Tools of empirical epidemiology have been and are indispensable to focus political power on blocking the spreading of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by stopping transmission. The present paper is a comment on E. Gibney's article 'Whose coronavirus strategy worked best?' (Nature 2020;581:15-6). The strategy for phase 2 should be more complex and interdisciplinary than described in the paper in Nature, especially in the period before a vaccine and specific treatments are available. The focus on reducing the mortality of COVID-19 will have side effects, including excess mortality from other causes. A part of this excess mortality will be based on the reduction of health-care offers as a consequence of the pandemic, and on structural limitations of the health-care system. A special challenge is to understand the relationship between death from and death with COVID-19, and therefore the relevance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in people with pre-existing burdens, for example coronary heart disease, cancer or older age. There is a need to extend the recently used tools to all available instruments, including physiological principles of prevention and promotion. The way to integrate global solidarity into the strategies of the different countries is critical not only for global health but also for the peace and long-term success for each individual country. The consequences of efforts against COVID-19 and the impact on reduced air pollution and climate change are also important to analyse from a global health perspective.
Keywords: COVID-19; NaCuHeal; Nature-Culture-Health; community medicine; health promotion and prevention; infectious diseases; public health.