Week 8 Memos: Pandemics & Other Biological Threats

[deholz]

Reply with your memo as a Comment. The memo should be responsive to this week's readings on Pandemics & Bio Threats from Asha George, with 300–500 words + 1 visual element (e.g., figure, image, hand-drawn picture, art, etc. that complements or is suggestive of your argument). The memo should be tagged with one or more of the following:

origin: How did we get here? Reflection on the historical, technological, political and other origins of this existential crisis that help us better understand and place it in context.

risk: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the risk associated with this challenge. This risk analysis could be locally in a particular place and time, or globally over a much longer period, in isolation or in relation to other existential challenges (e.g., the environmental devastation that follows nuclear fallout).

policy: What individual and collective actions or policies could be (or have been) undertaken to avert the existential risk associated with this challenge? These could include a brief examination and evaluation of a historical context and policy (e.g., quarantining and plague), a comparison of existing policy options (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, ethical contrast), or design of a novel policy solution.

solutions: Suggestions of what (else) might be done. These could be personal, technical, social, artistic, or anything that might reduce existential risk.

framing: What are competing framings of this existential challenge? Are there any novel framings that could allow us to think about the challenge differently; that would make it more salient? How do different ethical, religious, political and other positions frame this challenge and its consequences (e.g., “End of the Times”).

salience: Why is it hard to think and talk about or ultimately mobilize around this existential challenge? Are there agencies in society with an interest in downplaying the risks associated with this challenge? Are there ideologies that are inconsistent with this risk that make it hard to recognize or feel responsible for?

nuclear/#climate/#bio/#cyber/#emerging: Partial list of topics of focus.

For one session over the course of the quarter, you may post a memo that reflects on a film or fictional rendering of an existential challenge. This should be tagged with:

movie / #novel: How did the film/novel represent the existential challenge? What did this highlight; what did it ignore? How realistic was the risk? How salient (or insignificant) did it make the challenge for you? For others (e.g., from reviews, box office / retail receipts, or contemporary commentary)?

[timok15]

bio, #mis-/disinfo, #solutions, #framing

Since the covid pandemic, we have learned that the role of dis-/misinformation is profound and that its status as a threat multiplier is not to be underestimated. Dis-/misinformation is my main subject and interest in this class, so I have learned its deeper impelling forces: namely, the human psychological aspect. To put it simply, humans have two modes of thinking. The first is a fairly rational thinking mode, while the second is a thinking mode that operates from personal biases, acquired heuristics, and emotions. People prefer this second mode to the first one, not only because rational, deliberative thinking is extremely energetically taxing, but also because this second heuristic mode is good enough for 90% of everyday situations with no harm resulting. Well-spreading dis-/misinformation attempts to catch someone in their heuristic thinking mode and exploit that mode’s emotions to prevent them from using their more rational thinking mode.

In order to successfully combat another pandemic, I believe that it will require a kind of civilian mobilization to reorientate the cultural zeitgeist around pandemics. We must make people understand that the regularity and stability of life is only relative to certain places and through certain times. Except for the Black Death, I have noticed that (high-level) historical overviews often like to leave out major pandemics. Spanish Flu, an event of peer deadliness to the world wars, still has far less recognition and cultural presence than those world wars. (Though, it remains higher in people's mind thanks to the more recent pandemic.) In addition to making people understand that things are more fluid than solid, we must teach people about dis-/misinformation in a new way. So far, the strategy seems to be to raise awareness and tell people to “be careful” and cross-reference their sources. The problem is that we are in a state of information overload and busy in general. Always checking is untenable. Therefore, I think that explaining the psychological underpinning of dis-/misinformation (with the two thinking modes) is necessary, so that at least some people can take a step back and hopefully not become infected with dis-/misinformation surrounding the next pandemic.

I recognize much of what I am suggesting is almost infeasible and will only be partially effective at best. Unfortunately, with dis-/misinformation in the mix, the response will always be inadequate without draconian measures. However, I believe that it is better to at least make the attempt to avoid going off the cliff, then to sit back and let there be no doubt that the car is going to be going over.

Unfortunately, this graph from Britannica is the only graph I can find of the kind I want, since the US WWII deaths, Spanish flu deaths, and the world deaths for for both world wars are freakishly low compared to other sources. Please, keep in mind that other estimates (from multiple other places according to a quick google search) place US WWII deaths at 400k; world WWI deaths (civilian and combatant) at around 20mil; and world WWII deaths (civilian and combatant) at around 75mil. Lastly, while this graphic recognizes higher estimates of 40-50mil, the highest estimates stand at around 100mil deaths from the Spanish flu. Human minds cannot comprehend the scale of all this loss.

[ldbauer1011]

framing #risk #salience

Regarding the predictive nature of the readings this week, one can easily assume that the world had amble warning before the COVID-19 pandemic struck. I would agree with that statement, though with an important caveat, which I will discuss below.

Thanks to the advances in medical technology, detection and vaccination, practices and procedures, and tracing procedures, disease has become a monster we can fight with the right circumstances. In fact, we are very good at fighting disease, and the ways we fight are so commonly known that media dating as far back as 1995 can weave a plausibly true narrative. Though these premonitions are impressive, they aren’t unexpected. Smart people are paid to predict the future in a field with preventative guidelines publicly available and thousands of years of historical record to scour and draw inspiration from. As a result, epidemiology has a surprising advantage over many other doomsday fields: they know what they do not know, and can prepare mechanisms to quickly learn new knowledge as a disease becomes known. Hence, when a fictional account is prepared, all the author needs to do is create the unknowns, and test the current medical system’s approach to curing a pandemic.

What really worries me about pandemics, especially in a post-COVID sense, is that we survived our first major test in the current globalized system and might take for granted our success in the future by downplaying the severity of the next one. As evidenced by LePan’s visualization of pandemics past, a much less prepared and informed world suffered greatly at the hands of disease and somehow continued forwards. While COVID did not have the death toll of the various waves of Black Death, it still infected hundreds of millions of people and had a shot to become the worst modern pandemic since the Spanish Flu. And yet, COVID thankfully did not fulfill its potential. The fallout of the pandemic was a sharp political divide over what had happened, what we ought to have done, and the solution itself: the vaccine.

If we’re lucky, time will pass to allow the divides over pandemic policy to fade from view and allow us to reset to a state similar to before COVID, where citizens comply with government and medical mandates and allow for a pandemic to play out as safely as possible. If we’re not, another pandemic will appear within the next decade, and the issues that appeared during the latter part of the COVID pandemic will hamper the response to the next one. People will refuse to cooperate with medical best practices, spread distrust and misinformation about the disease that will crowd out correct information, and call the whole thing a conspiracy. Such behavior will inevitably make the next pandemic harder to manage, and much deadlier than it would have been with a more measured response. I believe that the COVID hangover is real and is more of a threat than any new disease by itself.

[M-Hallikainen]

bio #framing #risk

Reading through this weeks materials, I got caught up thinking about the Visualized History of Pandemics, in particular the section on Wrath of the Gods. LePan describes how ancient societies often attributed plagues to divine wrath or vengeful spirits; supernatural forces exacting vengeance on societies for their immorality and sinfulness. The short section ends with the sentence, "Luckily, humanity’s understanding of the causes of disease has improved, and this is resulting in a drastic improvement in the response to modern pandemics, albeit slow and incomplete."

While I agree that our understanding of epidemiology and medicine more generally have made monumental improvements over the centuries, I think LePan is missing the forest for the trees here. While less informed and educated than people today, the peoples of the past were not just unintelligent rubes, and inversely the people of today are not uniquely enlightened and sophisticated. While we have largely moved past the wrath of the gods, the underlying desire to understand and explain the seemingly wanton devastation of pandemics remains.

Even when we know the cause is a bacteria or a virus and we understand its method of infection, there is a desire to explain the plague; why something so terrible would happen to so many. Throughout much of history this took the form of making the disease someone's fault. History is littered with "the _____ flus," from the Spanish Flu, to the many names of syphilis (which at different times and regions was knows as the French, Polish, German, Spanish, and Christian disease) to the most recent political tension over calling Covid-19 "the China Virus." Common to all of these is an attempt to paint the disease as someone's fault. "The French are to blame, or the Chinese, or the Polish. The disease started with them and now its their fault we must suffer under it!"

More directly, we still all to often reason that disease affects certain groups because they are somehow immoral and deserving of punishment. Closest to my heart is the emergence of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s, first labeled as "Gay Related Immune Deficiency" or GRID and described in the press and medical publication as a "homosexual disorder" stemming from "a risk-prone lifestyles." This stigma and the perception that HIV/AIDS was a "gay plague" directly fueled government inaction and cost the lives of many thousands, disproportionality effecting LGBTQ communities. In our world of medical inequality where marginalized people and communities (who are already saddled with undue social stigmas) have the least access to medical prevention and treatment, this sort of scapegoating is liable to happen again. In a way, our advanced knowledge of medicine contributes to this, arguing that we know the causes of disease and that communities that are still disproportionately affected have brought it on themselves; if only they had the good sense to have a job with sick leave or to live in an area where testing is affordable and accessible.

