Red Teaming Pandemics

A New Approach for WHO and countries

Best article on red teams I have read. Source: Marine Corps Gazette, July 2012: 63-6. 📷 LCpl Jeremy T Ross.

In the face of a global health crisis, leadership must be decisive. But, as we’ve learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, decisiveness alone isn’t enough. It must be paired with critical thinking that challenges assumptions and prevents groupthink. Red teaming—a method traditionally used in the military and cybersecurity—could play a crucial role in improving the World Health Organization’s (WHO) and countries’ pandemic response.

Jeremy Hunt, former UK Health Secretary, acknowledged the consequences of groupthink during the UK’s COVID-19 response: “We should have challenged that groupthink,” he said. If this lesson applies in a single country — and it certainly does — it is even more critical for the WHO, whose recommendations are amplified in 194 member states.

What is Red Teaming?

Red teaming involves assembling a group that takes on the role of an adversary, tasked with challenging the assumptions, strategies, and plans of an organization. While this method is commonly associated with the military, where it simulates enemy tactics, or cybersecurity, where it tests systems for vulnerabilities, it can be adapted to any domain that requires robust planning.

The fundamental goal of red teams is to think critically, challenge conventional wisdom, and expose flaws that may otherwise go unnoticed. By adopting an adversarial perspective, red teams force organizations to prepare for worst-case scenarios and develop more resilient strategies.

In red teaming, the head of an organization sets up a group that reports directly to them. The leader of the red team must be someone the organization’s head trusts, as this trust is essential for ensuring that recommendations are accepted and acted upon. In the pandemic context, the red team’s findings could also be reported to the organization’s governing board, adding another layer of accountability and oversight.

(To view the best article I have read on red teaming, go here, find the July 2012 issue, and flip to page 63.)

WHO’s Pandemic Response and the Role of Red Teaming

The WHO’s pandemic response was grounded in science and equity, resisting external pressures to deviate from these principles. Yet, despite these commendable efforts, the WHO has faced criticism on several fronts—from not emphasizing airborne transmission early on to not adequately investigating the origins of COVID-19. Red teaming could potentially have provided a valuable mechanism for challenging some of the decisions made during the pandemic.

Importantly, red teaming is not only about improving the planning phase (such as this recent simulation exercise). I primarily use the term to apply to improving the effectiveness of pandemic responses as they roll out. By continuously testing and questioning assumptions as new information becomes available, red teams help ensure that strategies remain adaptive and responsive throughout the duration of a crisis. This dynamic process allows for quicker adjustments and more informed decision-making as a pandemic unfolds, ultimately leading to better outcomes.

Since it improves decision making, red teaming could potentially improve a wide range of issues. However, it will not solve all issues, such as enhanced civic participation in decision making.

Red Teaming vs. The WHO Pandemic Accord

The WHO Pandemic Accord, which hopefully will be adopted by countries at the upcoming World Health Assembly in May 2025, “aims to strengthen global collaboration on prevention, preparedness and response to future pandemic threats.” It “[establishes] a pathogen access and benefit sharing system; [takes] concrete measures on pandemic prevention, including through a One Health approach; [builds] geographically diverse research and development capacities; [facilitates] the transfer of technology and related knowledge, skills and expertise for the production of pandemic-related health products; [mobilizes] a skilled, trained and multidisciplinary national and global health emergency workforce; [sets] up a coordinating financial mechanism; [takes] concrete measures to strengthen preparedness, readiness and health system functions and resilience; and [establishes] a global supply chain and logistics network.”

While the Accord emphasizes consensus and cooperation, red teaming takes a contrarian approach. Its core purpose is to simulate worst-case scenarios and expose potential weaknesses in strategic plans. The Pandemic Accord fosters collaboration and an ideal vision for global health security, but red teaming asks, “What could go wrong?”

By testing the practical implementation of the Accord, red teaming can answer critical questions like: What if countries refuse to share critical resources during a crisis? How do global supply chains hold up under stress or geopolitical tensions? What if countries hoard vaccines? What if international cooperation breaks down? This adversarial stance stress-tests the optimistic assumptions embedded in the Accord and helps create contingency plans for real-world challenges.

By integrating red teaming into WHO’s pandemic preparedness, the organization can become more resilient, adaptive, and ready to respond to unforeseen challenges. The combination of the Pandemic Accord’s collaborative framework and red teaming’s adversarial thinking can create a more comprehensive and flexible global health security system.

Moving Forward: Introducing Red Teaming to WHO

How could WHO integrate red teaming into its pandemic preparedness efforts? One practical approach would be for the Conference of Parties, which will focus on implementation of the Accord, to incorporate red teaming. Another is for future Director-General candidates to adopt red teaming as part of their platforms in the upcoming 2027 election cycle. This would set the stage for its implementation in WHO’s next General Programme of Work, scheduled to begin after 2028.

Red teaming is not limited to WHO alone. It applies equally to national pandemic responses. Every country could consider adopting red teaming to improve their own pandemic preparedness and resilience. Just as WHO stands to benefit, so too do individual countries.

With an estimated 50% chance of a COVID-scale pandemic by 2050, the sooner we integrate red teaming into global and national pandemic preparedness and response, the better.