in the Organization's Constitution,
which enumerates several general objectives and functions.8 The
Constitution empowers WHO to act in the interest of public health through
research in health-related fields, promotion of preventative health care,
provision of specialized aid and assistance in emergencies, and
standardization of practices.9 Mental health, maternal and child health,
nutrition, and sanitation are all specifically mentioned in the Constitution,
implying the special importance of these topics.10 Some of WHO's other
stated functions are to assist governments in building their health systems,
to eradicate disease, to develop standards for food and pharmaceuticals,
and to work vigorously toward the Organization's objective of “the
attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.”11 WHO's
membership is comprised of 164 Member States, each of which may send
delegations to meetings of the World Health Assembly.13 The Executive
Board's membership is drawn from the following regions: seven members
from Africa; six from the Americas; three from South-East Asia; eight
from Europe; five from the Eastern Mediterranean; and five from the
Western Pacific.14 The Executive Board includes 34 members who are
elected for three-year terms.15 These members are appointed by their
respective Member States, and they meet twice annually.16 WHO is
currently in the process of reforming its own structures in order to create a
more efficient organization that is better integrated with other actors in the
field of global public health. As part of this process, WHO is seeking input
from non-state actors and the Executive Board's meetings regarding its
partnerships and reassessment of its objectives into the next five years.17
In 2013, WHO adopted its 2014-2019 work programme and its budget for
the next year.18 In 2014, WHO will discuss proposals for “streamlined
reporting of Member States” and outcomes of efforts for financial
reform.19
POWERS & FUNCTIONS
The WHO is governed, on its most basic level, by its Constitution.20
WHO's Six Point Agenda also guides the Organization,, providing broad
objectives through which the Organization will focus its work.21
Guidelines approved by WHO govern its work and are aimed at improving
Member States' national health policies, and by influencing action in that
capacity, they influence the work of WHO as a whole.22 WHO's
Constitution also places a special emphasis on cooperation with similar
organizations and agencies.23 This cooperation is aimed at promoting
preventive health measures, such as sanitation, nutrition, and shelter, and
at partnering with scientists and specialists in order to advance
technological, research, and policy goals for global health.24 The World
Health Organization may adopt resolutions on agenda topics; this is the
Organization's primary way of presenting recommendations relating to
global public health.25 The WHO Executive Board is responsible for the
implementation of these resolutions.26 The Executive Board may also
address proposals made by Member States, establish new committees,
delegate tasks to those committees, and make recommendations to Member
States for the reformation of their own individual health policies.27 Special
awareness campaigns and other targeted programs also make up a large
part of WHO's work.28 The Organization devotes specified days annually
to topics such as tuberculosis, tobacco use, hepatitis, and malaria, among
others.29 These days focus on promoting awareness of the issues to which
they are dedicated, forming new partnerships with donors, and stimulating
the creation of work related to those issues.30 Research is also one of
WHO's crucial functions.31 From research on specific pathogens and
diseases, such as tropical disease and cancer, to research into what health
care policies may be most effective for Member States, WHO plays a
crucial role as a factfinder.
CONCLUSION
THE WHO HAS POWER UPTO SOME EXTENDS. PLEASE VERIFY
IT IN YOUR DOCUMENTS. THE NON-POWERED DOCUMENT WILL
BE NOT ACCEPTED IN THE COMMITTEE. -EXECUTIVE BOARD

AGENDA : Deliberation on the effectiveness , usefulness , and

feasibility of vaccines.

INTRODUCTION
Given the urgency and wide-ranging effects of the COVID-19 pandemic,
SAGE has developed an approach to help inform deliberation around the
range of recommendations that may be appropriate under different
epidemiologic and vaccine supply conditions. The SAGE consensus is that
currently available evidence is too limited to allow any recommendations
for use of any specific vaccine against COVID-19 at this time .