LePan is right in that our medical advances have helped explain pandemics, but even in the modern era there is an underlying desire to narrativize plagues; to not only explain the disease but explain why something so terrible would happen to so many. That instinct is alive and well, and to try and sequester it to some relic of the superstition past places all of us, particularly the most marginalized among us, in peril.

Burred in the May 11th, 1982 edition of the New York Times is mention of the a "New Homosexual Disorder" still caught between the name GRID and AIDS. It would take 3 more years before then President Regan would even mention the disease, by which point thousands had already died.

[DNT21711]

Origin #Risk #Solutions

Throughout history, we've been locked in a constant battle with infectious diseases, facing off against one outbreak after another. Each pandemic from the readings and films we've seen this week tells a similar story: we get hit, we fight back, and then, when it's over, we let our guard down until the next one comes along. The historical account of pandemics, from the Black Death to COVID-19, reveals a pattern: societies often scramble to respond to outbreaks, only to relax their vigilance once the immediate threat subsides. This cyclical negligence underscores the importance of sustained preparedness and the implementation of comprehensive public health policies.

The film "Contagion" (2011) offers a harrowing preview of the chaos and fear that can ensue in the wake of a pandemic, emphasizing the vital role of scientific research and international cooperation. Similarly, Max Brooks' graphic novel on germ warfare presents a stark reminder of the potential for biological threats to be weaponized, further complicating the landscape of global health security. The speculative scenarios depicted in "Wired Scenarios: Pandemic" push the boundaries of our imagination, challenging us to consider the unforeseen impacts of future pandemics driven by climate change, urbanization, and technological advancements.

The risk associated with our current global health infrastructure's ability to manage future pandemics is multifaceted, involving complex interplays of biology, technology, and human behavior. The CDC's community mitigation guidance document and Nicholas LePan's visualization of the history of pandemics provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of this risk, highlighting the necessity of proactive measures and the adaptation of policies to the evolving nature of global health threats.

To avert the existential risk posed by pandemics, a multi-pronged strategy is required. This strategy must encompass not only the development of medical technologies and vaccines but also the strengthening of public health systems, the implementation of effective communication strategies, and the cultivation of a global culture of preparedness. International collaboration, transparent sharing of information, and equitable access to healthcare resources are paramount.

In crafting solutions, we must draw lessons from both history and speculative futures. Investments in public health infrastructure, research, and education are non-negotiable. Additionally, policies must be flexible, capable of rapidly adapting to new threats while addressing the socioeconomic disparities that exacerbate the impact of pandemics.

In conclusion, as we navigate the treacherous waters of the 21st century, the lessons gleaned from past pandemics, speculative narratives, and current research must inform a holistic approach to global health security. Only by acknowledging the origins of our vulnerabilities, assessing the risks with clarity, and implementing innovative solutions can we hope to safeguard humanity against the next inevitable outbreak.

• The visual element is an image showing the grim reality of the Black Death, illustrating the profound human toll of pandemics and the urgent need for preparedness in our own times.

[lubaishao]

Movie

"Contagion" represented the existential challenge posed by a global pandemic by portraying the rapid spread of a deadly virus and the ensuing chaos and fear that it induces in society. The film highlighted the interconnectedness of the modern world and how easily a virus can spread across borders, affecting individuals regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographical location. It also depicted the societal breakdown, panic…

One aspect the film highlighted was the importance of scientific expertise and collaboration. It also underscored the potential for misinformation to exacerbate the situation. Some people enter the stage wearing the mask of a hero, only to be ultimately exposed as despicable as villains. Yes, I mean Alan Krumwiede (portrayed by Jude Law). However, the film may have ignored certain aspects of the human experience during a pandemic, such as the psychological toll on individuals, the ethical dilemmas faced by healthcare workers, and the disparities in access to healthcare and resources.

The film conveyed the realistic and potential consequences of a global pandemic, which resonated strongly with audiences, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although it hasn't happened in reality, one thing I've pondered is : Social order is a fragile thing. It primarily relies on people's belief in it. Order is a bit like stocks—the more support it has, the more stable it is. However, once negative news emerges, the collapse of order often occurs in an instant. During the pandemic, I feel that what governments fear most might not be the spread of the virus itself, but rather the sudden collapse of order.

[lucyhorowitz]

framing #climate #bio

Single-use plastics contribute a great deal to pollution and climate change. There have been countless efforts to eliminate or reduce their use from many angles… from banning plastic bags at grocery stores (this is proving rather ineffective from what I understand) to installing water fountains and perhaps (though this is pure speculation on my part) even the enormous popularity of the Stanley cup (it wouldn't surprise me if the fad were at least a little bit astroturfed). However, there is one realm in which single-use plastics will probably never disappear: healthcare.

The hygienic demands of modern healthcare are great, and not without reason. Modern sterilization and hygiene practices have reduced disease and patient mortality by truly incredible amounts since we first started requiring doctors wash their hands before digging around in people's bodies. Today, we do more than just wash our hands—with few exceptions, just about everything a patient might touch in a hospital or a doctor's office is single-use. Isolation gowns, masks, IV bags and tubing, etc. Even when things aren't single-use, hygiene demands that they be sterilized and kept sterile until they get used. This usually involves sealing them in plastic and only exposing them to the air at the last possible second. (See the picture of sterilized dental tools wrapped in plastic below).

The healthcare industry does not produce all plastic waste, but it's certainly not an insignificant amount. If we want to meaningfully reduce plastic waste in the environment, we have to do another cost-benefit calculus. Can we tell doctors and hospitals to risk a marginal reduction in hygiene, and the potential for another great pandemic or lots of patient deaths, or do we just keep on doing what we've been doing so far and create tons of medical waste every day? Of course, the best case scenario would be to create a new way to sterilize without using plastic, but we should consider that if it were possible, perhaps it would have been done already. Plastic has enabled actual medical marvels and saved countless human lives, and though it's a major pollutant, we shouldn't forget that in our quest to save the environment.

[miansimmons]

bio #framing #solutions

Public health officials struggled to implement and enforce social distancing measures, mask protocols, and vaccine uptake throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In part due to these difficulties, the virus spread rapidly across the population at a large scale. Much academic literature discusses the role of social distancing in preventing the spread of disease and is underpinned by evidence-based models. However, less known is how to incentivize people to participate in pandemic interventions based on human psychology and cognition. This raises the question: how should scientists and advocacy organizations craft messages to encourage the public to follow health guidelines during pandemics?

Social scientists typically assert that public messaging can be developed using one of two strategies. Either one can make rational arguments that appeal to people's sense of logic or one can approach the issue using emotion to tug at people's heartstrings. Proponents of rational arguments argue that logic promotes critical thinking around a subject and mobilizes the population at scale. On the other hand, proponents of emotional appeals maintain that only citing evidence is elitist and removes passion from the education, as groups often have varying levels of education and resources/interpret things differently. When it comes to healthcare interventions, which strategy is more effective? Should different cities receive certain types of messages based on their priorities and demographics? Beyond messaging and language, what role should governments play in enforcement, and should guidelines be mandatory?

I argue that researchers focusing on pandemics and healthcare interventions should invest more time in considering these questions and conducting behavior change studies. Publishing guidelines around social distancing does little if citizens are not willing to adhere to them. Behavior change is an increasingly salient research area and can help people learn to be more productive, adopt healthy lifestyles, and protect community interests. Starting this summer, I will be working in a lab that tackles this! In large megastudies, we will be investigating which behavior interventions lead people to get COVID-19 and other vaccinations more readily.

Behavior Change for Good at Wharton unveils effective strategies to boost vaccination rates.

[lubaishao]

risk

I believe the greatest danger of the pandemic is that it targets humanity's greatest fears. It instills the fear then it can rapidly atomize the society in the short term. Any other threat, whether it's war, nuclear issues, or climate change, requires cooperation and societal efforts to address. But the virus makes everyone inclined to protect themselves instead of the whole society. For some terrifying infectious diseases like Ebola, the rapid collapse of life brings tremendous shock to the living people. However, a pandemic like COVID-19, which spreads in cities and causes a large number of casualties, instills panic in people.

During the pandemic, my cousin was a doctor at a hospital in New York. One time in 2020 when we spoke on the phone, he told me he was under immense psychological pressure. Every day, he had to watch many people die in front of him, feeling helpless as the morgue filled up. If even medical professionals were breaking down, ordinary people would have been overwhelmed by fear and shock long ago. On the other hand, amid fear, the collapse of order is predictable. While worrying about contracting the virus, people also fear starving to death, the emergence of rebel forces, or the collapse of currency value. The breakdown of order may cause more terrifying destruction than the pandemic itself, but the pandemic is the fuse that triggers the collapse of order.

