May 13 - Pandemics - Memos

[deholz]

Leave below as comments your memos that grapple with the topic of Pandemics, inspired by the readings, movies, & novels (at least one per quarter), your research, experiences, and imagination! Also add a thumbs up to the 5 memos you find most awesome, challenging, and discussion-worthy!

Recall the following instructions: Memos: Every week students will post one memo in response to the readings and associated topic. The memo should be 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.

Movie/novel memo: Each week there will be a selection of films and novels. For one session over the course of the quarter, at their discretion, students will 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)?

[jane-uc21]

solutions #policy #bio

I have been volunteering at Chicago covid vaccine PODs since January, and due to my personal involvement in vaccination efforts I am a strong proponent of “Biodefense in Crisis”’s proposed Medical Countermeasure Response Framework. The successes of covid vaccine development and distribution underscore our need for 1) more efficient vaccine R&D and manufacturing, and in fact demonstrate the value of 2) a federal avenue for mass vaccination. The American healthcare and biotechnology markets are highly privatized and thus unable to enact united R&D or provision of care responses to catastrophic health threats. Prior to covid-19, the 2009 H1N1 pandemic exposed our outdated countermeasure technologies. American deaths due to H1N1 fell far short of the projected 30,000 to 90,000 deaths, but only due to H1N1’s slow mutation rate [1]. Critics highlighted slow vaccine production; fewer than 30 million of 60 million promised vaccines had been produced by October 2009, mid-way through the first wave [1]. This is attributable to the US’s lack of investment in more efficient vaccine production methods. Rather we relied upon slow chicken-egg vaccine production. Decades of private sector R&D on mRNA vaccines allowed Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna to crank out covid-19 vaccines in only 10 months, versus the traditional 12-18 month period. The federal government has aided production substantially, eg. the partnership between J&J and Merck brokered by the Biden administration, which also supplied $268.8 million for Merck facilities and equipment [2]. However the decentralized nature of government funded medical R&D- at present 80% of NIH funding is extramural to independent researchers- does not facilitate constant (rather than episodic) advancement of medical countermeasures [3]. While the existing NIH Vaccine Research Center focusing on HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and influenza is a start, consistent federal research efforts may be needed to save more lives in future pandemics. We cannot rely upon episodic private sector innovation. Vaccine distribution in the US has been relatively rapid. The Biden administration bulldozed past its goal of 200 million shots administered in 100 days. 34.4% of Americans are fully vaccinated [4], and the U.S. will have sufficient vaccines for every American adult by the end of this month. This rapid rate has been facilitated in large part by the National Guard, which has provided integral logistical support, including mobile vaccination sites, and vaccinated 6 million people as of April 9 [5]. However, this success is again episodic; the deployment of Arizona’s National Guard was its largest since WWII. The National Guard and US Public Health Service cite the importance of their mutual cooperation with organizations such as the Red Cross and FEMA, but given the efficacy of such stratified vaccination efforts it would be foolish not to institute a permanent body for this purpose. Thus in the theme of our class and Toby Ord’s objection to “quick fixes” for existential threats, and “Biodefense in Crisis”’s emphasis on sustained rather than episodic responses for biological threats, I advocate for a Medical Countermeasure Response Framework to centralize vaccine and countermeasure R&D, and to facilitate mass vaccination. While our adept handling of covid-19 vaccine development and distribution were supported episodically in this instance, the success of novel vaccine technologies and mass vaccination underscore the importance of formalizing these tools in a federal framework.

[References] [1] “H1N1 Influenza and the U.s. Response: Looking Back at 2009.” n.d. Csis.Org. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://www.csis.org/blogs/smart-global-health/h1n1-influenza-and-us-response-looking-back-2009. [2] “Vaccine Production And State Intervention In The U.S.” n.d. Jdsupra.Com. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/vaccine-production-and-state-9779326/. [3] “Budget.” 2014. Nih.Gov. October 31, 2014. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget. [4] Haseman, Janie. 2021. “When Will Everyone Be Vaccinated for COVID-19? Here’s How the Vaccine Rollout Is Going.” USA Today, April 25, 2021. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2021/03/12/when-will-everyone-be-vaccinated-for-covid-19-when-will-we-reach-us-herd-immunity-projection/6840512002/. [5] “National Guard Tops 6 Million People Vaccinated.” n.d. Army.Mil. Accessed May 11, 2021.https://www.army.mil/article/245139/national_guard_tops_6_million_people_vaccinated. [6] “Biodefense in Crisis.” Biodefensecommission.Org. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://biodefensecommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Biodefense_in_Crisis.pdf. [7] “New York National Guard Begins COVID-19 Vaccinations.” n.d. Army.Mil. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://www.army.mil/article/241984//new_york_national_guard/ _begins_covid_19_vaccinations.

[madelman99]

movie #framing #risk #salience

The film I Am Legend represents the existential threat of an out of control virus. The film, starring Will Smith, shows the aftermath of an attempt to re-engineer a version of the measles to cure cancer. The new strain of measles, however, becomes lethal and kills the vast majority of the global population. The infection had a 90% kill rate, leaving 5.4 billion people dead in the immediate aftermath of the outbreak. The immunity group was less than 1%, leaving 12 million people to survive. The remaining people turned into the Darkseekers and started to feed on the remaining humans. These Darkseekers bear some memory of their humanity but have mutated into albino cannibals which Will Smith’s character spends the movie both avoiding and trying to cure.

The movie is told from the perspective of Robert Neville, an army virologist, who spends the movie trying to find a cure to the measles virus in his barricaded home in an abandoned Manhattan. The impact of this existential threat was devastating to the planet and certainly to the island of Manhattan. Dr. Neville is aware that some humans were unaffected by the virus but is unsure if any are left and has no means of contacting the outside world. Every day, Neville broadcasts from the same location in the city at the same time to anyone who might be listening. It is a message sent out in vain until the very end of the movie when two other survivors enter the story. The days of Dr. Nevillle are spent experimenting on rats to find a cure to the measles strain, collecting supplies to ensure his survival, and attempting to cope with his crippling loneliness. His sole companion is his dog, Sam, who tragically dies during the course of the movie after being bitten by a Darkseeker.

The story of the devastation is told in a series of flashbacks through Neville and pieces of recorded media from around the time of the outbreak. We learn about the scientists attempting to cure cancer with a re-engineered measles virus, that Sam’s wife and daughter died in a helicopter crash during their frantic escape from the Manhattan quarantine, and the mass exodus of NYC. After many unsuccessful vaccine trials, Neville finally finds a promising solution with a compound derived from his own blood, and captures a female Darkseeker to test the drug on.

From this point, the action accelerates rapidly. Neville’s dog passes away, he attacks a group of Darkseekers at night, and 2 more immune humans, Anna and Ethan enter the story. The two responded to Neville’s radio broadcast and save his life. Anna and Ethan explain that they are on their way to a survivor camp in Vermont, which Neville claims does not exist. The following night, the Darkseekers invade their home and the three survivors hide in the basement laboratory with the female Darkseeker. It becomes clear that the drug was a success and Neville sacrifices himself to protect Anna, Ethan, and the cure. The movie ends with Anna and Ethan at the military compound in Vermont and Anna handing a vial of blood from the cured Darkseeker to one of the military members guarding the compound.

This movie was an interesting and novel take on the aftermath of an existential apocalypse. In general, it highlighted the act of surviving after the end of the world rather than the events that led to that destruction. The movie opens with a brief newscast featuring the lead scientist of the botched cancer cure, but otherwise, the audience gets very little information about the virus itself, the spread, and the organized attempts at a cure. The Krippen Virus is treated in the movie as an inevitable, unavoidable threat for which corrective measures can be taken after the fact. It ignores the devastation of the initial spread, instead choosing to highlight life after the virus sweeps through the world and one man’s obsession to find a cure.

The threat was realistic in some ways and not so much in others. The threat of a re-engineered deadly disease is very real and very possible. As a species, we were and still are historically bad at regulating the destruction, transportation, and experimentation of deadly diseases. Frankly, I am surprised that a deadly strain of a pathogen has yet to be released on the population, either purposefully or by accident. Furthermore, although a disease that wipes out 90% of the population is possible, the notion that a group of humans that it does not kill could turn into mutated albino cannibals is farfetched. From the information provided in the film, the audience is given no indication that the re-engineered virus has any means of mutating human genetic code. The film was very salient to me. Since watching it, I have read a number of articles and listened to some podcasts about genetically engineered diseases. Currently, I view it as a more pressing issue than climate change. The potential destruction of a truly existentially threatening disease could be more catastrophic than a nuclear war.

