COVID-19 is a challenge to leaders at every level. History will judge how they fare in halting an invisible virus with the capacity to wreak havoc with the very fabric of societies, leaving death, damaged immune systems and economies in its wake. And the first wave will most likely be followed by others, possibly even later this year. There is a very real possibility that COVID-19 becomes endemic, much like its more benign corona relative the common cold, with much higher costs in human lives and economic growth. The virus strikes at a time when authoritarian populists have been gaining ground in many countries around the world, undermining constitutional checks and balances and evidence-based policymaking. Pandemics are not for populists. There is little room for empty slogans and sloppy intuition. At the same time, mistakes can have far-reaching and long-lasting implications. We need careful modelling and rigorous stress testing exploring worst-case scenarios. This doesn’t mean that we hand over power to experts completely. As we have seen, for example, in the UK, experts can disagree fundamentally on critical aspects of the response. What is important is that the different voices are heard and that there is research-based screening of opinions. In the end publically elected officials must take responsibility for the decisions. The complexity of the needed response to a pandemic is extraordinary. It involves delivering a wide range of very different public goods – locally as well as globally. Speed and scale are essential. So are research-based evidence and steep learning curves. The race to find a vaccine has already brought about the fastest exchange of scientific knowledge in human history. This achievement needs to be followed up with effective measures that scrutinises decisions and enhances learning. Addressing a pandemic is about fighting the weakest link – whether in an individual hospital or a country, or globally. Our greatest fear is that the virus will become endemic in countries with weak institutions and fragile health systems, or in refugee camps where chaos often rules and medical services are insufficient. Leadership is about protecting your own citizens, but also about ensuring that most vulnerable globally are provided for. A proper pandemic response also benefits from responses from all of us, whether it is about us as countries implementing policies slowing down the spread of the virus or us as individuals contributing by washing our hands and thinking twice before we spread doubtful information – the medical Journal Lancet has said that the Infodemic often takes as many lives as the pandemic itself. To succeed, leaders must be able to bring along their citizens. We must trust the measures leaders recommend and that others will also contribute. Populist leaders around the world initially belittled the threat from the virus, supressed information, and then now try to weaponise it accusing each other of being the source. Over time they have been forced to acknowledge the science, but the end result is a drop in the trust of institutions. Finding a vaccine requires yet another logic - the “best shot” model where leaders focus resources and encourage competition to achieve a desired result. In the interest of speed, they might infringe on intellectual property rights and take away paywalls around scientific journals. They must also find ways to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and make sure that there are not large gaps in the efforts. To scale up production quickly enough they may need to subsidise producers. In the end, there are no guarantees – there is still no vaccine against SARS or the common cold. While we are asking our leaders to do all this we must not forget about strengthening the basic health systems, particularly in developing countries, not mainly to treat current victims, but to take care of future waves of victims of the same virus and other future pandemics. Now is a rare opportunity for leaders to make needed improvements when the focus of voters is on health care. This is not the time for wishful thinking or rosy promises. Leaders must not be afraid of planning for the worst-case scenario, hoping of course that it does not materialise. The extra costs incurred of doing so will be puny in comparison. Proper scenario planning is extraordinarily complex, but thinking through the worst case focuses minds and potentially reduces the number of scenarios you have to consider. Leaders must also cooperate to ensure that the global institutions work together in a coherent and cost-effective way. WHO has come under heavy criticism, but it has gained credibility since the West African Ebola epidemic. It is the only institution that can provide global leadership and inspire trust – and trust is essential as Interventions in countries’ health system are incredibly sensitive. We undermine WHO at our own peril. The international financial institutions are important instruments in the fight against the pandemic – the World Bank has announced a 12bn dollar package for strengthening health systems and the IMF has promised facilities totalling 50bn dollars to provide liquidity and maintain financial stability. The regional development banks and financial safety nets can supplement efforts within their mandates. Effective leadership also crowds in the private sector and civil society. A number of public-private partnerships – like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunization (GAVI) which support the development and administration of vaccines, respectively – can be activated to strengthen the response. The G20 must make sure to fill the remaining funding gap. At the beginning of the pandemic the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, set up to enhance resilience and response capacity, asked for 8bn dollars, including 1bn dollar to strengthen WHO’s emergency and preparedness response, 250mn for surveillance and control measures, 2bn for vaccine development, 1bn for distributed manufacturing and delivery of vaccines, and 1.5bn of therapeutics to treat COVID-19. Taken together these measures give a sense of the complexity and magnitude of the required response to the pandemic. But the costs of inaction are so much greater, not only purely financially, but also in terms of the cohesion of our societies. A successful response can also become the beginning of rebuilding inclusive, meritocratic and accountable leadership, at the national level and globally. Hopefully, the world has learned its lessons before a second wave of the virus strikes • Khalid Abdulla-Janahi is Chairman of Vision3. Erik Berglof is Director of the Institute of Global Affairs, School of Public Policy, at LSE. Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view