The Biden administration is creating a new pandemic preparedness office that will oversee federal efforts in countering large-scale health threats.
A permanent office in the Executive Office of the President, OPPR will be “charged with leading, coordinating, and implementing actions related to preparedness for, and response to, known and unknown biological threats or pathogens that could lead to a pandemic or to significant public health-related disruptions in the United States.”
The new department will replace the existing “COVID-19 Response Team and Mpox Team at the White House” and aid in addressing potential public health threats and outbreaks from COVID-19, polio, RSV, avian and human influenza, and Mpox.
Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Paul Friedrichs will head the new office. Dr. Friedrichs is currently special assistant to the president and senior director for global health security and biodefense at the National Security Council (NSC), according to the statement.
He'll start in the new role on Aug. 7.
“Prior to joining the NSC, Dr. Friedrichs most recently served as the Joint Staff Surgeon and the medical advisor to the Department of Defense (DOD) COVID-19 Task Force,” the White House statement reads.
WHO Pandemic Accord
The Biden administration’s announcement of the new OPPR office comes as the World Health Organization (WHO) is engaged in drafting a global convention on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.Member states of the WHO have been working on the accord since February 2022, a draft of which is expected to be submitted for consideration next year at the organization’s decision-making body.
The aim of the accord will be to reportedly build resilience to pandemics; support the prevention, detection, and response to outbreaks having pandemic potential; ensure “equitable access” to pandemic countermeasures; and support “global coordination through a stronger and more accountable WHO,” per the organization.
The convention will exist under the WHO constitution and will have both legally binding as well as non-legally binding components.
“Member States will decide the terms of the accord, including whether any of its provisions will be legally binding on Member States as a matter of international law,” the WHO stated.
In case a member of the accord doesn’t meet its obligations, “it would be up to Member States to decide if and what compliance mechanisms would be included in the new accord on pandemic preparedness and response.”
Article 21 expands these powers, giving the assembly the authority to adopt rules regarding “sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures” during periods of global outbreaks. This essentially gives the WHO the right to determine lockdowns.
Article 21 also gives the organization authority to decide what amounts to a pandemic, how testing can be carried out, what test results would be considered positive or negative, and which drugs to suppress and approve.
It’s unknown whether there’s any relationship between the Biden administration’s OPPR and the WHO’S pandemic accord.
America’s COVID-19 Response
Since the worldwide COVID-19 outbreak started in Wuhan, China, the U.S. government has imposed various measures aimed at controlling and ending the pandemic.In March 2020, the administration declared a nationwide emergency. Several states implemented shutdowns to prevent the spread of the disease, with places such as schools, restaurants, and bars closed. The White House also imposed social distancing measures.
In April 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended Americans wear a mask when outside their homes.
In December 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines. That same month, Moderna’s vaccine also received EUA approval. A few months later, in February 2021, EUA was given to Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine. Later on, booster shots of vaccines were also green-lit.
However, many of the promoted pandemic-era measures have been found to have had adverse effects.
“In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument,” the analysis reads.