Ultimately, I thought that I am Legend was an engaging and well done film. It certainly struggled in some areas. For instance, in the flashback scenes, there was not nearly as much violence, fear, looting etc that I would expect to see during a cataclysmic pandemic. In fact, the pandemonium during the first weeks of the Covid pandemic was much more severe in my opinion. Furthermore, the movie takes place only 3 years after the start of the pandemic but the amount of undergrowth and wildlife that has taken over Manhattan does not reflect that. Overall, I thought that the film was a gritty and relatively realistic look at the aftermath of a deadly virus and the attempts to undo the damage.

As a final thought, given the current climate of vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaxxers, I think that making a film where the world is destroyed by what is effectively a vaccine for cancer is concerning and shortsighted (see image below). This film featured an A-list actor, grossed nearly $600 million, and was viewed around the world. I would prefer to see a pandemic movie where a vaccine is not responsible the apocalypse.

[brettkatz]

salience #framing #risk #bio

It’s always the outsider. When people think of conspiracy theorists, there’s the archetypice of a fringe blog poster railing against the “mainstream order” and a “cabal” (oftentimes accompanied by antisemitic rhetoric) of covert operatives undermining the interests of the general public. Contagion is a perfect representation of the classical conspiracy theorist presented in the media. Alan Krumwiede blogs at the fringes of what is considered mainstream “journalism”, although in Contagion his correct prediction about the seriousness of the outbreak awards him great notoriety. However, his influence over tens of millions allows him to sway public confidence in favor of a drug, forsythia, which did not receive any public health approval or clinical data. The forsythia craze he ignites causes pharmaceutical looting and burglary in search of the drug. Much later Krumwiede is exposed as having fraudulated his personal success story with forsythia. Krumwiede also perpetuates vaccine disinformation and skepticism among his some 12 million blog followers.

There are many routes to comparing the plot of Contagion with that of the COVID-19 pandemic, but I find disinformation to have interesting differences. Specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic, disinformation was not being spread by a fringe blogger, rather by the President of the United States himself. Protests against lockdowns, anti-mask mandates, and attempted kidnappings of state governors were all spurred by the top-most governing authority of the United States. The case of hydroxychloroquine is quite similar to that of forsythia. Donald Trump pushed hydroxychloroquine as a great treatment for COVID-19, well before it received any regulatory approval, while medical professionals urged caution with experimental drugs. Over time, clinical trials data showing its impact on increasing patient mortality led to its abandonment as a last-effort experimental drug in patients. However, even after this data came out, Trump kept saying hydroxychloroquine was a successful COVID-19 treatment option. Similarly, Krumwiede, when confronted with a lack of clinical evidence for forsythia, claimed that the CDC was in bed with big pharma and that the clinical data was faked in a grand conspiracy.

In Contagion, the high mortality rate (25-30%) and greater R0 (eventually at least 4) in combination with little social distancing measures in place caused societal breakdown - increasing the allure of more radical conspiracy theories. Thus, even though in the United States, conspiracy theories were being perpetuated by the Commander in Chief, societal collapse was not nearly as extensive as in Contagion, meaning many US citizens remained skeptical of the President’s claims. Even stil, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed just how susceptible the US population is to believing in baseless conspiracy theories, ranging from high rates of vaccine skepticism, to electoral fraud, to 5G cell tower radiation-based illness.

[panunbali]

movie #risk #salience

12 Monkeys revolves around a prisoner (James Cole played by Bruce Willis) in the year 2035 who negotiates a deal with the government (or the authorities of 2035) to go back in time and in return, have his sentence forgiven. Cole is sent back to 1996 where he is tasked with finding information about what is suspected to be a pandemic set off by a group of environmental terrorists. To avoid too much of a time travel paradox, the film states that Cole cannot change anything in the past (since it has already happened) and his role is only that of reconnaissance so that humanity in 2035 can find a cure for the virus that wiped out 5 billion people. Much of the film is focused on this time traveling aspect, with many of the inflection points in the story being centered around an exploration of the Bootstrap Paradox or causal loops. Cole himself is troubled by repeated dreams of a man being killed, but at the end of the film (spoilers, I guess) it becomes clear that Cole was remembering an experience 12-year-old Cole had of watching a future version of himself die the whole time without knowing it.

But what is also intriguing about the film is the idea of a man-made pandemic. Much of the recent discourse on pandemics (especially because of COVID playing such a prominent role in our lives this past year) has been centered around how humanity’s increasingly uncontrolled interaction with the environment and surrounding wildlife (primarily through wanton destruction) has increased the likelihood of new diseases/viruses being exposed to us and causing more pandemics in the future. After all, if rumors are to be believed, the novel Coronavirus may have originated in a wet market in China and passed on from a bat to a human being when purchased and eaten. But watching 12 Monkeys highlighted a possible concern that I had not actively thought about, the idea that there exists a possible pandemic that happens not accidentally or naturally but because of the designs of a person/group of people who have ulterior motives in the releasing of such a virus.

The immediate concern is that a man-made virus is easier to tailor to maximize deaths, possible spread and suffering in a way that simply is unlikely to happen with a natural virus like COVID-19. I remember watching a ted talk that Bill Gates gave on a possible pandemic a few years ago and it is uncanny how the simulations he and his team ran mimic what the COVID-19 pandemic has been. His simulations focused on a virus that is fundamentally easy to spread, but that was not necessarily too lethal (very similar to COVID). But a man-made virus outbreak could be created such that it could be even more lethal, even more easy to spread around the world and it could be manipulated to happen in a way that involves multiple sources of outbreak (similar to what happens in 12 Monkeys).

It seems likely that militaries all around the world are working on types of warfare that involve viruses and pandemics so it seems more and more like the risk of a civilization ending man-made pandemic might be higher than that of a natural one. I’m not sure what to expect or hope for, but it seems like our biggest hope right now (similar to our conversations about nuclear warfare) is the threat of mutually assured destruction from any potential pandemic used in war/political struggles. A thin barrier to be sure, and certainly one that we should be more concerned about, especially given the risk of terrorists and other unwanted agents getting access to such tools.

[bdelnegro]

risk #climate #bio

COVID-19 & Climate Change: Examining the Effects of Environmental Devastation on Deadly Pandemics

Existential risks are not only deadly and devastating in their own right- they can also exacerbate existing problems and create new ones. Environmental degradation and climate change are examples of these so-called “threat multipliers”. Indeed, few aspects of daily life remain untouched by their effects, including COVID-19.

Environmental devastation is believed to heighten both the risk and mortality of deadly pandemics and diseases. The survival, reproduction, and transmission of an infectious disease is dependent on certain environmental conditions. Mosquito breeding, for instance, benefits from warmer and wetter weather. As global temperatures rise, malaria, zika, dengue fever, and the West Nile virus (all mosquito-borne diseases) are disseminating into areas in which they are not currently endemic and infecting new populations. Climate change has also rendered conditions more favorable for the spread of Lyme disease and waterborne diseases. Moreover, as the planet heats up, animals and humans alike are migrating away from the equator and towards the poles. As a result, many species are coming into contact for the first time- thereby enabling pathogens to spread to new hosts. A similar phenomenon is occurring as a direct result of environmental degradation. Deforestation, which occurs when forests are cleared for agricultural or urban use, is the largest cause of habitat loss worldwide. Like climate change, this loss has historically forced species to migrate to new areas. This increases their contact with humans and other animals and can result in the share of germs. Habitat loss is also known to weaken the immune systems of species and reduce their genetic diversity which can in turn render them more susceptible to new diseases. In fact, environmental devastation likely caused both COVID-19 and MEV-1. The final scenes of Contagion reveal that MEV-1 originated from a diseased bat escaping the destruction of its palm tree habitat. Although the provenance of COVID-19 remains unknown, scientists theorize that the virus came from pangolins or bats. Likewise, bats suffering habitat loss are believed to be the source of both SARS and Ebola. According to the CDC, 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious disease is a “zoonoses” or “zoonotic disease”: an illness which occurs when animal germs ‘spillover’ into human populations. Climate change also increases the fatality of pandemics. A study by Harvard University found that exposure to fine particle air pollution was linked to COVID-19 death rates. Similarly, pollution may have played a role in the spread of the 2015 avian influenza and daily mortality rate of the 2005 SARS epidemic in Beijing. The World Health Organization also recognized that “climate change can indirectly affect responses to the pandemic, by undermining the environmental determinants of health and placing extra stress on health systems”. In Puerto Rico, for example, the lasting impacts of Hurricane Maria on the public health infrastructure reduced the commonwealth’s capacity to cope with COVID-19. Ultimately, the connection between existential risks like environmental devastation, climate change, and deadly diseases is clear. Current and past pandemics underscore the relationship between our health and that of the planet.