No wonder why some states want to announce martial law during a serious pandemic. Especially given the misinformation situation during a pandemic. During Covid-19, various misinformation came out, some was about the origins of the virus, some was about government’s approach, some was about how to prevent get infected. Literally everything can generate misinformation, making the issue politicalized polarized.

[Hai1218]

Movie

Watching "12 Monkeys" in the shadow of our recent pandemic, the film's portrayal of an existential challenge struck a chord with me. It showed a future wrecked by a virus, something that felt all too real recently. This movie, with its time-traveling quest to save humanity, really put the spotlight on how our actions have long-term impacts on our planet and our survival. What it made clear was the danger of ignoring the health of our environment and the consequences of our scientific ambitions when not handled responsibly. Yet, I felt it missed diving deeper into the emotional and social impacts such a catastrophe has on individuals and communities. It focused more on the chase and the puzzle, leaving less room to explore the human side of living through such a disaster (although one might argue the "chase" was the essence of governmental failure felt by the protagonist).

The risk portrayed in "12 Monkeys" seemed like pure fiction back when it first came out, but now, it feels eerily possible. The film made the threat of a global pandemic feel both vivid and immediate. For me, this made the movie's challenge more pressing. It wasn't just a distant, fictional scenario anymore; it was a real-world possibility that we lived through. From what I've seen in reviews and discussions, this sentiment was shared by many. The film's box office success and continued relevance suggest it struck a nerve with audiences, highlighting our collective anxiety about such existential threats. Yet, the real-life pandemic also showed us the gaps in the movie's portrayal, especially regarding the complex realities of managing a global health crisis.

Reflecting on "12 Monkeys" now, I see it as a powerful narrative that warns us about neglecting our environment and underestimating the ripple effects of our actions. The film's take on the existential challenge of a pandemic made me more aware of how crucial it is to heed scientific warnings and strive for unity in our response to global threats. For others too, the movie seems to have served as a poignant reminder of what's at stake, making the challenge feel significant and urgent. Yet, our real-world experience with COVID-19 also accentuated the need for more than just scientific miracles; it showed the importance of human trust (especially to the government), effective campaign to curb disinformation, and global cooperative network to truly overcome such existential threats.

[Hai1218]

Pandemic #Risk #AI #Social Control

The introduction and rapid deployment of advanced surveillance technologies have sparked considerable controversy during the pandemic. These technologies, designed to monitor individuals at an unprecedented level, carry significant implications for personal freedom and privacy. The risk lies not only in their current use for health monitoring but in the potential for future exploitation to exert control over individuals. This concern is compounded by the historical tendency for emergency measures, once implemented, to remain long after the crisis has passed. The lesson from history is clear: temporary solutions often become permanent fixtures, altering the fabric of our daily lives and the nature of our freedoms. Meanwhile, the political landscape has shifted towards increased nationalism and a reduction in global cooperation. This shift, particularly evident in the United States' retreat from its role as a global leader, has fragmented the international community's response to the pandemic. The absence of a unified strategy and leadership at a global level has not only hampered our ability to address the current crisis but also raises concerns about our collective response to future challenges.

As it stands, one path leads us towards a future marked by increased surveillance and authoritarian control, justified by the need for security and public health. The alternative path advocates for the empowerment of citizens and the pursuit of global solidarity. I am convinced that this latter path offers a more sustainable and ethical framework for navigating our current challenges and preparing for those that lie ahead. Choosing the path of empowerment and solidarity necessitates a commitment to trust in science and public leadership, fostering open and cooperative international relations, and ensuring that our responses to the pandemic are inclusive and equitable.

I firmly believe that global cooperation is key, not just in fighting the pandemic but also in rebuilding our economies and communities afterwards. It's essential that we ensure healthcare is accessible to all, support economic recovery, and enhance our resilience against any future crises. This pandemic has clearly shown our interconnectedness and the critical need to work collectively. Moving forward, I see the importance of choosing empowerment over surveillance and unity over division as pivotal. By embracing global cooperation and placing trust in science and effective leadership, we can address today's challenges and lay a strong foundation for a more secure, fair, and united world. This approach doesn't just tackle the immediate threats of the pandemic but also gears us up to face future challenges with strength and solidarity.

Health Q-R Code for Chinese to get access to public services during the pandemic. Person displaying his Health Code to authority.

Great Video on the Chinese Health Q-R Code: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoyBLJqDOc0

[ghagle]

#framing #risk

Why is Contagion's MEV-1 from Hong Kong? Why is Wired's "Plague Years" scenario about the "Mao Virus" and "Mao Flu" and why can't they get the name straight? The geopolitical or perhaps more pointedly, racial, baggage that accompanies biological threats provides several interesting lenses of analysis worth exploring further. This is especially true in the context of Covid, where the U.S. witnessed a proliferation of Asian hate on account of the pandemic's Chinese origin. This foreign-origin conundrum begs several questions. To what degree does the fact that naturally occurring biological threats originate in foreign countries allow other states the political ability to de-burden themselves of mitigation policy? Are responses to pandemics like Covid baked in a racial perspective and does this harm our ability to try and regulate sources of potential diseases? More pointedly, would we be able to handle bio threats better if we weren't worried about where they came from and were able to approach the questions of regulation without hostility? The risks of the racism and nationalism around diseases could be a negative feedback loop that furthers our inability to handle biological threats

Trump branded Covid the "China virus." Across the U.S., local leaders attacked China and immigration policy--perhaps instead of channeling all of their efforts towards putting their foot down on the spread of the virus. Like many of the other issues we have discussed, there is a potential for policy responses to disease regulation to "wait for perfection" before implementation. If other countries are not coming together to try and reduce risk, why should we? one might ask. Placing blame on other countries for the impact and origin of pandemics risks maintaining openness to cooperative remedies to the problems that transcend borders.

Another issue that emerges is the degree to which a national culture, custom, or preference is trivialized. In a fury, the global environment may trivialize a country's consumption, nature, or regulatory practices in the name of biological safety on a broader scale. This poses the ethical question of how far a potential regulatory body from outside of a given country should go to alter the practices of a country. How far is too far for the sake of global health?

Additionally, I think a point that we discussed last week with Governor Brown is worth throwing into the mix. Antagonism breeds reclusiveness from those under attack. Nationalism or racism with respect to disease origination does not endear a country to another. There is a rhetorical issue of framing when diseases are placed in these antagonistic lenses. Perhaps one of the best solutions to minimizing the risk of biological threats is global cooperation or a global regulatory agency. Continuing to depart from a rhetoric of teamwork and mutual productivity hinders this mission.

At the same time, though, there is something real and important about identifying sources of deadly diseases. Several recent outbreaks have occurred in specific, contained regions. This should not be ignored just because of the worry about being politically incorrect. There is a clear and, I think, pretty large space between facts and hate. The two should not be intermixed.

The risks of the racism and nationalism made salient through diseases could be a negative feedback loop that furthers our inability to handle biological threats.

[emersonlubke]

Novel #framing #origin #risk

For this week I read Daniel Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year. It was super interesting to see a realistic depiction of what life was like during a pandemic centuries ago, considering we are in the wake (or still in the midst of, depending on who you ask) of our own global pandemic. It was interesting to see how little we've changed even though we've progressed so far in innumerable other facets of science and society. Even back then people were selfish and shortsighted, willing to do whatever to maintain ease of life and little regard for others. In a way, it was sobering to see how little we've learned about empathy and community-oriented thinking and values. In other ways, it was very uplifting to see how far we've come technologically and how our abilities to mitigate infectious diseases still have progressed an almost incomprehensible amount.

Defoe isn't necessarily writing about his own lived experience, but he does provide an incredibly vivid and realistic account of the plague. I believe that Defoe was only about 5 or 6 during the plague year, and the book is not from a child's perspective, but you can tell that Defoe remembers what the pandemic was like from the vividity of his story. Just like people today, it's clear that the pandemic was profoundly impactful on Defoe's life and it had an impact on his formative years. I can't help but wonder what kids who are 8 or 9 today are going to have to say about the 2020 Covid pandemic.

Reading this really made me appreciate that we aren't going to make meaningful progress as a society until we somehow collectively learn from our history and understand that shortsightedness never works out in the long run. Not just with respect to pandemics and biological threats, but rather every existential threat. We just cannot seem to expand the scope of our thinking to encompass all of society and we aren't going to be able to take the next leap as a civilization (whatever that may mean) until people become more willing to subordinate themselves as an individual for the group as a whole. I'm not good at that to be honest, but we as a collective need to get better. It reminds of a quote from the Big Short, where Steve Carrell says something like (and I'm paraphrasing here) "The thing that kills me the most about this shortsighted and selfish behavior is that not once in history has it ever worked" and I completely agree with that sentiment. So I'd say that my main takeaway from Journal of the Plague year was that we just suck at learning from our mistakes (as a collective society) and we need to get better or we are going to keep getting in our own way.

