The global response to COVID-19 has been uneven and disappointing in the vast majority of countries. The United States has borne the largest absolute burden of disease globally, as COVID-19 exploited pre-existing poor population health among Americans to spread rapidly, with devastating consequences. Why does the country that spends the most on healthcare in the world have one of the worst responses to COVID-19? We argue that this is because the United States conception of health is predominantly focused on healthcare, an overwhelming investment in developing drugs and treatments, and an underinvestment in the foundational conditions that keep people healthy. COVID-19 has exposed the limits of this approach to health. In order to prevent COVID-19 and future such pandemics, we must create the conditions that can keep population-level health threats at bay. This means addressing the conditions that shape health, including economics, employment, community networks, racial disparities, how we treat older adults, and the physical layout of our communities. To do so means acknowledging health as a public good, as a transnational project with countries working together to build a healthier world. It also means acknowledging that everyone has a right to health. These aspirations should become core to the global community’s health aspirations in the post-COVID-19 era.Based on a synthetic overview that embraces the evolution of the ‘health’ concept, and its related institutions, from the role of health as the main indicator of fundamental human rights-as envisaged in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights-to its qualification as the systems of disease control dependent on criteria of economic sustainability, the paper focuses on the implications and the impact of such evolution in two model scenarios which are centred on the COVID-19 pandemia. The article analyses COVID-19 both in the characteristics of its global dynamics and in its concrete management, as performed in a model medium income country, Argentina. In a world which has progressively assigned market values and goods an absolute strategic and political priority over the health needs and the rights to health of individual and peoples, the recognition of health as human right is confined to aspirational recommendations and rather hollowed out declarations of good will.Reviewing selected policy responses in Asia and South America, this paper draws pragmatic lessons for developing countries to better address the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that not acting quickly and adequately incurs much higher costs. So-called ‘best practices’, while useful, may be inappropriate, especially if not complemented by effective and suitable socio-economic measures. Public understanding, support and cooperation, not harsh and selective enforcement of draconian measures, are critical for successful implementation of containment strategies. AZD0156 in vivo This requires inclusive and transparent policy-making, and well-coordinated and accountable government actions that build and maintain trust between citizens and government. In short, addressing the pandemic crisis needs ‘all of government’ and ‘whole of society’ approaches under credible leadership.The ‘digital turn’ that took place in development policies since the early 2000s is characterized by the growing use of digital devices as development and governance tools, and by the growing use of large sets of data that goes hand in hand with it. This article points to three major changes that accompany this evolution. The first is the diversification of economic strategies that are permitted by the multiplication of markets dedicated to technological devices and data management in the developing world. The second is the evolution of relations between public and private institutions in the Global South; the interactions between public and private sectors have indeed been renewed through the kind of technological development partnerships allowed by digital devices. The third is the reconfiguration of issues as crucial as control, inequalities, exclusion at the individual and population level-digital devices don’t make these issues disappear, rather they take an important part in their reformulation.Through the lens of health workers’ concerns, the article interrogates the impact of the neoliberal turn of the 1980s on the loss of the ideal and pursuit of health as a social common. It highlights the Great Recession as a confirmation of the failure of the neoliberal project but notes that this the project continues with even greater frenzy. Capturing the dynamics which inhibit the World Health Organization, it calls for mass mobilization to reclaim health as a social common.Governments must become active shapers of medical innovation and drive the development of critical health technologies as global health commons. The ‘race’ for COVID-19 vaccines is exposing the deficiencies of a business-as-usual medical innovation ecosystem driven by corporate interests, not health outcomes. Instead of bolstering collective intelligence, it relies on competition between proprietary vaccines and allows the bar on safety and efficacy to be lowered, risking people’s health and undermining their trust.[This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.03.010.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.005.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.06.040.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.04.014.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.11.011.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.02.004.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.022.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.10.008.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.06.001.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.10.016.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.08.010.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.10.011.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.01.016.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.01.018.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.04.019.].[This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.10.007.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.06.014.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.07.010.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.03.009.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.06.018.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.10.005.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.01.012.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.05.016.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.021.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.09.009.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.07.015.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.07.010.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.05.012.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.02.010.][This corrects the article DOI 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.10.021.].