Works Cited:

Cohen, Ilana. “Covid-19 and Climate Change Will Remain Inextricably Linked, Thanks to the Parallels (and the Denial).” Inside Climate News, Inside Climate News, 23 Dec. 2020, insideclimatenews.org/news/01012021/covid-climate-parallels-denial/.

“Contagion.” Warner Bros., 2011.

“Coronavirus and Climate Change.” C-CHANGE, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 6 July 2020, www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/coronavirus-and-climate-change/.

Kaplan, Sarah. “Climate Change Affects Everything - Even the Coronavirus.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 15 Apr. 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/04/15/climate-change-affects-everything-even-coronavirus/.

Marchant, Natalie. “Half of Those Surveyed Are Unaware of the Link between Climate Change and Diseases like COVID-19.” World Economic Forum, World Economic Forum, 20 Jan. 2021, www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/climate-change-link-infectious-diseases-covid-19-study/.

Mullins, Lisa. “Climate Change Worsens Effects Of Global Outbreaks Like Coronavirus, Expert Says.” Climate Change Worsens Effects Of Global Outbreaks Like Coronavirus, Expert Says | Earthwhile, WBUR, 22 Apr. 2020, www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2020/04/22/climate-change-coronavirus.

Rice, Doyle. “Scientists Are Seeing an 'Acceleration of Pandemics': They Are Looking at Climate Change.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 10 Sept. 2020, www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/10/climate-change-covid-19-does-global-warming-fuel-pandemics/5749582002/.

“Zoonotic Diseases.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 14 July 2017, www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html.

[slrothschild]

solutions #policy #bio

One of the greatest points on contention during the COVID-19 pandemic has been wearing masks, as well as “big government” mask mandating. Even though this practice has been thoroughly proven to reduce the spread of the virus and in turn reduce the actual R0 over time, people continuously argue against the idea. This is somewhat hand-in-hand with the approach to small business closures across the United States, eliciting a similar reaction from the same parties. There were a couple of factors about the “Community Mitigation Guidelines” paper written by the CDC regarding the next “pandemic influenza,” and the updates to the policies from 2007 onward. The really interesting part of this paper is the overarching theme that the country must stay open, and mass gatherings will still happen regardless of the pandemic. While this is true, it is still within the control of the CDC and the government to make sure that this is not the case if it does not need to be. The tone truly is that the country will continue to function, and even with a pandemic going on, we do not need to shut down. We now know for a fact that this was not true, and I very much expect the next guidelines to take note of what happened in 2020-2021. The CDC also appeared to be very aware of the usefulness of masks, and stopping the spread of anything respiratory by nature. This came to the forefront with the COVID-19 pandemic, but would not be wasted as a common practice moving forward. Now, there’s almost no road to mandate people to wear masks when they’re sick, but the practice itself would be wholly effective in reducing the spread of the flu and other respiratory diseases that plague endangered populations more in the first place by nature. This was simply an idea that I heard while listening to a video or reading an article (I can’t remember which), but really made me think about the good that could come out of society implementing this as common practice across the board.

[madelman99]

bio #infectiousdiseases #origin #risk

Diseases and viruses have been a part of the human experience forever. In fact, 8% of homo sapiens DNA consists of remnants of ancient viruses and another 40 percent is made up of repetitive strings of genetic letters that is also thought to have a viral origin. However, many of these viruses and diseases are not nearly as benevolent as those found within our cells. "As humans have spread across the world, so have infectious diseases. Even in this modern era, outbreaks are nearly constant." Even though we are constantly learning more about infectious diseases, they seem Moree prevalent than ever. Although the most deadly pandemic in recorded history, the Bubonic Plague, is nearly 700 years in the past, we have had well over a dozen pandemics since.

The frequency and severity of pandemics are due to a number of factors including urbanization and movement. "it was not until the marked shift to agrarian communities that the scale and spread of these diseases increased dramatically." with agrarian society came a massive increase of the population and an increased concentration of people in a static area. Gone were the days when small bands of 100 hunter gatherers lived nomadic lifestyles on open plains. With agrarian culture came the cultivation of animals, which often lived in dirty conditions close to their human owners. A rapidly developing global trade network also created more possibilities of interaction between animals and humans, creating new viruses and allowing old viruses to spread and mutate more easily. As humanity settled into cities and continued to expand population, trade networks, and domestication of animals, "the more likely pandemics would occur." Of all the major pandemics recorded since the common era, over half have occurred in the past 200 years alone. These numbers are deeply troubling but perhaps what is more troubling is that humans are directly responsible for their creation and propagation: "the most important infectious diseases of modern food-producing human populations also include diseases that could have emerged only within the past 11,000 years, following the rise of agriculture."

However, despite the devastation of pandemics that have come about naturally, they pale in comparison to human made pathogens. To give an example, Australia suffers from epidemics of mice that destroy crops and cause a lot of damage to livestock and property. In the late 90's, a small group of scientists used a re-engineered mouse pox virus in an attempt to make the mice infertile. They added a gene involved in the mouse immune system to the mouse pox virus, which is closely related to the smallpox virus that killed 50 million humans in less than 6 months in the early 20th century. Every mouse infected with the pathogen died, including those who had been vaccinated against mouse pox. With relative ease and completely by accident, the scientists created a virus that was a perfect killer. "The Australian scientists, from the Australian National University in Canberra, say the discovery of how easy it is to make such a viral killer should ring global alarm bells. They called on all nations to strengthen a global treaty that seeks to ban germ warfare." A small media presence covered the terrifying discovery, including the NYT, in 2001 but the press seemed uninterested. The mouse pox and small pox viruses are so closely related that, in theory, a bad actor or cavalier researcher could make the same modification to a small pox strain that could be a perfect killer of humans. Perhaps the scariest part of this story is that this killer pathogen was created completely by mistake. Labs all over the world handle deadly pathogens, viruses, and diseases on a daily basis and many of them lack the safety standards that one expects in a BSL 4 laboratory. There is currently no global regulatory body to monitor the handling and experimentation of infectious diseases. It seems like only a matter of time before something is unleashed on the population.

Sources: https://www.cshl.edu/the-non-human-living-inside-of-you/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/history-of-pandemics-deadliest/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114494/ https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/23/world/australians-create-a-deadly-mouse-virus.html

[janet-clare]

The Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense’s response to address national vulnerabilities is a constructive and highly critical report on the United States’ government’s shortcomings and failures to face the Covid-19 pandemic. Another scathing review of these same issues is Michael Lewis’s recent book, “The Premonition, A Pandemic Story”.

While Lewis anecdotally explores many of the issues that the Commission addresses. I found one in particular most telling, in both its relative simplicity, and simultaneous scope, the shortage of testing swabs. While the pandemic has been at once raging and lurking around us, a key component to getting a hold of the situation, or at least where we stand in it at any given time, was, and remains, testing for Covid-19. The lack of quick and available testing throughout the pandemic, and especially initially, went beyond the point of our, and other countries, being taken off guard. As far as disaster management, “inadequate efforts (were) made to prepare...despite countless warnings”1. The lack of testing falls easily under the corrective recommendations of the Commission’s report from the top down, starting most broadly from “Leadership”, implicating a lack of high-level focus on critical aspects, to “Coordination”, the federal government was laid culpable for “abdicating key national responsibilities to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments”2. From the start, the need for “robust and responsive testing infrastructure” had been “essential to our success in stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2"3. And with asymptomatic spread being a most dangerous characteristic of the disease, “if there (was) no testing, there (wasn’t) even the possibility of a solution”4. Public and private labs went into high gear to develop viable solutions. Lewis profiles the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub in California and their attempt to tackle this problem. At the beginning of March 2020, within eight days they assembled a fully self-sufficient Covid lab to process an anticipated influx of tests, which didn’t come. This because early in the pandemic, and continuing for some time, many California hospitals claimed to have no testing kits, but “what they likely meant was: ‘We have no nasal swabs.’”5 Those “long translucent sticks... which offered the only reliable method to sample the virus... were nowhere to be found”.6

Lewis recounts a Biohub epidemiologist arranging to receive 40,000 of the much-coveted swabs from an HHS representative, only to learn in the end, and three days after delivery was expected, that the truck was found in the area, reportedly empty, but in reality, holding a cargo of Q-tips, revealing that there never had been any legitimate supply coming from the “Strategic National Stockpile”7. At around this time, the president also told America’s governors that they should attempt to acquire their own supplies, abdication of responsibility indeed. An “absence of federal leadership had triggered a wild free-for-all in the market for pandemic supplies”.8 One shady entrepreneur tried to pass off relabeled, sort of similar looking, eyelash brushes, while profiteering off brand manufacturers were selling usable product for three times market price. Manufacturing has since caught up, both at home and internationally, but at what cost?