[emersonlubke]

risk #salience #solutions #policy

When reading the Very Graphic History of germ warfare it struck me that humans were ready and willing to use germ warfare before we even knew what germs were. The graphic novel mentioned how Scythian archers would dip their arrows in dung and dirt in order to ensure that their enemies would get infected, even though they had no idea how the process worked, they only knew that it was effective at killing and maiming the enemy. I feel like that just speaks to our human/animal proclivity towards violence. Interestingly, though, I think that this could be the key to our ability to effectively mitigate biological disasters and ensure our survival as a species.

People are violent and willing to use biological weapons to achieve their goals, but more pertinently people are aware that people are violent and willing to use biological weapons to achieve their goals. When thinking about our response, at the very least as a resident of the United States, I can't help but think about the fact that possibly the biggest barrier we faced when trying to mitigate the pandemic was public apathy and unwillingness to listen to, for example, CDC guidelines. I think that if the government or other powerful institutions were to frame the risk of biological disaster as less of a "there can be another covid" and more of a "other people want to use viruses to kill us" we would be able to mount a more effective response. Obviously, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention this, there are the dangers of this sort of xenophobic and potentially racist thinking and messaging and so we can wonder about the overall efficacy of my line of thinking here, but I think that if we are exclusively thinking about pandemic response, this would be an effective mitigation measure.

People are just generally less willing to mobilize and act against some impossible to see amorphous entity, like sars-cov-2, and so if we put some sort of face or physical form to the virus people would be readier to listen to public health guidelines and we would be better able to stop pandemics.

I think that people are already aware of this, though, and are working to use this technique. When you google "covid" all of the images that pop up are these blown up images of the actual virus. In this way, medical institutions are already 'putting a face to the name' and giving us an ability to visualize the enemy that we are fighting in the pandemic. I just can't help but question the efficacy of this, as even though people have made this visual depictions of the virus our response as a society was still lethargic and left a lot to be desired.

[imilbauer]

movie #bio #salience

La Jetée tells the story of a man who has survived World War Three and is a prisoner of survivors in vaults below Paris. The survivors believe that survival cannot be achieved in space but rather must occur in time. They train people to travel through time in the hopes that they will be able to find the cure to their present conditions. Most of the people that they train are not able to survive the arduous nature of time travel. The man, however, is able to go back in time to visit a jetty that he visited as a boy where he witnessed a man die. When he travels back in time, on the jetty, the man meets a women who he proceeds to have a series of encounters with in the past. They meet fifty times and the fiftieth time they go to a museum of lifelike, but dead, animals. After this training in traveling in the past, the man is ready to travel into the future in order to save humanity. In the future, the man sees that society has survived, Paris has been rebuilt, and people live on other planets. He asks the men for the means to ensure this survival and they give him an energy machine. He returns to the present, delivers the energy machine, and realizes the survivors who have imprisoned him wish to execute him. The men of the future offer to save him and have him join them but he instead wishes to return to the past so that he can be with the woman. The survivors who imprisoned him send assassin to kill him in the past and he realizes the death he witnessed on the jetty as a boy was his own.

The relationship of this move to pandemic is not immediately clear. However, this movie expresses a chronology of catastrophe that is open to many contexts and wide interpretations, including pandemics. Like in a pandemic, the present exists in a liminal space. Like in a pandemic, a portal to the future must be sought in order to save humanity. While in this story it was an energy machine, in a pandemic this portal is a vaccine. Like in the recent pandemic, the people that aim to save society, doctors and scientists or the man, are persecuted. More broadly, this movie speaks to how the future may be the object of our survival, but the past may be the object of our desire. The future represents a time of unlimited energy, interstellar travel, and ever expanding cities. However, as the narrator notes in this film, the streets of Paris become “illegible,” the familiar becomes foreign. The childhood moments one is fond of, deceased loved ones, and past lovers all lie out of reach in the past. Catastrophes are the cesura that divide an intimate past with the ever unfurling and unknowable future. There is a cost to survival. Even after all the bodies are counted, one can’t help but feel one’s lost a piece of themselves. Perhaps the man’s last scene with the woman, the scene at the animal museum, demonstrates he is ready to travel to the future because it shows he has found a way to live amongst relics of the dead. Practically thinking, the question of "Are We Doomed?" might also consider how we might mourn, honor the past, and honor those who have died after a catastrophe.

Picture:

David Best’s “Sanctuary” (2022) is a temporary monument that honored those that died from COVID-19.

[jamaib]

policy, #solution

While the immediate threat of COVID-19 may have diminished thanks to a swift and effective response, it's crucial not to overlook the issues the pandemic has brought to light. Chief among these is the glaring inadequacy of government policies, particularly in their failure to prioritize preventive measures over reactive ones. Of course, we aren’t privy to the future, but too often evidence of problems to come is ignored (climate change...) leading to a scrambled response (picking up the pieces if you will instead of preventing the fall). In other cases, the evidence is not ignored but as mentioned in the 2022 National Biodefense Strategy, “government siloes” slows the effective response to these problems (even politicizing them). In COVID 19's case, perhaps we were not aware of the specific prospect of COVID-19, but we were aware of our general unpreparedness for a pandemic. In fact, the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense published their “foundational report in 2015, A National Blueprint for Biodefense, in which we noted that the Nation was dangerously vulnerable to biological threats —including an infectious disease pandemic or a terrorist attack with biological weapons”. Although they provided recommendations for federal improvement, little was done to combat these warnings. This no doubt impacted how effectively we responded to the pandemic. Thankfully, the hard work of medical professionals, researchers, etc. helped to mitigate the effects of COVID-19. Nonetheless I consider humanity lucky. Our response to existential crises like pandemics must be better, starting with the government. Steps such as the government adding “setting ambitious deadlines” and promoting a “culture of collaboration” are great steps in the right direction, but they are steps that should have been taken years ago. Ultimately, I think our future success in averting pandemics, or any existential crises will rely on our ability to prepare and collaborate at all levels of society. It's imperative that we learn from the lessons of COVID-19 and prioritize preventive measures, institutional collaboration, and proactive planning to safeguard against future crises.

[jamaib]

movie / #novel

The film "Contagion" portrayed the existential challenge of a widespread pandemic quite well in my opinion. There is quite a bit of realism that I think other pandemic films often lack. For example, the origin of the virus is quite realistic with it being started by a bat (whose behavior is changed by humans) which then trickles down into human food. However, my favorite part of the film is how they reflect the anxiety of the tactile experience during a pandemic. Close-up shots of hands touching various objects or citizens clad in gloves and protective gear served to highlight the potential sites of infection, instilling a sense of fear and vigilance among viewers. This portrayal effectively emphasized the invisible threat posed by the virus, making something as trivial as grocery shopping akin to a zombie apocalypse (I remember feeling that way during the pandemic as well). Of course, the movie wasn’t perfectly realistic. Elements such as transmission rate, the risk of the virus, and vaccination development were exaggerated no doubt to make the movie more exciting. Moreover, something such as burial in graves would most likely not be done due to spread concerns (especially with something as contagious as the virus in the film).

Ultimately, I think Contagion was quite realistic and even eerily similar to COVID-19. In fact, after having watched contagion, I feel more convinced that we were lucky with the results of COVID-19 (imagine if the COVID were as dangerous as the movie’s virus). In some ways the movie was even optimistic in its prediction of our collective response to a global pandemic. For the most part misinformation and combaters against the legitimacy of the virus or vaccine were not a problem in the movie, yet this was a massive problem in real life (claims that COVID and the vaccine were fake, anti-vaxers, etc.). Ironically the fictional movie society was more competent than our own in their response to the pandemic. "Contagion" serves as a cautionary tale and a sobering reminder of the fragility of our society.

[ejcrane]

risk

What I found particularly gripping was the comic discussing germ warfare. In particular, I think there's a future for germ warfare involving AI and terrorism. I remember seeing somewhere that AI is now capable of folding proteins that resemble a shocking accuracy to the actual proteins, and this is an amazing development -- but what about AI's capability to assist terrorists interested in biological warfare? So long as they have the necessary hardware and ingredients, would it not be possible for terrorists to create viruses that maximize their contagion and lethality? Furthermore, would this effect be exacerbated by the antivax community?

I agree with the comic when it says that people have become too acclimated to the modern healthcare system (no, not the part that charges you a billion dollars for an epipen, the part that sickness is treated as something banal and insignificant -- although we are certainly too complacent with the former). We have the luxury of treating most diseases with a certain malaise, because most of them have been vaccinated against or treated with antibiotics. But I think we're in for a rude awakening in general, not just with regards to terrorism. As antibiotics and vaccines induce natural selection in bacteria and viruses, these new pathogens are encouraged to become more resistant to our best solutions for preventing sickness. It's only a matter of time until we encounter something that becomes seriously resistant to both, and if a terrorist were able to get their hands on it and mutate the pathogen into something more pernicious, we could have a serious bioweapon on our hands that could kill millions and in the absolute worst case, billions.

