The Politics of Pandemics

Opinion By: Alia Citterio and Lane Joslin

With living in a globalized world comes the foreboding prospect of disease that threatens our known and valued peace of day to day living. For us, global pandemics are too familiar. Unfortunately, these novel diseases are going to continue threatening us, and without scientific intervention they will continue to ravage our health and social wellbeing. Thus, it is of the utmost importance for governmental officials to prioritize the proactive attempts by scientists to search and survey for potentially catastrophic diseases around the world. 

Through the pandemics of HIV/AIDS, SARS-COVID, and Ebola, we can see a trend: zoonotic diseases have spilled over from wildlife when in proximity to humans. In the case of HIV, chimps and gorillas were infected with the disease for years before it spilled into humans—in other words, HIV was simmering, waiting to become a pandemic. There were four spillovers from chimpanzees and gorillas, and one became a widespread pandemic. For SARS-COVID-19, bats are a known reservoir, especially in southeastern China. In Wuhan, bat caves were known to be in proximity to human populations, and samples of those populations showed proteins with antibodies resistant to SARS-like viruses. There were two versions of SARS-COVID: the first outbreak happened in 2002, whereas the second outbreak happened in 2019. The 2019 outbreak has been coined the possible do-over of the earlier SARS virus: because people were contagious before they showed symptoms, the virus was much more subtle and able to spread quickly. After two years of the pandemic, scientists were able to produce a vaccine, an impressive feat that was only possible because scientists have researched SARS-like viruses before. Lastly, the Ebola virus likely came from bats: starting in 1976, there have been three main outbreaks, all from various parts of Africa. Thus, in accordance with the above examples, the threat of spillover for zoonotic diseases is significant, especially for countries where access to well practiced hygiene and quality healthcare are not ensured. Yet to understand how to address these existential public health threats, we must deduce how these animal-to-human spillovers occurred.

For HIV/AIDS, we know the spillover occurred between chimps and humans. But how did this occur? Since the invention of cooking 780,000 years ago, we have effectively eliminated many pathogens from entering our genome through the transmission of consumption. However the handling of raw meat is still extremely hazardous; live bushmeat markets are breeding grounds for epidemics. Not only are public health precautions not explicitly and consistently followed, but these markets also place many people in direct proximity to wild animals. Additionally, the actual handling of bushmeat by hunters, vendors, or consumers is not foolproof—our skin surfaces have many micro-cuts, and when fluids from infected animals that are hunted make contact with those cuts, the potential for that pathogen to travel into our body through blood becomes significant and dangerous. This is precisely what scientists believe occurred with the AIDS and Ebola viruses, and possibly what occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additionally, increased deforestation globally has caused forest fragmentation, heavily reducing the biodiversity in those areas. Reduced biodiversity is shown to result in higher levels of transmission of disease between wild animals and humans. Moreover, fragmentation leads to more places where human habitat abruptly meets wilderness, which tend to be the locations where spillovers of zoonotic diseases occur. Thus, to proactively prevent spillovers from happening, we must ensure that places that are at high risk (often in proximity to wild animals) have sufficient sanitation systems in place. For example, our governmental administration could fund scientists from the U.S. going to these high risk areas/countries and building infrastructure (like water sanitation and separation from septic systems), as well as providing these communities with the knowledge and equipment needed for safely handling and hunting bushmeat. The benefits of the institutions of these systems are clear: by helping other countries prevent disease, we will be helping ourselves—in an increasingly interconnected world, the possibility of disease from even the most remote locations become threats, and so we must act now to prevent another pandemic. With the current human-induced state of the world we are finding ourselves in continuing risk of acquiring another pandemic. 

As a result of the Zika and Ebola Outbreaks, the Obama administration recognized the value in implementing protocol and resources into monitoring diseases. The National Security Council established a playbook and specialized unit designed to outline the next Pandemic Response. However, despite these great attempts to begin addressing the ever growing problem of diseases, former President Donald Trump disbanded this unit prior to the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the leading biologist in the federal Center for Disease Control, expressed frustration at this diffusion, saying, “It would [have] be[en] nice if the office was still there.” If the U.S. had had this resource, it makes you question what would have gone differently. Or if we had a president who didn’t spread misinformation and diminish the severity of the disease, would Americans have taken it as seriously as elsewhere in the world?

Americans can no longer afford to elect presidents who refuse to recognize the growing problem of not only infectious diseases, but also of global change—the two are deeply intertwined and dependent on one another. The environmental concept “One Health” recognizes the interconnectedness of the health of people, the health of animals and the health of the environment; in order for humans to sustain a quality life, we must look out for the wellbeing of all three.  

Unfortunately, not only had the Trump administration rid the American people of preemptive pandemic management, but “nearly 100 environmental rules [were] officially reversed, revoked or otherwise rolled back under Mr. Trump.” With the knowledge of One Health, we know that another Trump presidential term would be hazardous for the future health of the U.S., and frankly the world. 

Conversely, Kamala Harris considers climate change an “existential threat” and says “the United States needs to act urgently to address it.” As vice president, Harris cast the tie breaking vote to have the Inflation Reduction Act passed, which is the biggest investment of government funding into supporting clean-energy initiatives and the environment. Environmental health is connected to infectious disease: thus, policies to protect the environment are also advances to prevent infectious disease. 

For citizens of the U.S., we might question “What can I specifically do to combat infectious disease and/or climate change?” Our answer is to vote! There is a clear distinction between the candidates on the ballot this fall. One would work to prevent infectious disease through the protection of the environment, whereas the other actively invalidates the existence of climate change. We must elect politicians who will fight for our future. Please remember to vote on November 5th. Your future health thanks you.