The United States “has suffered from a lack of testing resources” and as a result significant pain and suffering due to lack of “the widespread availability of testing” that in some other countries at times “has been credited with the relatively low mortality figures, and slowed spread of the virus.”9 The Biodefense report confirms that, without key leadership and strategies, the United States government, literally and figuratively, did not come up with the goods. "The Premonition" wonders, will they next time?

bio #policy #solutions #derelictionofduty

Wait! What?

Tbestmax 200 Disposable. https://www.amazon.com

McClean, Denis. Governance failure at heart of global crises. Reliefweb. Jun 17, 2020. OCHA. Reliefweb.int. https://www.reliefweb.int/report/world/governance-failure-heart-global-crises.

Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense. Biodefense in Crisis: Immediate Action Required to Address National Vulnerabilities. p 8. March 2021.

Testing Overview, Summary of Recent Changes. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Mar 17, 2021. Cdc.gov. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/testing.

Lewis, Michael. The Premonition, A Pandemic Story. P242. W.W. Norton & Co. New York, NY. 2021

Finch, WH and Hernandez Finch, ME. Poverty and Covid-19: Rates of Incidence and Deaths in the United States During the First 10 Weeks of the Pandemic. 2020. Front. Sociol. 5: 47.doi:10.3389/fsoc.2020.00047

[AlexandraN1]

origin #motivation #bio

As noted by Toby Ord, 1763 offered a shining example of biological warfare: the intentional use of disease as a strategy against an enemy. In this instance, the North American Commander-in-Chief proposed the idea of using smallpox as a weapon against Native Americans, stating: “we must on this occasion, use every strategem in our power to reduce them” (Ord, 2020). The disease was spread to villages on blankets and handkerchiefs.

The trouble with this template example is that the colonists felt the smallpox threat would be sufficiently contained, so that they themselves did not bear the costs of the spread. However, it is difficult to grasp what political or personal motivations one might have to intentionally design and spread a highly lethal or disruptive disease in the modern age, since such a virus is likely to affect every corner of the world. In other words, disease in the 21st century is an extremely imprecise strategic tool, causing widespread and unpredictable harms, with very little control remaining in the initiator.

Since Ord places the existential threat of an engineered pandemic at 1 in 30, I am interested in considering some possible motivations for the intentional global spread of a highly infectious or lethal disease. This is because the accidental spread - escape from a laboratory - is likely to be much easier to control through targeted international protocols, since the at-risk laboratories are more likely to have good intentions and comply. Due to the clandestine and non-complying nature of an intentional spread, it seems very difficult to imagine how this could be reliably safeguarded against.

Considering some motivations for intentional spread, I can think of:

• Malthusian goals such as the reduction of earth’s population for perceived ‘benevolent’ reasons
• Highly ideological/religious goals such as to bring about the end of the world
• Personal economic goals relating to a specific benefit of the pandemic, such as profiting from a vaccine or other pandemic-related consumable items
• Misunderstanding of the ‘backfiring’ nature of a pandemic by a so-called ‘crazy state’ (Roy, 1994), who believes the virus will have a more limited impact on the target

Image Source

[shanekim23]

framing #origin

As of right now, over 35% of the US population is fully vaccinated, and over 260 million doses have been administered in the United States. Even compared to what the Biden administration had hoped for, we would call this rollout a success. However, let’s orient ourselves back in March 2020. If we look at the cases for the USA and Korea in this time period, understandably, COVID-19 hit Korea harder and faster (assuming the JHU numbers are accurate). On March 3, 2020, there were 851 cases in Korea; and on March 17, 2020, when the first US cases were discovered, there were 51 in the United States. But as we know, the US’s numbers spiked much higher than they ever did in South Korea. In fact, on December 3, more people died from COVID-19 in the US during a five-hour span than have ever died in South Korea from COVID-19. So how and why did this happen? The media has already delineated so many different ideas about the Trump administration and how they failed to contain the virus effectively. So, instead of focusing on what the administration had done wrong (and what the Korean government did right), I will focus on the cultural differences that may have seriously influenced these numbers. The main reasons that made Koreans successful (in containing the virus) are 1) their willingness to sacrifice individual freedom and privacy and 2) their willingness to comply with government mandates. These two reasons go hand in hand, and for that reason, I will talk about them together. Since individual liberty is not emphasized as much in Korea, the citizens generally believe that it is in each of their best interests to comply with quarantine and testing guidelines. The quarantine app, which tracks your location and requires a bidaily self-examination/temperature check for two weeks, was instituted almost immediately in Korea; whereas in the United States, such invasion of privacy would never be tolerated. I’m not saying that Americans don’t think about the public good; I am simply pointing to the diversity of opinions and emphasis on privacy. In other words, many Americans seem to revel in making their own decisions, whereas most Koreans will wear masks and use the quarantine app without any questions. Thus, I would say that the United States’ initial failure to deal with the virus stems not only from the incompetent administration, but also the public’s response that prioritized individual agency over public health. The graphs below reflect both of these phenomena.

Sources: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/04/difference-how-pandemic-has-affected-us-south-korea-remains-staggering/

[sosuna22]

pandemic #salience #problem

We were underprepared, but what about next time?

The assigned movie Contagion, brings up many of the issues we faced or are facing during the COVID-19 pandemic today. It is crazy to think that many of the problems shown in the media actually occurred. Then after reading the assigned readings, it was even more fascinating to see that there were people attempting to prepare for these problems but we just didn’t listen. This brings back the recurring problem of ignoring problems that are catastrophic and focusing on smaller issues.

Prior to the pandemic, those who sought avenues of preparation were often referred to as “doomsday” preppers and often times they were stigmatized by the media. Yes, there are some that take it to another level but overall, they were much better prepared for a virus than the US government. This led me to wonder, what can I as a civilian do better to be prepared for the next time this happens?

Research shows that as the climate continues to change and people encroach on animal’s personal space the chances of another pandemic increase significantly. This means that it is no longer a good idea to disregard preparation for another pandemic. But what does this mean? Most of us do not have the resources to spend thousands or ability to prioritize the time such as those in the show Doomsday Preppers.

At home, keeping two weeks worth of food and water is a good place to start. This does not have to be very fancy or intricate meals, it just has to be enough to sustain everyone living in the home for 2 weeks. MREs are available for purchase in stores and online and do not expire for years. Additionally, keeping a complete first aid kit with medicine can be tremendously helpful. From this pandemic we also learned the value of being able to keep a space clean, so keeping a solid supply of cleaning supplies is great as well. If we had all had this at the beginning of the pandemic, infection rates would have decreased significantly.

Looking at the bigger picture, we learned a lot about the faults of different governments during this pandemic. We as citizens of the US government have the ability to vote in legislation that supports good preparation and actions for the next pandemic. This is probably the most impactful thing we can do because it helps the entire country and saves countless lives if we are better prepared. Additionally, pandemics are not something that only impact one country; they impact the world. It should not be every country for themselves. There needs to be a global effort to better prepare for pandemics.

Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/shows/doomsday-preppers Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52775386 Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-real-world-data-can-help-us-better-prepare-for-the-next-pandemic/ Source and image source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/preparing-for-the-next-pandemic-11585936915

[fdioum]

solutions #salience #bio

As a country we are not ready for a pandemic, COVID-19 has proven that. We constantly see in movies how policymakers are very reluctant to think of existential threats as they either don’t believe what is being presented to them or they are too busy to even consider it. This is most the case in the real world. Politicians are so concerned about their next election that they truly do not have the time set measures for bio defense. For most political positions,there is a reelection every 2 to 4 years. For most political positions, there is a reelection every 2 to 4 years. As a result of that, politicians are doing everything in their power to show that they did XYZ in whatever action they did which resulted in a positive solution that made an impact in our communities. When reelection is in the forefront of every politician's mind, it is almost impossible to commit time and effort into a project such as increasing our country‘s bio defense if it does not yield results within the 2-4 year time frame. As we have seen in the infographic, The History of Pandemics by Death Toll, pandemic do not happen frequently but when they do happen, we aren’t ready for them. The article, we read about Biodefense in Crisis, articulates how certain positions such as that of the Special Assistant to the President for Health and Biodefense, are only filled in the midst of a pandemic. It is safe to say that our country doesn’t try to prevent pandemics, but rather, they try to treat it once it has occured. As a solution to this problem, I suggest that our economists illuminate the obvious to our policy makers that it is much more costly to deal with a pandemic once it has occurred than to try to prevent one. Covid-19 should be a lesson to our whole country. With all of the unemployment payments, the stimulus payments, the hit on our GDP and economy, has cost the US trillions of dollars in the last year or so. However, keeping certain positions filled throughout the years, people who have the brain power to increase our country’s Biodefense has a much lower opportunity cost. If not for financial reasons, do it for ethical one as that would save so many lives, five hundred and eighty two thousand lives lost from Covid alone in the US. Both of these reasons are not only incentives for our country to focus more on Biodefense, but also, there is an incentive for politicians to put the proper people in the position to ameliorate our Biodefense system. Every new action taken for our Biodefense system is a scored point for their election, which people would respond to now that we have seen the dreadful effects of being unprepared for a pandemic.

https://media.khou.com/assets/KHOU/images/eefd1456-f5c5-4d97-aabd-ecd685b3996f/eefd1456-f5c5-4d97-aabd-ecd685b3996f_1920x1080.jpg

[jatkins21]

solutions #polarization

With many of the existential threats we've dealt with thus far, we've viewed them on a global scale. The question has consistently been: how do we, as a planet, all cooperate to fix these issues? When it comes to pandemics, they aren't always a global issue, as some countries have handled them far better than others. While pandemics are certainly a generally frightening prospect beyond COVID-19, they can be mitigated if handled correctly. Perhaps an equally frightening thing is that some countries have essentially written the blueprint on COVID response (Australia for example) while others, like the US, completely butchered it at the expense of many lives. While I'm a general proponent of democracy and freedom that our nation preaches, I think our treatment of COVID-19 reflects one of the drawbacks of this mentality. In promoting independence and freedom, I'd say the average American most likely acts more in their own interest than the average citizen of nearly any other country. While I don't think this is a bad thing in general (I'd much prefer the freedom to act in a way I deem best for myself than to behave in compliance with leadership), it's situations like this that truly do require national unity and cooperation where this mindset is deleteriously rampant. While I'd still much rather live here than an authoritarian state that has a firm grasp on COVID (due to their firm grasp on their citizens), there's certainly a middle ground to be found. Australia, again, feels like the prime example of this. Ultimately, regardless of how good a plan is on a national scale, it requires people feeling that the national action aligns with their personal best course of action. In America, we're so polarized that desired actions of one group of people inherently tend to defy the goals of another group. We need to mend this rift in political polarization to get people in America more on the same page so we can effectively combat looming issues such as pandemics.

[mesber1]

policy #origin #risk #solutions

It is important to discuss the relationship between American notions of individual liberty and nationwide health in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the emergence of the virus, the U.S. became uniquely positioned as one of the only developed countries with such a weak governmental response to the worldwide crisis. The Trump administration simply refused to take seriously the early warning signs of the virus’ spread and failed to coordinate an effective response. Therefore, it is no wonder that Americans began to place a political label on what can be considered minimal (when compared to the efforts of other developed nations) safety measures. The result? More than 582 thousand deaths, among the highest numbers in the developed world. Wearing a mask, a small price to pay for the saving of lives, became, to some, a symbol of oppression, a supposed infringement on individual liberty. A simple piece of cloth meant to protect oneself and others became a political instrument that sparked ludicrous instances of supposed “resistance” such as a North Carolinian anti-shutdown group’s (Reopen NC) “Burn Your Mask Challenge,” where “people post videos on social media of themselves burning their masks and use the hashtag ‘#IgniteFreedom,’” (The Guardian, How did face masks become a political issue in America?). It is exceedingly difficult to understand why Americans politicize what is meant only to protect them; social, economic, and political factors no doubt come into play. Overcoming a pandemic requires collaboration and a willing public. Although Europe’s death rates are not unconcerning, the relatively swift responses of countries such as France, which imposed a strict quarantine that allowed people to leave their homes solely for essential activities and required that they carry a signed document (Attestation de Déplacement Dérogatoire) stating their reasons for doing so, were effective. The French government’s initial efforts proved severe when compared to the lax safety measures suggested (rather than effectively imposed) by the United States, but they worked; France was able to reopen its borders for travelers within the EU after cases declined (despite the current resurgence). It was not only the French government’s response that mitigated the virus, it was the willingness of the citizenry to comply rather than protest something meant solely to benefit them (this is not to say that anti-mask protests did not occur elsewhere. They were, however, less prevalent). Surviving a pandemic requires collaboration and an understanding that certain freedoms must be placed on hold in order to allow for a return to some semblance of normality and in order to protect those most at risk.

[References]

1. How did face masks become a political issue in America? The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/29/face-masks-us-politics-coronavirus
2. How France Handles the Coronavirus Pandemic https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/how-france-handles-the-coronavirus-pandemic.html

[louisjlevin]

framing #origin

As I looked over the History of Pandemics' infographics, I couldn't help but wonder how this moment in history will be remembered. Will people, when faced with another inevitable pandemic years from now, look back at our spot on an infographic - not so different from this one - with a sense of curiosity? To put that in simpler words, will people remember this pandemic? Now, of course, right now it is almost unimaginable that anyone will forget it. But, based on our previous track record, it seems that we're likely to do just that. My great, great grandmother died in a pandemic almost exactly one hundred years ago, but from a different virus: the Spanish Flu. That particular pandemic took out up to 50 million people, and yet all we remember of that period is a war that killed far less. This is not an outlier moment. In fact, historically after every pandemic we have faced, our collective memory forgets the immediate past shockingly quickly. In trying to explain why this might be, many scholars and scientists point to the lack of a visible enemy, the lack of reason or moral cause, the lack of scientific comprehension in the moment. These are all true, but I think we're not giving our ancestral selves enough credit. I suspect that, much like us, they all wished that their pandemic would end as quickly as possible, and when it did, they all sought to similarly move on as quickly as possible. What I mean by this is that yes, there are key traits that make pandemics less memorable than, say, war, but I also think we underestimate our own ability to control and dictate what we choose to remember. And, as we look forwards, realising our own agency in deciding how we remember this pandemic is essential to ensuring we are better prepared for the next one.

Sources

• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/29/history-forget-pandemic-spanish-flu-covid
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-1918-flu-faded-in-our-collective-memory-we-might-forget-the-coronavirus-too/
• https://www.thenation.com/article/society/spanish-flu-pandemic/ Men wearing masks at a US Army hospital in Fort Porter, New York, during the Spanish Flu.

[TimGranzow7]

Risk #Salience #origin

If there is one takeaway from watching Contagion (2011) while in the midst of an eerily similar and equally severe pandemic, it is that humanity appears continually incapable of proper preparation and pre-pandemic planning. The film came out on the heels of the H1N1 “swine flu”, which, according to the Community Mitigation Guidelines, infected 40-90 million people in the US alone, and caused approximately 12,000 deaths — a fraction of the ~160 million infections and more than 3 million deaths due to COVID-19, cited by the infographic as being the eighth deadliest pandemic in recorded history (thus far). H1N1 was not significant because of its severity or difficulty in treating, but more so because of the panic it caused, particularly in the United States which was often (mistakenly) believed to be “developed” and insusceptible to an epidemic. As such, both the government and the general public were overly comfortable with existing pandemic protocol, and lived in a state of ignorant bliss. Contagion capitalized on the wake-up call H1N1 provided to some, seeking to paint a relatable, scientifically-grounded, believable, and ultimately rather harrowing film which highlights the numerous pitfalls and weaknesses in US and worldwide pandemic-mitigation protocol. Watching this film during COVID-19 painfully illustrates just how little has been done since 2009 to better prepare, as nearly every major plot point in the movie occurred in reality during COVID-19 in some form or another. The origin of the virus via bat vector in Asia, fears of bioterrorism by China, runs on supermarkets, mass panic, vaccine-related inequality, and even statements made by the CDC to socially distance are just a few of the many parallels between the movie and reality today. It is clear from this that the risks have not changed. Nothing new occurred in recent years to cause coronavirus, it is merely a combination of many elements of viral bad luck with the ineffective, unchanged policies for preparing for and dealing with outbreaks. Some aspects are difficult to address; the continued lack of a complete medical knowledge of viruses and the fact that there will always be pseudoscientists, profiteers, and politicians who refuse to acknowledge the severity of the virus, the science relating to it, or its existence at all, are complex issues that cannot be solved with simple action. However, other pre-pandemic prevention strategies are rather easy to implement, and could save millions of lives. Immediate social distancing, school and business closures, and changes to public behavior around pandemics could greatly hinder spread of the disease. While there are many additional challenges to these practices, as we have seen this past year, they can be overcome relatively easily by reorganization of existing frameworks, through technology (like Zoom), and through the spread of quality information. We did not learn from Spanish Flu, H1N1, and movies like Contagion, so we can only hope that the truly personal impacts of COVID-19 will force governments and individuals to realize that pandemics are real, modern threats.