[aaron-wineberg02]

The History of Pandemic infographic highlighted an interesting metric: the inverse relationship between transmissibility and lethality in diseases. This has been a rule of thumb much like the phillips curve in economics for decades. However, it was challenged with the Covid-19 pandemic. Even prior to the “Disease X,” as many scholars consider it, there were rumblings of a virus that would be far more lethal than it should be transmissible on this curve. In effect, creating a deadly pandemic.

This article discussed how traditional methods of public health such as quarantines were common knowledge throughout civilizations. Ships would be held in port for 40 days before allowing the ship to unload the cargo. Yet these mechanisms failed in response to the Covid-19 virus that from many perspectives defied scientific best practice. This raises the question, from this text, of if scientists need to revisit what it means to control a virus altogether.

These points were further affirmed by The Future of the Future article that represented views many would now challenge on pandemic resiliency. Including the timeline for defeating said virus. While this is separate from my main claim, I was shocked to see how accurate many other narratives were in the article.

I propose a new series of fictional articles presenting the world during a new pandemic. This time it would not recount the Covid-19 experiences but rather try and estimate what the next reactions might look like. Political discontent, scientific trust, and misinformation are all part of the calculus of this new piece. Similarly, we would consider the democracy-authoritarian gradient in how that shapes experiences in the pandemic. Not what happened, but what could happen next.

Similar to how other creative fiction works were well received (think creative retelling such as in “All the President's Men,” “Apollo 13,” and “Darkest Hour.”), this article could prompt a reevaluation of our own history.

Policy #Framing #Pandemics

[aaron-wineberg02]

12 Monkeys presented a question of how society can trust warnings from people from the future. While time travel is not an option, I argue some people are better positioned than others to foreshadow events. The scientific community, for instance, has been able to expect climate catastrophes and geological events in advance. Their warnings, however, often fall on deaf ears. 12 Monkeys warn of a virus from time travel. The NIH and CDC have warned since late 2019 of a pandemic in China.

What are the signals people should pay attention to in an increasingly information dense world?

I posit that the real takeaway from this film is being able to understand dire warnings when they are presented. A few barriers exist to appreciating threats to civilization. The most fundamental is an information barrier. While the internet has done a great deal to bring egalitarianism to knowledge, much of modern scholarship is behind paywalls. This is because academic publishers maintain a de facto monopoly on this knowledge – through the academia marketplace where the stakeholders profit at the expense of intellectual exclusivity.

Beyond a high school education, the ability to deep dive into an intellectual pursuit is guarded by the university– especially in the US. High tuition, admissions criteria, and supply/demand all shape the ability to understand these forces. Take for instance CDC reports on diseases. To understand and meaningfully communicate these reports with confidence, one must possess a solid STEM background. That suggests hundreds of thousands of dollars, and years, in training.

Could A.I. serve as a tool to better understand complex academic concepts? Perhaps, it has not arrived at this point yet. Could online resources be trusted free resources? While cheaper, there is a high opportunity cost in terms of time.

One of my greatest takeaways from this course is an appreciation that many people know things that simply are not true. It is almost trite to make this argument. Nonetheless, it drives home that education can be the valve to control responses to catastrophic events. Real reflection must take place at the highest levels of academic and government if action is to be taken.

Policy #Framing #12Monkeys #Academia

[gabrielmoos]

“Unfortunately the [bio] terrorist's greatest ally is us.” Max Brooks makes this analogy in “Germ Warfare” and I couldn’t agree more. However, I don’t buy the partisan description that he gives in the graphic novel, rather I believe in our age of information we have reached a point of the hyper informed public, which lends itself to the degradation of all defenses against bio threats. Reading the community mitigation guidelines from the CDC it was clear that the previous H1N1 outbreak had prepared significantly for another respiratory virus. Despite the preparedness, it took overwhelming efforts from governmental and non-governmental agencies alike to reach any level of adherence to social distancing, mask wearing and vaccinations. What’s interesting is that this lack of institutional trust coincides with an explosion of information. The pieces this week missed on the fact that bioterrorism threats are not limited to bad actors with a virus or pathogen that they could release, but rather bioterrorism should include the bad actors that spread misinformation about diseases. The explosion of information in our society has led to the degradation of institutional trust including the CDC and NIH has led to misinformation campaigns becoming a new form of bioterrorism. For example, Russia in 2021 launched disinformation campaigns in the US about COVID-19, which likely led to a decrease in adherence to COVID non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical mitigation efforts by Americans. While some could claim that this is an example of misinformation/disinformation as a form of doom, I believe that targeted misinformation and disinformation in the midst of a public health crisis is a form of bioterrorism. The CDC’s community mitigation guidelines are inherently backward looking, so it is not a surprise that the guidelines developed after the 2007 H1N1 pandemic did not include efforts to mitigate the spread of misinformation. It was not until the end of 2021 that the CDC developed misinformation guidelines, however, I don’t think that is enough. The massive influx of information has eroded institutional trust such that different mitigation strategies need to be developed. I believe that building relationships with individuals from younger ages is the key to developing stronger institutions (e.g. see the roll out of Disney in China through English language learning centers for young children).

[maevemcguire]

I thought that the Visualization of the history of pandemics was really interesting as it allows us to better understand the scale in which our modern-day understandings of pandemics compare with those in the past we have learned about. I was especially interested to compare the size of the COVID-19 pandemic representation with the much larger one of HIV/AIDS. On the other hand, the speck of Ebola or Swine Flu – both Pandemics I remember being huge growing up – compared minisculy in size to the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic. In another class today we discussed Professor Trinitapoli’s book “An Epidemic of Uncertainty.” This detailed her longitudinal demographic study into the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Malawi. She effectively demonstrates how narrative is important to represent anomalies, complexities, or uncertainties as important evidential indications – “ a portal to understanding the social world more deeply.” This book discusses the uncertainty associated with the HIV epidemic because of the “he proportion of those who do not know their status, that is, the proportion uncertain,” which raises the question of how to acknowledge or diminish these uncertainties, when they are innate to the population of study. She clarifies that “uncertainties” don’t necessarily just arise from “novelties,” and the discusses the innate uncertainties inextricably linked with something like the HIV epidemic. I thought that this analysis accompanied “The History of Pandemics” very well, especially in its discussions of the novel Coronavirus Pandemic. Scientists’ use the metric of “R naught” to measure infectiousness helps limit uncertainty with understanding the spread of pandemics. I thought that the narrations discussing the ‘Wrath of the Gods’ and the historical myth of gods’ and spirits’ causes of pandemics in many ancient societies were very interesting and highlighted the importance of embracing uncertainties.
Lastly, I thought that “The History of Pandemics” provided a hopeful lens into the existentiality of pandemics, writing “Despite the persistence of disease and pandemics throughout history, there’s one consistent trend over time – a gradual reduction in the death rate.”

[mibr4601]

After watching Contagion, I found Alan to be one of the most interesting characters. Conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers were a particularly prominent issue during Covid. In the movie, Dr. Cheever says “In order to get scared all you have to do is come in contact with a rumor, or a television or the internet.” We saw this during the pandemic with toilet paper. As soon as you took to the internet, you would see images of stores being out of toilet paper. Everyone saw the images of people panic buying and saw the empty shelves causing more panic buying.

This went a step further with the anti-vaxxers. It didn’t matter how much science there was backing the safety and cause of the vaccines or the lives being saved. Instead, rumors were spread about it causing autism or how it made you magnetic so you’d get hit by cars, or that they were microchipped. But why were these rumors based on no science so readily believed by so many? Part of this is due to the lack of trust in the CDC and other agencies. The best reaction to a pandemic for the CDC is to overreact and implement too many safety checks that limit the spread. But, people expect extreme outcomes when extreme measures are taken. If the extreme outcomes are not met because extreme measures were taken, then it is deemed an overreaction and unnecessary. It is never that the extreme measures led to the outcome, but rather that the outcome was always going to be reached no matter what measures were taken. This philosophy results in a lack of trust in the CDC and the desire to hear what they want to hear. They then see some guy named Alan on his blog who has deemed the virus to not actually be harmful and the vaccine actually causes damage in the long run. Alan makes himself relatable as he also thinks the CDC is wrong and is thus more believable.

This is also addressed in Germ Warfare. Public health is a victim of its own success in many countries. Most people assume that we will just be healthy without really needing to do that much. Then vaccines seem unnecessary as we already are healthy even though that is largely due to vaccines. Then you have people who hear from all sorts of sources that vaccines are bad or that the government is trying to control us with them. The success of recent human health in controlling and minimizing sicknesses has somehow become the greatest threat to us continuing this success.