ROADMAP FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY

i) the status of the pandemic in the proposed implementation area (that is,
the epidemiologic setting in terms of the degree of ongoing severe acute
respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and
COVID-19 burden);

ii) the amount and timing of vaccine supply and availability, respectively;

iii) specific product characteristics of the available vaccine(s);

iv) the benefit–risk assessment for the different population subgroups at

the time vaccination is being considered for deployment;

as well as other standard criteria used in developing SAGE

recommendations (for example, feasibility, acceptability and resource use).
These factors, together with the Values Framework, should guide the
appropriate public health strategy for vaccine deployment of specific
vaccines. Overall public health strategies by epidemiologic setting and
vaccine supply stage SAGE recommends overall public health strategies,
grounded in the Values Framework, for each of the three epidemiologic
scenarios (Table 1). The strategies accommodate the dynamic nature of
vaccine supply and epidemiologic conditions in each country.
1.Community Transmission setting
2.Sporadic Cases or Clusters of Cases setting
3.No Cases setting:
Priority uses of COVID-19 vaccines The rationale for the inclusion of each
prioritized vaccine use case based upon population subgroup is anchored in
the Values Framework principles and objectives. For each priority group,
the Values Framework objective(s) that would be supported by prioritizing
this population for vaccination are indicated by parenthetical abbreviations
after the population description (for example, A1); the legend that links
these abbreviations to the objectives is provided below Table 1. While a
detailed explanation of the rationale for each of the priority groups is
beyond the scope of this document, three examples of rationales are
provided
CASE STUDIES
“CASES ARE IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT
CRISIS” -AVINASH MADNANI
Three examples of rationales for priority uses of COVID-19 vaccines

1. HEALTH WORKERS
Health workers at high to very high risk of becoming infected and
transmitting SARS-CoV-2 in the Community Transmission epidemiologic
setting For the Community Transmission epidemiologic setting, health
workers at high to very high risk of becoming infected and transmitting
SARS-CoV-2 are included in Stage Ia. There are three reasons, linked to
the Values Framework, supporting this prioritization. First, protecting
these workers protects the availability of a critical essential service in the
COVID-19 pandemic response. Also, the indirect health effects of the
pandemic beyond COVID-19 are likely to be much worse if such services
are compromised or overwhelmed. Second, evidence suggests that health
workers are at high risk of acquiring infection and possibly of morbidity
and mortality (10, 11). There is also a risk of onward transmission to people
who are also at high risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. Third,
prioritization of these workers is also supported by the principle of
reciprocity; they play critical roles in the COVID-19 response, working
under intense and challenging conditions, putting not only themselves but
also potentially their households at higher risk for the sake of others. There
are also pragmatic reasons for prioritizing health workers at high to very
high risk of infection. Health workers already interact directly with health
systems, which should facilitate effective deployment of a vaccine
programme, particularly including if two or more doses need to be
administered. Launching a vaccine programme with a relatively accessible
target population will allow more time for the development of delivery
mechanisms to other priority groups. In a second step (Stage Ib), older
adults defined by age-based risk specific to country or region are included

2.SOCIODEMOCRATIC GROUP
Sociodemographic groups at significantly higher risk of severe disease or
death For the Community Transmission epidemiologic setting,
sociodemographic groups at significantly higher risk of severe disease or
death are included in Stage II. The reasons for this prioritization are
grounded in the principles of equal respect and equity. In keeping with the
overall public health strategy that places an initial focus on direct reduction
of mortality and morbidity, groups with comorbidities or health states that
put them at significantly higher risk of severe disease or death are
prioritized to Stage II. However, there are other groups in the population
who may be at just as high a risk of these severe outcomes but who are not
captured in a prioritization solely by comorbidities. These groups
disproportionately include those who are systematically disadvantaged with
respect to social standing and economic and political power. In many
contexts, disadvantaged groups are more likely to experience a higher
burden of infection and consequent COVID-19 because of crowded work or
living conditions over which they have no effective control (12–15), as well
as a higher prevalence of background states of poor health that increase
their risk of severe COVID-19 (16). They may also have less access to
appropriate health care necessary for the diagnosis of high-risk conditions
such as heart failure or chronic kidney disease (17). Some individuals in
these groups would likely qualify for prioritization if their comorbidities
were known or ascertainable, but because of inequitable access to health
care their conditions often will be undiagnosed and untreated. Version 1.1
13 November 2020 9 Which disadvantaged socio demographic groups are
at significantly higher risk of severe disease or death will vary from country
to country. In many contexts, the evidence of elevated risk for COVID-19
severe disease and death will be lacking or less clear than for the risk
factors like age or comorbidities. Policy-makers may have to decide which
disadvantaged groups are likely to be sufficiently burdened by COVID-19
to include in Stage II. While broader efforts must be made to reach out and
identify risks among disadvantaged groups, these decisions may have to be
based on reasonable assumptions about differential impact inferred from
other relevant contexts, including past public health emergencies (18).
Table 1 provides examples of groups that, depending on the country
context, may fall under this prioritization category.