NOTE: Although this memo deals largely with Contagion, this is not a movie memo.

[jasonshepp6]

In the film Contagion, the movie centers around an urban environment where panic sets in and people loot and riot. In another class that I am in (Pandemics, Urban Spaces, and Public Life), we examine the impacts of urban environments on pandemic spread. As a result, in this memo, I would like to combine what I have learned from my class on Pandemics and this class to analyze the apparent “truthfulness” of the social reaction to Contagion.

Regarding the social reaction, including most prominently the rioting and chaos, we can look towards our readings regarding inequality to help shed light on this issue. In particular, I will look at access to housing and police & military presence.

First, in Contagion there is a highlight on staying locked in a house and attempting to avoid the danger of riots and diseases. This is similar to our modern stay-at-home-order for the Covid-19 epidemic. In both cases, however, there is underlying discrimination against those who are homeless or live in community homes. Additionally, those in housing are further stratified between the wealthy who have their own houses versus lower and middle class families located in cramped apartment buildings. Pandemic spread occurs much faster in the densely populated lower class living quarters. In this way, inequality is built into the very design of cities.

Second, in Contagion we see the rioting as policemen stop maintaining order. In addition to this being fueled by a desire to survive, there is clearly a certain amount of resentment that the lower classes feel towards the wealthy as they seek to destroy property and redistribute resources, which is also similar to the riots during Covid-19. This rioting is exacerbated in Contagion by the fall of order; we can see that when rioting occurred in Chicago following the shootings of unarmed black civilians such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, military presence was used along with increased policing to try and mitigate this rioting. Additionally, as seen in the modern distribution of vaccines, our current Covid-19 response uses the military in a health context similar to the use of the military in Contagion.

As seen below in the images selected, Contagion somewhat helps us build an understanding of modern social unrest following pandemics. Rioting has occurred during Covid-19; while this rioting was not only due to the diseases, Covid most likely exacerbated the underlying resentment.

Source: Contagion Movie

Source: NBC https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/george-floyd-death-nationwide-protests-live-updates-n1219376/ncrd1220091#blogHeader

[Junker24]

20 #Framing

Will we be prepared next time? Will we be prepared for another incident like this?

As many of you have heard over the past 16 months or so, is that of "We are experiencing unprecedented times in the world". Were we not prepared enough? Did Politics control decisions? Have we actually never seen anything like this? The answers to these questions are based up to loose interpretation and many fantasy depictions are floating around in the news and the internet today.

After watching 2 of the assigned movies this week, Contagion and _I am _Legend__, doing homework while laying in my bed seems to be quite a blessing while going through our real world Pandemic currently. Contagion represents the scenario of a respiratory virus that has a 1 in 12 infection rate as well as a 30% mortality rate when in contact. By the end of the movie, the virus has killed over 3 million americans as well as over 30 million worldwide. There are stark similarities to the virus in Contagion and that of our own COVID-19. For example, these viruses both originated from that of Bats (Or as we think), and were spread to America from contact with Humans infected with the virus. To go along with this, A difference between this film and our current pandemic is that of the vaccine as well. In Contagion, the virus was seen to be produced rather quickly compared to COVID and was able to be delivered across the world, something that isnt really happening currently.

I am Legend also represents a Real-World scenario, portraying a Doctor living alone in New York City after the deadly virus turns people into Mutants. This virus is quite different from COVID, but rather it represents a scenario where there is mass amounts of destruction and chaos caused by the virus, which is something that could have happened today. Overall, both movies represented real world scenarios that could happen in the future if we fail to take the proper precautions associated with deadly viruses in our world.

I personally think we WILL be prepared next time. I feel as though every situation is a situation we can learn from and move on. Therefore, when faced with another pandemic and virus, We will be more prepared to deal with it.

[a-bosko]

policy #salience #solutions

After watching Contagion and reading the CDC Community Mitigation Guidance, it is astonishing how many parallels can be drawn to today’s pandemic. Even with warnings from movies and scientific advice from the CDC, it seems that more could have been done to stop the spread of COVID-19 and prevent many unnecessary deaths.

In Contagion, many references were made to social distancing, wearing a mask, and even public panic. With the current pandemic, we have witnessed bouts of panic buying. Although the virus in Contagion seems to be more deadly than the COVID-19 virus, there have been over 3.2 million deaths to date in the current pandemic.

In the CDC Community Mitigation Guidance, the authors mention that non-pharmaceutical interventions are the most readily available to help the slow of the transmission. This includes “staying home when ill, covering coughs and sneezes, and washing hands often.” All of these policies have been implemented in the current pandemic, but we still see individuals refusing to wear masks and social distance appropriately.

With the 2009 swine flu pandemic, the Chinese government stated that they would require a quarantine for visitors who returned from flu-affected areas. On the other hand, the United States did not restrict any travel and had no major changes to airlines. Also, masks were not provided on planes, and crew members did not wear them. Therefore, a lack of planning and lenient policies during the H1N1 pandemic might be one of the reasons why the United States was slow to respond to the current pandemic. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks was merely recommended starting on April 3rd, 2020, which is about three months after the first reported case of the disease.

With 3.2 million deaths currently, why are some individuals still not taking the pandemic seriously? According to the article “Why Do Some People Refuse to Wear a Face Mask in Public” by Claire Gillespie, the oppositional messages about wearing a mask at the beginning of the pandemic might have confused the public on whether it is truly effective to wear a face covering. The author quotes psychiatrist Margaret Seide, who mentions that it’s easier to do something when there is one clear and concise message. Another reason an individual might not wear a mask is because of the lack of control. Since a lot of people have lost control over their lives, individuals try to gain control by going extreme in the opposite direction, avoiding social distancing and going mask-free.

Therefore, one solution to avoid deaths from future pandemics is to have a clear and concise plan from the start. The government now has a plethora of resources and policies available from past pandemics, and leaders should be clear in what the expectations are in keeping each other safe during times of crisis.

Here is an example of an individual “going extreme in the opposite direction” by refusing to wear a face mask and refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

Works Cited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20wearing%20of%20non%2Dmedical,hygiene%20and%20appropriate%20social%20distancing.

“Why Do Some People Refuse to Wear a Face Mask in Public” by Claire Gillespie, https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/face-mask-refuse-to-wear-one-but-why

[vtnightingale]

pandemic #salience #solutions

Where do individual freedoms end and societal freedoms begin? While maybe not being asked directly, this was something that was being wrestled with in our society in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am not familiar with the constitutions nor the cultures in other countries and how they approached this question, so I’ll keep my focus on the USA. The US prides itself on individual freedoms, to a fault. To unpack that all would take more than one memo and is the charge of university departments and scholars across this country. However, I don’t think I am wrong in noting that the pandemic caused an almost fanatical obsession with individual freedoms. People were anti-mask not out of a genuine belief that masks were some how harmful or would further the spread of the virus, but because they demanded the right to not wear it (see the image below as an example of a meme(?) co-opting pro-choice rhetoric). By virtue of masks (or vaccines, or physical distancing, or lock downs, or quarantines) being recommended or implemented by “the State” a reactionary movement based simply on being anti-blank came out simply to be able to express their freedom to do what they wanted. It would of course be naïve to ignore the role of our increasing political polarization in this country, but dealing with that can of worms would require yet another group of scholars.