[AudreyPScott]

risk #bio

In our readings this week, I was most struck by the nature of how cyclical the pandemic risk to humanity is. We go through it, continuously -- we learn, maybe adapt, maybe forget, and repeat again years, decades, or centuries later. Unlike the innate ties of media and our vocalizations of risks such as AI -- for which narratives empower us with language and ideas, as we've discussed in prior weeks -- the 'predictive' power of pandemic media illustrates how well we understand the basic building blocks of how this risk compounds. In The Future of The Future from Wired in 1995, we see a fictionalized account of what happens to be a 2020 flu-like virus leaked out of a lab in China. Unlike our more familiar 2020 flu-like virus, this one created effects that were far more immediate, with far more drastic death tolls: blood out of orifices accompanied by mania. With this danger so clear and present to all segments of the population, responses were robust and quick -- particularly as, in this work, the 'old guard' of virology were taken out by the illness itself. I was particularly struck by this notion of the Childrens' Crusade (86), and the abandonment of canonical approaches being attributed to the ultimate interdisciplinarily-derived cure. This notion of suspension of normative processes reminded me strongly of our discussion with Carl Bergstrom and the suspension of mandated peer review in favor of ease of access. A tried and true tradition, toppled due to a need for change -- but in that manner, with fewer charred bodies in planes.

This mirroring of modern pandemics was also seen in our exploration of Contagion, which similarly displays a 21st-century pandemic enabled by modern globalization. One interesting piece about its pandemic response is the lottery for vaccines based on birthday -- of course, like above, this bug is flashy, but what kind of death and destruction would it take for that to be a necessary move in the modern day when so many people refuse vaccines (including the new COVID shot? go get the September dose!)? Furthermore, I'm particularly interested in exploring zoonosis here in a different form. Lab leaks and intentional weapons are one clear risk -- but climate change and ecological collapse is another. In Contagion, deforestation disturbs infected bats, which intermingle with pigs and infect them -- pigs that are later brought to human population centers to be prepared and eaten. This principle is similar to seeing wolves and mountain lions in populous areas: as animal territories are infringed upon, co-existing with other species will create a variety of realities. The stressors of climate change and biological risks are comorbidities that must be adequately addressed in the future.

I enjoyed Visualizing History and the historical section of Germ Warfare (which in general was interesting propaganda that should make for good class discussion), which further illustrated the cyclical nature of thee disasters and how they scale with civilizations. Above is a medieval depiction of the Plague of Justinian. Roman historian Procopius wrote about the plague in his History of the Wars, saying, among other things: And, to put all in a word, it was not possible to see a single man in Byzantium clad in the chlamys, and especially when the emperor became ill (for he too had a swelling of the groin), but in a city which held dominion over the whole Roman empire every man was wearing clothes befitting private station and remaining quietly at home. Such was the course of the pestilence in the Roman empire at large as well as in Byzantium. And it fell also upon the land of the Persians and visited all the other barbarians besides.

[AnikSingh1]

origin #solutions

Upon reading through "Visualizing the History of Pandemics" , I found myself interested in how diseases spread, and wanted to use history as a way to help guide our thinking of how pandemics affect our future. I believe that pandemics, like the history has shown, will gradually decrease as a result of technological isolation. Pandemics have begun as early as the 14th century, so it's nothing new, but one sentence really caught my eye:

"From small hunting and gathering tribes to the metropolis, humanity’s reliance on one another has also sparked opportunities for disease to spread".

The human reliance on one another throughout history has caused diseases to spread much more rapidly. With healthcare being less prominent at the time, human conditions when sick were definitely worse. This correlates to how many people passed away at the time. Looking through the death counts and seeing that they have become less prominent is definitely a promising thing. However, this is not what I want to focus on. Rather, the concept of socialization and interaction in person with other human beings has shifted throughout the 21st century to more isolated, online communication. Because of this, I feel as though we are able to entertain, survive, and exist without as much human to human contact as before. It is through this logic that I see pandemics declining over time, as historical trends have shown. Quarantine exists through the nature of little interaction, and with the way society goes forward, we are only becoming more and more limited in our interactions... in person at least.

I am curious if indoor activities, or closed spaces like convention centers and celebrations could be a potential cause for diseases to still occur, if not more. With the odds that some events will never go away and human interaction will still always have to persist, it is still likely that illnesses can spread between people, resulting in pandemics. As such, the importance of human connection will inevitably lead to success, as it has throughout human history. It is through our awareness and handling the spread of diseases where we hope to see a change to remove high chances of illness spread throughout the world. Using our history as a guide, there are likely chances where we practice safely so long as we look to the future with optimism and not negativity, as much was spread throughout COVID-19... arguably more than the illness itself.

COVID-19 inspired comic that impacted our social lives.

[kallotey]

salience

Addressing the complexities surrounding pandemics and biological threats necessitates a multifaceted examination of societal, institutional, and ideological factors. From the lens of films like Contagion (2011) to the harsh realities of the COVID-19 pandemic, skepticism towards government responses and the dissemination of information remains prevalent. This skepticism often stems from historical instances of misinformation or mishandling of crises by authorities. Additionally, the perception of risk varies among individuals and communities, influenced by ideological beliefs, cultural norms, and personal experiences. Ideological differences significantly impact public attitudes and behaviors regarding pandemics and vaccinations. Deep-rooted ideologies, whether political, religious, or cultural, can shape perceptions of risk and influence acceptance or rejection of preventive measures such as vaccination campaigns. For instance, vaccine hesitancy may arise from distrust in pharmaceutical companies or concerns about individual freedoms conflicting with public health mandates. In a study by the National Library of Medicine, for example, authors Gravelle, Phillips, Reifler, and Scotto conducted a study to determine the size of anti-vax populations in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. And in their second table (provided below) they identify survey participants’ education, age, ideology, party, and race and ethnicity to determine the relationship between these factors and support for vaccines.

Mobilizing effective responses to biological threats is impeded by the presence of vested interests seeking to downplay risks for economic or political gain. Industries reliant on international trade or tourism may downplay the severity of a pandemic to protect financial interests, while political entities may manipulate narratives to maintain power or avoid accountability for inadequate crisis management. Recognizing and addressing these ideological and institutional barriers is crucial for fostering collective responsibility and mobilizing proactive responses to pandemics and biological threats. It requires fostering trust between governments, scientific institutions, and the public, as well as promoting evidence-based communication strategies to counter misinformation and mitigate ideological divides. By acknowledging these challenges and working towards inclusive and informed approaches, societies can better prepare for and respond to the complex threats posed by infectious diseases.

Source: Gravelle TB, Phillips JB, Reifler J, Scotto TJ. Estimating the size of "anti-vax" and vaccine hesitant populations in the US, UK, and Canada: comparative latent class modeling of vaccine attitudes. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2022 Dec 31;18(1):2008214. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.2008214.

[WPDolan]

risk #framing #bio

Throughout the quarter we have read various pieces of speculative fiction concerned with the realization of existential risks (most notably "The Machine Stops" and "Savior of the Plague Years"). While these stories are often judged in terms of their ability to "predict" current crises, I believe that there is also value in contrasting their narrative resolutions to our modern responses to similar crises.

"Savior of the Plague Years", as suggested by the title, describes a fictional account of how a single scientist and her team saved the world from an apocalyptic disease. While the story mentions how the research team leveraged previous initiatives into their cure, the story frames this team as a rugged group of individuals who were able to see past the mistakes of everyone else to discover a cure. Comparing this to the more recent COVID-19 pandemic, we have no singular "savior". COVID vaccines were developed in a relatively short time span due to government and private investment, international cooperation, and the hard work of the scientific community. While governments and scientific organizations weren't perfect in their response to the pandemic, they were ultimately the major players that mitigated the threat.

Similarly, there was no "victory" moment that signaled the immediate and complete end of the COVID pandemic. Vaccine rollouts were uneven globally, their legitimacy was challenged by large parts of the world, and the virus developed new strains that were more effective against vaccinated individuals. While many governments have declared an end to the pandemic as a national emergency, these declarations varied temporally and were contingent upon their nation's individual relationship with the disease. COVID cases have not zero dropped to zero and the scientific community is continuing work on updated vaccines. On the other hand, "Savior of the Plague Years" (along with most speculative/apocalyptic fiction) contains a moment after which the crisis is considered to be fully resolved across the globe, after which everyone can rebuild and to return to their pre-apocalyptic state.

While these differences can largely be attributed to common methods of storytelling, our desire for "heroes" and narrative certainty can hinder our ability to respond to threats in a more complicated world. Carl Bergstrom, in his presentation on misinformation, cited the public's desire for certainty as a significant source of public distrust in early scientific communication around COVID (where are the one-handed scientists?). Failing to find a satisfying answer in scientific authority, some people then subscribed to new narratives from confident figureheads who could immediately provide them with a solution, even if those narratives were incorrect or otherwise harmful. Would we be able to stem these issues if we promoted stories of speculative/apocalyptic fiction that are less certain in their resolutions, or would these stories even be popular at all?