3.SOCIAL/EMPLOYMEN GROUP
Social/employment groups at elevated risk of acquiring and transmitting
infection because they are unable to effectively physically distance For the
Community Transmission epidemiologic setting, social/employment groups
at elevated risk of acquiring and transmitting infection because they are
unable to effectively physically distance are included in Stage III. There is
considerable overlap in the groups that should be considered in this
category and the Stage II sociodemographic groups category just
discussed. The relevant difference is that for some disadvantaged groups
there may not be good reasons to conclude that they are at significantly
elevated risk of severe disease and death (and thus that they do not qualify
under Stage II). However, these groups may nevertheless still be at
increased risk (if not significantly increased risk) of severe COVID-19 due
to the reasons related to inequity discussed above. Groups that have no
choice but to work without physical distancing or access to personal
protective equipment, or no choice but to live in high-density homes in
high-density neighbourhoods fall into this category (19, 20). They are
disadvantaged relative to other groups in the population who benefit more
easily and more significantly from non-pharmaceutical interventions, both
in terms of their own risk and in terms of onward transmission to loved
ones and co-workers. Incarcerated people also fall into this category,
although the rationale is somewhat different. Even if the restriction of their
liberty is justified, that does not justify leaving unaddressed the elevated
risk associated with being incarcerated. In an ideal world, policy-makers
could clearly distinguish, based on evidence regarding level of risk, which
disadvantaged groups fall under Stage II criteria and which under Stage
III criteria. In the real world, these decisions may have to be made with
only limited relevant data. Adherence to the principles of equal respect and
equity will require a careful assessment to ensure that all relevant socio
demographic groups are given equal consideration for both Stages.

Questions A Resolution Must Answer

(QARMAs)
Q1. STRATEGIES SHOULD BE USED WHILE GIVING VACCINES?
Q2. HOW TO MAKE AN EFFICIENT USE OF VACCINES?
Q3. FLAWS AND CORRECTIONS IN PRESENT ROADMAP OF WHO?
Q4. HOW TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY AT A GLOBAL
PERSPECTIVE?
Q5. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LAWS NEEDED TO TACKLE
VACCINES ACCESSIBILITY?
Q6. VACCINES SUPPLY TO POOR COMMUNITIES?
WEBSITES RECOGNIZED BY MUNS

1. News Sources
a. Reuters

It is an independent private news agency, which mostly covers international events of

importance. All Reuters articles from Reuters will be considered credible.

Website: www.reuters.com

b. Al Jazeera

Points of order cannot be raised based upon news from this source, however, a point of
information citing this as its source will be acceptable, and accusations in speeches may
be made on the basis of Al Jazeera. Reuters reports will be considered more credible
than Al Jazeera.

Website: http://www.aljazeera.com

c. State Operated News Agencies

In many countries the government itself partially or fully controls the media, and thus the
subsequent flow of information. Hence, news reports from such outlets can be used by a
participant to substantiate or refute a fact in context of that government’s position on the
agenda in the council. For examples,

i. RIA Novosti (Russia)

ii. IRNA (Iran)

iii. Xinhua News Agency and CCTV (People’s Republic of China)

*Please note that a particular country’s news agency cannot be used to accuse another
country’s policies or actions.

2. Government Reports
These are reports which various organs, ministries, departments or affiliated agencies of a
government release. They can be used in a similar way as the State Operated News Agencies
reports. It is recommended to only use your own country’s government reports for your
country’s stance. Use of other country’s government reports for creating your own country's
stance is not recommended.

This also includes official statements made by the country. Government reports will be
considered more credible than national news agencies.

3. International Organs
Data from all credible international organs will be taken into consideration for Point of Orders
and for general marking.

Ex- South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

European Union (EU)

Please note that a delegate may only use the data from an international body, which their
country is a part of. For example, the delegate of India cannot use information from the
European Union as India is not a part of the EU.

*UN official data will at all times be taken into higher consideration than any other international
organ considering that this is the UN itself, and we ideally take our own collected data to be the
most credible.

USEFUL LINKS
https://www.who.int/news/item/31-12-2020-who-issues-its-first-emergency-use-validation-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-and-
emphasizes-need-for-equitable-global-access

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/2/07-040089/en/

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits.html

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/growing/

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-vaccine_effectiveness-measurement-2021.1

Session4_VEfficacy_VEffectiveness.PDF

https://www.afro.who.int/news/what-covid-19-vaccine-efficacy