I bring this up to consider if there needs to be a new direction towards the ideas of freedoms and rights. The era of Enlightenment Liberalism came up with these ideas of freedoms in opposition to the mercantile and feudal monarchs of Europe in the 18th century. But in the 21st century, we need to expand out outlook and explore the concept of social rights, collective freedoms. The Bill of Rights protects individuals from the State. Now we need a way to protect society from the Individual. And this is something that extends beyond just dealing with pandemics. The individual rights of corporate share holders to make a profit from 2795 Gigatons of fossil fuels [1] needs to be curtailed for the collective rights for people to breathe fresh air and drink clean water. Every week I vote for societal transformation as the only way to save ourselves from existential doom if it were to happen. Rethinking what are the rights that are inalienable is one part of this.

[1] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/

[benindeglia]

salience #policy

Science is our shield, it is what everyone relies on for our culture to return to some sense of normalcy. It is in danger, and has been since Contagion aired in 2011. In particular, the hesitancy to trust science and the burden of proof placed among scientists was one of the greatest problems that both slowed down the efforts to contain Mev-1 in the film, but also our efforts to contain COVID-19 in the world. The response from public policy directors in the film are scarily accurate to the response of US policy responders, focusing on short term cost versus the long defense against the virus, which is scarily close to the responses of our country. In the movie, it shows briefly the struggle and sluggishness to respond to the virus, where policymakers are constantly fighting against epidemiologists involved to try and ignore the plague and not panic the people. Similar things happened within the US, even this university moved slowly in response to COVID-19. It is an expensive burden to properly address, especially when the United states disbanded the pandemic response team two years before COVID hit.

One reason why it is so difficult to mobilize against this threat is because of the way scientific practice is - all science is based in theory, with the test of time being how long can your theory stay without another one disproving that. This practice of accepting growth and critique to further human knowledge, accepting the room for debate and discussion makes the evolution of the Great Project something noble and amazing to witness. It does, however, mean that science takes time, and that there is always uncertainty. This uncertainty, particularly at the start of the pandemic, has been damning for the scientific community, as policy makers will be unwilling to fully commit to something with only weeks of research behind it. People want definite answers to their queries, so when the scientific community is honest, and shares the fact that while they know more they don’t know everything, the world was quick to judge and use that uncertainty as justification to not push for as harsh of regulation or for disregarding CDC protocol. These actions cost lives, but not as much as the most dangerous response to this uncertainty was.

The character represented by Jude Law, while seeming like the film's antagonist, was considered by the directors to also be a view of the people in the pandemic. When everyone is searching so desperately for an answer, it only takes one person to say they know with certainty to undermine everything. Jude’s character “Alan”, represents that false certainty, and all the people willing to believe it. Misinformation, fearmongering, and mistrust of science was at an all time high during our plague, and when arguments are either scientific understanding that isn’t complete or misinformation that is confident, it is easy to see why the average citizen picks the latter. This became particularly bad in the United States where it became harder and harder to sift through the news, as other epidemics talked about in this class like Information Chaos proliferated the problem.

Science is our great bulwark against Covid and other diseases, and breakneck speed vaccine creation on a mutating virus is it’s crowning achievement, but it isn’t impervious. Doubt and misinformation are the chink in science’s armor, a fact make more apparent than ever not just through Contagion, but also with the actions of the past year. To truly be ready for the next pandemic, we need to protect science integrity, while also defending it against these threats before we can rest easily

[stellaslorer]

policy #framing

I find it shocking to read through the CDC’s Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza and see the tools that were created before the Covid-19 pandemic to guide us through such a crisis. The mishandling of Covid-19, both globally and within the United States, is acknowledged by most at this point. However, I still find myself in disbelief over the ignorance that blinded us during the early parts of 2020. Most unfortunate of all, this ignorance consumed our policy makers as well who were equipped with a toolkit to help them address this challenge. Looking at the graphics included in this paper that chart the general phases of a pandemic feels especially eerie when thinking about how this was published in 2017––three years prior to the pandemic of today. These graphs resemble the ones that I saw on the news during March, April and May––at a point when the coronavirus was barreling its way through New York at a pace that felt unthinkable. During those moments, I found myself frequently thinking back to an episode of The Daily released on February 27th, 2020 in which Michael Barbaro interviews Donald G. McNeil, a science and health reporter for The New York Times. McNeil voiced a sense of dire alarm regarding the unaddressed spread of the coronavirus. He said that he had already begun to build a stockpile of masks, gloves, and canned foods. McNeil also quite presciently told Michael that he expected hospitals across the United States to be overwhelmed by a deluge of new patients, spurring a national lockdown. He ended the episode on the dark note that it was simply too late–– the situation was already entirely out of control and unpreventable––we would not be able to avoid nationwide quarantines. I remember hearing this episode while packing my bag for class and thinking that this was absolute madness. Little did I, or most of us, know that we were truly sitting on the precipice of a dramatic shift, and yet we were hearing nothing from the people who should have been preparing us––our politicians. Reflecting on this period of time makes me wonder: Why did politicians not respond to what scientists and journalists were signaling? How will our dependency on politicians evolve in the face of such scenarios? Will we take the lessons of Covid-19 too close to heart and respond with blind aggression the next time a disease strikes? What is the suggested course of action that we will carry with us after this period of time? It still feels too early to tell, but all I can do is wonder about how our present time will be both scrutinized and remembered.

Sources https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/sunday-review/coronavirus-quarantine.html https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/06/coronavirus-cartoons-deaths-in-new-york-appear-to-level-off-as-u-s-nearing-peak-in-fatalities/

[LucLampietti]

policy #solutions #framing

Watching Contagion for the second time this year, I'm still struck by what an eerie portentous accuracy it has to the then non-existent COVID-19 pandemic. If one assesses Steven Soderbergh on how well he predicts coronavirus, he absolutely nails it on so many fronts. MEV-1 (the fictional Contagion disease) originated from a wet market, as did coronavirus. Both diseases are spread by respiratory droplets. MEV-1 has an R naught of 4; COVID has an R naught of 2.5. Perhaps the chief difference is that MEV-1 had a mortality rate of 25-30% while COVID-19 has an estimated mortality rate of 3-4%. Likewise Soderbergh excels in predicting the government protocol and psychological ramifications of a pandemic, incorporating elements of social distancing and stockpiling of resources. Perhaps the most compelling narrative in Contagion however is Soderbergh's acknowledgement of the role disinformation plays in a pandemic, as shown through Alan Krumwiede (played by Jude Law). Krumwiede successfully hijacks the official government narrative on vaccine production by blogging his claims that he cured himself of MEV-1 with a homeopathic treatment called forsythia. Although there's no reputable backing for Krumwiede's claims about forsythia, he takes on a messianic role by galvanizing conspiracy theorists through pernicious accusations of government interference and deception about vaccine rollout and side effects. The blogger is later shown being arrested for falsifying his claims of being infected with MEV-1 and then cured by forsythia in an effort to boost forsythia sales.

COVID-19 has highlighted a threat to democracy that already plagued our elections, but now carries even more direct ramifications for educating the public on safety protocols. This is dissemination of disinformation. This constitutes the likes of conspiracy theorist posts about COVID-19 being man-made and part of a global "plandemic". In response to this problem, the European Commission revealed a new initiative, the European Democracy Action Plan. In concrete terms, "the Action Plan provides for the establishment of a joint, operational mechanism for the protection of elections against threats such as cyber-attacks, in order to be able to ensure free and fair elections, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic" (EC.EUROPA.EU, 2021). Although the plan is skewed towards elections, it is highly integrated with the issue of pandemic-related disinformation. Now when it comes to addressing disinformation, especially in the cyber age, there are a myriad of ways to approach the matter. Although the most obvious solution would seem to be identification of disinformation and subsequent removal, I believe this is not nearly as effective as the approach being practiced by Twitter or that proposed in this European Democracy Action Plan. Instead of outright banning misleading content on social media, several platforms like Twitter have taken to flagging incidents of disinformation. I believe these banner alerts explaining why something might be misleading and then linking the post to officially approved COVID-19 information serves to better educate the user on what disinformation looks like. Instead of eliminating this opportunity for learning by banning the post outright, flagging and banner alerts theoretically foster a sense of media literacy, something lacking but greatly needed in today's cyber age. Then, I found the central arguments of the EDAP to be also be an interesting deviation from standard approaches to disinformation. Instead of discussing improvements to identifying and banning disinformation, EDAP advocates for greater journalistic protections against corporate interests as well as subsidizing more journalistic platforms (especially in the face of revenue losses from the pandemic) so as to increase journalistic plurality. These measures are formally laid out below:

"To strengthen freedom and pluralism in media and provide journalists with a safer environment where they can do their work without fear and intimidation, the Commission will be... -proposing a recommendation on safety of journalists -presenting an initiative to curb the abusive use of lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) -working closely with Member States through a structured dialogue and providing sustainable funding for projects on
legal and practical assistance to journalists in the EU and elsewhere -putting forward further measures to support media pluralism and to strengthen transparency of media ownership and
state advertising, among others, through the new Media Ownership Monitor" (EC.EUROPA.EU, 2021)

Thus, I feel like an apt characterization of state and corporate-sponsored approaches to counteracting disinformation is making true information available alongside disinformation for the educational benefit of the viewer, instead of outright cracking down on media plurality. A issue I contend with this approach is that the greater fractionalization of the media landscape has the potential to make news consumption even more tribal as people have more news outlets that specifically cater to their viewpoint, whether right or wrong. Finally, I'd like to conclude with this helpful chart demonstrating the nuances of disinformation and serves as an example of how countering disinformation is not as black or white as eliminating the false statements and promoting the true ones.