Image: Visualization from "Savior of the Plague Years", showing the world celebrating the end of the fictional Mao Flu.

[cbgravitt]

framing #origin #bio #misinformation

The graphic novel Germ Warfare: A Very Graphic History heavily emphasized the growing risk of bioterrorism as deadly pathogens that could upend social order as we know it become easier and cheaper to make. After something like the Covid-19 pandemic, most would think that the world would be better prepared for these kinds of attacks, and malicious actors would be less successful with them as a result. Not only is this not true, but the opposite seems to be the case. People all over the world witnessed how many states floundered and how many populations rejected safeguards to protect against illness. The development of the vaccine was an incredible achievement, but the backlash to it in some areas was strong. I think this backlash could have been better anticipated. Anti-public health movements, more specifically anti-vaccine movements, have been around for as long as the medical field. The first recorded anti-vaccine movements appeared at the same time as the first vaccines in the early 1800s. Funnily enough, many of the concerns then are similar to the ones now: refusal for religious reasons, concern over the ingredients, and a general thought that the practice was unscientific. Of course, early vaccines were much more dubious than modern ones, but they were nonetheless effective in curbing smallpox. Further protests shot up when the English government made vaccination mandatory for small children, again under pretenses of a restriction of liberty. These themes run deep throughout the history of medicine. It wasn't until the 1970s that people began to directly draw connections between vaccines and childhood disabilities, though. Later in the 90's came the now-famous conspiracy that vaccines, and specifically a few components in them that use mercury, cause autism in children. Of course, all of the research suggesting a link was disproven time and time again, but the confusion has lingered in the public's mind ever since, and pseudo-scientific advocates have had great success spreading their beliefs online even before the pandemic. All this is to say that when people look back on the pandemic and response to different treatments as appalling and surprising, they should also know that these issues have existed for centuries, and they need to be confronted as soon as possible to ensure a swift response against future pathogens.

Source for the info in this memo: https://historyofvaccines.org/vaccines-101/misconceptions-about-vaccines/history-anti-vaccination-movements An old political cartoon that reflects many of the arguments used against the Covid-19 vaccination mandates.

[madsnewton]

framing #bio

American individualism rooted itself deep into the ideology of the United States following the Western frontier expansion, and later, the coinage of “rugged individualism” by Herbert Hoover in his presidential campaign. This individualism champions personal freedoms, limited government, and capitalism for the benefit of individual success and is a cornerstone of the coveted American Dream. American individualism is an interesting lens to view the United States’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic felt unexpected. Looking back, the hesitancy and refusal to follow public health guidelines was even more shocking. While a minority, there were still many Americans refusing to wear masks in the face of mask mandates and spreading microchip and mRNA vaccine conspiracies in response to vaccine requirements. Is this American individualism or just plain selfish? I think American individualism is inherently selfish, and any coordinated public health measures need to be prepared to grapple with this.

Are mask mandates and vaccine requirements needed in response to a public health crisis? Yes. Were these going to cause the skeptics to have even less trust in government and health organizations? Also yes. The majority of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers I encountered weren’t confused about the science in preventing the spread of COVID-19. They felt that the government was infringing on their personal freedoms and, in the true spirit of American individualism, they were absolutely not going to comply with public health guidelines, regardless of if they got sick or not because that was their choice. So what can government and health organizations do better to appeal to this subset of Americans the next time we are faced with an public health crisis? The commitments made by the Biden administration that are addressed in this week’s readings (The 2022 National Biodefense Strategy builds upon administration S&T priorities for pandemic preparedness) includes the importance of getting more citizens to follow public health guidelines the next time around. “The National Biodefense Strategy goes even further by setting new audacious targets across pandemic preparedness capabilities. These include: increasing vaccine uptake rates to over 85% through evidence-based public messaging and education campaigns…” Any solution to this involves upending the American individualism that has persisted since the Oregon Trail, and it isn’t likely to die out anytime soon. For now, an emphasis on better public messaging and public health communication will at least win over some of those hesitant to adhere to pandemic guidelines.

[summerliu1027]

origin

Covid has undeniably reshaped the world to such a degree that I find it shocking when some people do not think Covid is a disease deadly enough to take vaccines for. I think there are two reasons for this: (1) unfitting comparisons to historical pandemics, (2) the abundance of public health resources (especially in the US).

The prevalence of historically catastrophic pandemics diminished the perceived seriousness of COVID-19. As depicted in Visualizing the History of Pandemics, pandemics like the Black Death and smallpox have set high thresholds for what constitutes a catastrophic health crisis. The 6.9M deaths from Covid may seem trivial in comparison to the 200M from the Black Deaths or smallpox. These historical benchmarks of human tragedy are often used as comparative metrics, against which the impact of COVID-19 is measured. This type of comparison, however, overlooks the multifaceted impacts of COVID-19, which extends beyond mortality rates. The globalized nature of the modern world facilitated the unprecedented spread of the disease, which only seemed trivial because the symptoms of Covid are not as deadly as some of the other historical pandemics. If Covid developed a strain more deadly than the ones we have seen, it could have caused a significant death toll.

Moreover, advancements in medicine and abundant access to medical care have made Covid seem less serious. Vaccines were developed and distributed at an unprecedented pace, mitigating what could have been a far worse situation. This achievement contributes to a perception that COVID-19 is less severe than past pandemics. The narrative that COVID-19 is "less serious" also overlooks the adaptability required to navigate the pandemic and the resilience of healthcare systems under strain. Chinese hospitals, for instance, were so crowded with patients needing isolation that temporary tents were set up.

Therefore, it's crucial to avoid diminishing the severity of COVID-19 by comparisons alone, especially looking back at it now that it has largely subsided. Such comparisons risk complacency. Recognizing the seriousness of COVID-19 involves understanding the broader context of pandemics while appreciating the unique contemporary challenges it has introduced. If anything, Covid was a testament to how far mankind has come in technological advancements and government response time, but what we have seen in response was by no means perfect. If we become complacent, we risk putting the entirety of mankind at risk should the next pandemic come.

Anti-vaccine protest in Australia

[briannaliu]

#pandemics #risk

One of the most ironic–and perhaps covert–impacts of a pandemic, is that the violence society expresses in response to the pandemic itself, often goes unnoticed and consequently unpunished. In the wake of a pandemic, one might expect society to unite in the shared plight of undue suffering. But empirically, these events tend to divide more than they unify.

Consider the HIV/AIDS epidemic: during the last two decades of the 20th century, violence perpetrated against the LGBT community had skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. In fact, the violence was indirectly sanctioned by the state – a 1986 New York Times column bemoaned that because law enforcement agencies refused to document crimes against the LGBT community, independent organizations were left to do the recordkeeping themselves.

This trend was recently emboldened during the coronavirus pandemic: after the mainstream propagation of misleading information on COVID-19’s origins–for example, former-President Trump’s usage of the terms “Chinese Virus” and “Wuhan Virus”–the NYPD recorded a 1900% increase in anti-Asian hate crimes (see graphic below).

Furthermore, these reactionary social divides can outlast the virality of the pandemic. The Economic Policy Institute noted that COVID-19 significantly increased racial tensions through its discriminatory impacts: for example, black workers were simultaneously the most likely racial group to be working in front-line jobs, while also suffering the highest unemployment rates. And now, despite COVID-19 being on the backburner, the hate crime spikes it introduced have yet to dissipate.

Ultimately, pandemic divisiveness is no laboratory accident: it is a politician’s tool. It is a masterful hedge against poor policy: the creation of the scapegoat is a clear blame avoidance tactic. For example: if the state efficiently combats a pandemic, it is victory over the scapegoat. However, if the state implements an unsuccessful policy, the blame is ceded to the villainized scapegoat.

Notably, the scapegoat is not random–do not think “eeny, meeny, miny, moe!” After all, it is easier to capitalize on preexisting tensions. For example, during Hurricane Katrina, one study found that showing photographs of black victims from the city of New Orleans (predominantly black) to whites, caused the latter to blame the former for the consequences of the hurricane. It is this volatility of social relations that makes pandemics frightening beyond just the virus.

We have a pre-pandemic problem.

[tosinOO]

movie

The film "Contagion" serves as a poignant narrative that underscores our existential crisis posed by biological threats. Through its depiction of a rapidly spreading lethal virus, the film explores the multifaceted impact of pandemics, drawing attention to our vulnerability and to emerging infectious diseases. I'd like to discussion the Visual Capitalist's infographic "Visualizing the History of Pandemics," which gives us a historical context vs the portrayal of pandemics in "Contagion". The movie represents the existential challenge of pandemics by focusing on the rapid, completely global spread of a virus, the race against time to develop a vaccine, and the societal upheaval that ensues. It highlights in particular the role of misinformation in exacerbating public fear, and the challenges faced by public health officials in managing such crises. This representation aligns with the historical data presented in the Visual Capitalist infographic, which charts the deadliest pandemics throughout history.

