A/HRC/45/12 other marginalized communities, face more exposure to zoonotic diseases due to environmental determinants of health and social conditions, which correlate with the spread and exposure to diseases.25 21. Often, the cost of prevention of disease and disability heavily outweighs the cost of treatment, and cannot be compared to the incalculable burdens of death. The overall costs of addressing the health impacts of COVID-19 are yet to be known, but it is already clear that the economic arguments of States reluctant to take measures to prevent exposure are often nonsensical and misleading and pander to financial interests. B. Poor governance 22. Good governance systems are built on the rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, participation and inclusiveness, equity and accountability, among other pillars. Where public health challenges are poorly addressed, some of these elements are often missing. The COVID-19 pandemic is no exception. In the present section, the Special Rapporteur looks at governance systems for prevention of exposure, namely, responsiveness and inclusiveness. Transparency is addressed separately below, in sect. III.D. 23. In general, States are duty-bound to protect human rights by taking timely steps, on the basis of the technical, human and economic resources available to them, to prevent, halt and redress impacts on, inter alia, life, dignity and bodily integrity. Measures and restrictions on some rights can be justified to protect public health as long as those measures are lawful, strictly necessary, limited in time, subject to review, not arbitrary or discriminatory, based on scientific evidence and information, respectful of human dignity, and proportionate to achieve the objective. 26 Despite many States having the requisite technical, human and economic capacity, abysmal governance has led to a failure to protect human rights from exposure to the COVID-19 virus, especially at an early stage of the pandemic, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and left millions of other victims, including those who have lost loved ones, in its wake. 1. Responsiveness 24. Rapid government response was common among States with good practices. Such responses were driven by many factors, predominantly effective and efficient decisionmaking grounded in public health available to all and the implicit recognition that the principle duty of the State in such pandemics is to prevent exposure. The duty to prevent requires States to develop capacity and preparedness to provide a prompt and effective response to public health emergencies. Acting promptly is crucial to prevent further losses and to relax containment measures earlier. 25. States that successfully prevented millions of infections were better prepared, recognizing the grave risk, at least as soon as reports emerged from China. Countries that have reported some of the lowest infection and mortality rates worldwide adopted a disease elimination strategy 27 at a very early stage, which allowed them to be among the first countries to be declared virus free and to relax lockdown, social distancing and other measures sooner, while still actively monitoring the response. 26. Such States adopted coherent, coordinated, and early preventative and precautionary measures, including early closing of borders, testing and tracing, self-isolation orders, effective infection-tracking systems, proper data handling, creative use of technologies, and participation and transparency in measures addressed to citizens. Many of those States quickly created task forces comprising representatives of all government ministries and, crucially, of all regional and city governments, in order to ensure coordination and effective 25 26 27 See www.who.int/zoonoses/Report_Sept06.pdf; www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468693. See www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365536/? and www.oas.org/es/sadye/ publicaciones/GUIDE_ENG.pdf. See www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/aotearoa-new_zealands_covid19_elimination_strategy-_an_overview17may.pdf. 7