I believe that the film, while emphasizing the scientific and societal response to the pandemic, tends to ignore the long-term socioeconomic impacts and the recovery phase following such global health crises. The focus is predominantly on the immediate response rather than the aftermath, which includes the mental health crisis, economic downturns, and the deep scars left on the fabric of societies, as seen in the aftermath of real-life pandemics like the Spanish Flu of 1918 or obviously the recent COVID-19 pandemic.

The health risks portrayed in the movie however, is remarkably realistic, as evidenced by the COVID-19 pandemic that followed nearly a decade later. The film's depiction of the virus's transmission, the scramble for a vaccine, and the global panic mirrored real-world events, making the risk not only realistic but also prescient. The Visual Capitalist's infographic reinforces this realism by showing that pandemics of similar or greater magnitude have occurred throughout history, suggesting that the fictional scenario presented in "Contagion" is not only possible but likely to recur in some form (maybe 2120?).

For many viewers back then, I'm sure the movie made the existential threat of pandemics both salient and tangible. It hopefully and likely transformed an abstract threat into a concrete, immediate concern, prompting discussions about preparedness, public health infrastructure, and the importance of scientific research. For others, as reflected in reviews and box office receipts, the film was a thrilling, if unsettling, exploration of a hypothetical scenario. However, the subsequent COVID-19 pandemic definitely shifted perceptions, with many turning to "Contagion" as a prophetic depiction of real-world events, thus elevating its significance and the public's awareness of the existential threats posed by biological hazards.

[Daniela-miaut]

origin #risk #policy #framing

When I studied the social response to Covid-19 in China from a sociological perspective, I (and some other concurrent studies) focused on resource mobilization. We studied (under the Chinese context) why and how the government react relatively slowly towards an emergency, and how the provisional organization of social power can compensate for the delay of government. This gives me an insight that good management of public health emergency relies on the resources that people can mobilize collectively, be it materials, information, public consensus, or collective action. The entity who mobilize these resources can be either the government, non-governmental organizations, provisional groups on social media, or local communities. From my observation during the Covid-19, I found that the East Asian societies seem to be more capable of such collective resource mobilization, while more individualist societies faced more challenges. Also, delay in the governmental response seems common across countries and regime types. To conclude, I found that in the industrialized society, not only the increased population density and population flow, but also the values of individualism and a large bureaucratic system, have posed even more challenges to the management of pandemic in the same time they bring us freedom and dignity. Another topic I want to address is Wade’s view on the origin of Covid-19. Though I have not personally reached a conclusion on the actual origin of Covid, but I feel that, given Wade’s analysis, and the drama we experienced in the past four years, if a government wants to require, or permit that a group of people create a virus, or even biological weapon, they can. Just like the nuclear weapon, biological weapons can be a real threat in the future. Aside from taking millions of lives, they can cause damage to a country’s economy and solidarity. Now I start to think of biological threats through its similarities with nuclear weapon. The screenshots below are from the social media contents of the online volunteer group that I worked in during the first 4 months of 2020. I used google translated to translate the texts into English. The first article is about the rising cases of domestic violence during the pandemic, and the second is a summary of the donations that the group helped with. Finding these articles reminded me of the optimism we had at that time.

[GreatPraxis]

bio #framing

The "Savior of the Plague Years" narrative shows a fictionalized pandemic where a single doctor and her team save the world by finding a cure. This trope is common in movies like "12 Monkeys," where a small group of scientists becomes humanity's last hope against a virus. The media often shapes our perceptions, potentially distorting our understanding of scientific progress and the collaborative nature of addressing global crises. Portraying scientific breakthroughs as the result of lone geniuses or small teams oversimplifies the reality of research and innovation.

For instance, looking at the graph below, which shows how many countries and territories bought each one of the top ten COVID-19 vaccines, we can get important information about their development. Notably, adenovirus vaccines (such as AstraZeneca, Sputnik V, and Janssen) and mRNA vaccines (like Pfizer and Moderna) are the most widely used across the globe. These technologies have been developed over decades by diverse research groups from many countries, highlighting the international collaborative effort essential to scientific advancement. To highlight that fact even more, one can note that each one of these vaccines was developed by a different country. Therefore, moving away from the narrative of the lone genius is crucial. Lawmakers, governments, and funding agencies must recognize the time and resources required for such advancements. Increased funding for research during non-pandemic periods prepares us for future crises.

Additionally, the graph illustrates that most countries utilized vaccines from various companies and nations, enhancing their pandemic response. On the other hand, China's exclusive use of its locally-developed Sinopharm vaccines posed challenges compared to countries utilizing mRNA vaccines, which have higher efficacy rates. The drawbacks of the failure of primarily relying on a single vaccine, particularly Sinopharm, is also evident in Seychelles, where it led to relatively high infection rates despite high vaccination coverage. Promoting a culture that recognizes the advantages of global collaboration in science is crucial for preparing effectively for pandemics, and it is our hope that governments will follow this call.

Fictionalized texts often misrepresent science, favoring narratives of solitary heroes over international collaboration. However, understanding science as a global, interconnected field is vital. This understanding can influence funding decisions, shaping our ability to respond to future pandemics effectively.

[GreatPraxis]

movie #bio #salience

The movie "12 Monkeys," released in 1996, depicts a post-apocalyptic world where humanity is driven underground by a devastating virus. Despite thirty years of effort, scientists have yet to make progress in finding a cure. However, they theorize that by obtaining the virus's original, unmutated form from thirty years prior, they can unlock the key to a cure. This leads to the decision to force a prisoner to go back in time to gather crucial information about the virus's initial composition. After this point, most of the movie takes place in the past, following the prisoner as he tries to warn the people of the impending existential crisis while trying to gather information. While the central crisis in the movie revolves around a pandemic, its themes are broad enough to apply to any existential risk that humanity might face.

A central theme of the movie is the human capacity for large-scale catastrophe, as the entire crisis is sparked by a single individual releasing a virus. While this is a fictional film, this story can remind us of real-world discussions, such as the lab leak theories surrounding COVID-19's origin, where a lab member inadvertently or intentionally releases the virus into the wild. This ability to cause widespread harm extends to other existential risks like nuclear war, where a single irrational leader with a nuclear missile can ignite conflict. The film also highlights the complicity of those who ignore warnings of the impending catastrophe. This is exemplified in the scene in which the frame below is from, where the protagonist himself starts to doubt the existence of the pandemic, questioning whether it is real or a figment of his imagination. This made me think that the complicity of a large part of the population is the reason why mobilizing people to address an existential risk is so difficult.

Despite the looming risk, a significant number of people may refuse to believe it will materialize. While this skepticism may be understandable in the context of the movie, where people lack the protagonist's knowledge of the future, in reality, even when there are substantial concerns about a threat, many will deny the necessity for action. This was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a significant portion of the population rejecting the severity of the disease. Similarly, regarding global warming, a large percentage of Americans either deny or are uncertain about a human cause despite contradicting evidence. Therefore, policymakers may need to strategize, considering the challenge of convincing those who remain unconvinced. While the film presents a pessimistic outlook on crisis prevention, it also portrays humanity's resilience, suggesting that humans will ultimately find solutions, even if they require groundbreaking innovations like mRNA vaccines or, in this case, time travel.

[agupta818]

bio #policy #risk #misinfo

When thinking back to the COVID-19 pandemic, one thing that stands out is the dialogue around the vaccine. Not only were there publicized concerns about its effectiveness and the use of a mandate to enforce vaccinations, but also this idea of democratization of resources and equal access to vaccines and scientific advancements around the world. In fact, developing countries had slower access to vaccinations and spreading preventative resources than countries like the United States. In a case of a virus that was world-wide and not restricted to one region or even continent, the response to COVID-19 had flaws which must be addressed when thinking of the risks associated with a future pandemic on a larger scale that is more virulent and deadly. First, in a Covid-19-like pandemic, it is important to address the drastic effects that misinformation can have on the health of others. There must be policy implemented to ensure that individuals have access to verifiable scientific resources that prove effectiveness of prevention methods like vaccines or even using masks in order to curb the spread of a virus. People who only have access to biased information that is not based on facts but rather opinion cannot make safe and educated decisions about their health. Whether this is sending paper pamphlets to every household as Everett Coop did during the AIDS pandemic, or ensuring that there is a more centralized global online resource that can clearly explain information to the masses, this should be an international effort. Additionally, a virus that is a threat to all means that countries should cooperate internationally in order to ensure equal access to vaccines globally so as to not leave certain countries who may not be able to develop their own alone. Democratizing research in a dire time and exporting vaccines is a solution that could help protect the masses. A more virulent virus in the future would mean more deaths and infections and associated complications, and countries must stand together to prevent the spread and high mortality/morbidity rates because it is a matter of humanity, and not international politics. You can see in this figure that by Feb 2021, many countries still lacked access to the vaccine against COVID.