Sources:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/new-push-european-democracy/european-democracy-action-plan_en

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-020-00532-2

[elijahrain28]

framing

Some of my classmates have raised the question: how do we stay prepared for the next contagion? While I don't have an answer for that... there's another, less immediately important question looming down the road. Once we get prepared for the next pandemic (because god, I hope we do something), how do we stay prepared?

The last thing like this was a hundred years ago. This is just my experience with late stage capitalism America, but if a bunch of lawmakers campaign on a NEVER AGAIN! platform and create all sorts of agencies + fund all sorts of vaccine research + do whatever else... within thirty years the military will need a larger budget, and the infrastructure created here will vanish. I guess that's a larger question-- how do you stop American infrastructure from crumbling at the whim of the various corporations set to make short-term profits off of it-- than the one I had intended.

Perhaps there's something to be said for generational memory, too. While I'm not interested in consuming any media about, like, a bitter divorce raging on in quarantine.... I guess we eventually have to make those movies? Or find some way of preserving how terrible this was. Even if no one really wants to watch a TV show about it.

[ZeyangPan]

solutions #policy

As one who experienced the entire process of the COVID-19 pandemic, I find many other factors which would influence the total death of the pandemic other than the medical treatment level. Taking America as an example, CDC did not suggest wearing masks at all in the early stage of the pandemic. On the other hand, because of the culture, some Americans think that only people who are sick should wear masks. Even now, when we go to supermarkets, we can still see some people not wearing masks. According to medical experts, the reason for wearing masks is not only because it will reduce the chance of infection but also because it will reduce the chance of spreading coronavirus from affected people. The virus spreads through droplets and close contact. When you talk, droplets always come out of your mouth. Many people have asymptomatic infections or have not yet developed symptoms. If they wear masks, they can prevent the droplets carrying the virus from infecting others.

Since corona is a new type of virus, making bad decisions before fully understand it is inevitable. Based on the CDC Community Mitigation Guidance, the government now encourages people to wear masks and produce COVID-19 vaccines. One well-known theory in the study of Epidemiology is that when a large proportion of humans or animals are immune to infectious diseases, other individuals who are not immune are able to be protected from infection(This is called herd immunity or community immunity). I think policies related to COVID-19 made by the Biden government are best for the situation at the current stage. However, problems, such as the unemployment rate, mental health, economy keep revealing other than the pandemic itself. How to deal with those side effects should be taken seriously now. I think one way to revitalize the economy is to cooperate globally with other counties. I am aware that the relation between America and Russia/China has been getting worse and worse in recent years, and many business cooperations have been stopped. If the Biden government can cooperate more with these third world countries, I believe the export trade will thrive and the economy of America will be back sooner than expected.

[omarh4]

Pandemics #Salience

Just as the planet thought that the threat of Covid was slowly coming to an end, the sudden variants across India rampaged their way across the country, leaving the world worried of the future of the pandemic. Rumors about the current vaccines and their effectiveness have already caught hold of that fear, and have begun to spread more worry that maybe we are Not as in the clear as we think. While the widespread acceptance of the vaccine has been difficult to achieve due to the apparent ‘risks’, it seems that the majority of the developed world has accepted a far greater threat into their wide open hands. If the new mutations of the covid virus have shown anything, is that unpredictable mutations in deadly pathogens are a far more serious threat than we think. More so than ever, the use of antibiotic medication in hospitals has risen, and antibacterial products have been common in the fight against pandemics such as COVID-19. Because of the heavy use of products such as hand sanitizer, other lurking bacteria that may survive may evolve from otherwise harmless strains of bacteria to a potentially deadly strain with a bacterial resistance. Medical systems even have drugs of last resort which are only to be used if absolutely necessary in order to prevent antibacterial resistance for otherwise manageable bacterial infections. MRSA (Penicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and VRSA (Vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus) are notable examples of how certain drugs are now being used sparingly due to resistances to various drugs developing. Perhaps we should draw from the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, which stores a seed of every known species in order to preserve it in case of catastrophic disaster, to create a vault for certain last resort drugs that should be only be used in the emergency scenario that all other antibacterials are no longer effective. Luckily, new technology may soon allow us to fill this vault with antibiotics, as we are already beginning to see happen. Just recently, a team from MIT used an AI to create a new antibiotic that was able to destroy a bacterial infection with resistance to all other antibiotics. If we are indeed moving into the direction of superbugs with super resistances, then perhaps this new antibiotic named halicin is the first step of many towards ensuring safety from a super pandemic.

[c-krantz]

origin #risk

When the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency on March 13, 2020 by President Trump, the country instantly came together to fight the spread of the disease. Despite this immediate reaction by the majority of America, what would soon follow can best be described as a slow realization of just how deeply divided our country was and still is. Although there are many contributing causes as to why this is, I firmly believe that most of it is enhanced through three different factors: information chaos, income inequality, and political division.

Given the fear and confusion that accompanied the news of the shutdown, it was no surprise that some sought to take advantage of this. Labeled an ‘info-demic’ by some, the threat of information chaos and misinformation during the pandemic has undoubtedly resulted in the rapid spread of the disease. In fact, “According to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, areas of the country exposed to television programming that downplayed the severity of the pandemic saw greater numbers of cases and deaths—because people didn’t follow public health precautions.” Although there are a few solutions to this issue, I believe that the most effective response should be through the establishment of a government that is willing and prepared to place health experts at the center of their response.

In addition, one of the largest divides in America was exemplified throughout the pandemic: income inequality. Because of the financial burden that was placed on many households, poorer families were forced to continue to work front line jobs to ensure that they could maintain their way of lives. As a result, many families with lower levels of income faced higher levels of exposure to the virus as well as higher rates of infection and death. This horrible reality again serves as an example of our country’s division.

Finally, the political division in this country goes without question and is arguably the most obvious example of just how divided our country has been throughout the pandemic. In my opinion, this is best illustrated through the public’s reception of the vaccines which are seemingly our only way out of this pandemic. According to the New York Times, “in more rural — and more Republican — areas, health officials said that supply is far exceeding demand.” Unfortunately, the medical industry continues to become more and more political and there seems to be very little that can be done to prevent this. Even just seeds of doubt from politicians is enough to hinder this country and prevent it from reaching necessary levels of vaccination.

In conclusion, I believe that this all relates directly back to my memo from last week where I wrote about how epidemics are not mutually exclusive from one another. As we can see, the relationship they share mimics a domino effect and makes room for other epidemics to occur at a much more rapid pace. In this case, the COVID-19 pandemic directly allowed for other epidemics to occur rampantly.

COVID Misinformation Is Killing People https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-misinformation-is-killing-people1/

Income inequality tied to more COVID-19 cases, deaths https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/05/income-inequality-tied-more-covid-19-cases-deaths

Least Vaccinated U.S. Counties Have Something in Common: Trump Voters https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/04/17/us/vaccine-hesitancy-politics.html

Coronavirus lockdown protests expose a far deeper sickness https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/494814-coronavirus-lockdown-protests-expose-a-far-deeper-sickness

[nataliamedina1202]

movie

In the post-apocalyptic movie “I Am Legend”, Will Smith plays protagonist Robert Neville who follows the aftermath of pandemic virus, KV. Watching this film after having experienced the coronavirus pandemic which also inadvertently spread at the fault of humans, I found this movie uncanny and, if it weren’t for the concept of becoming a zombie post-infection, not entirely detached from reality.

The film begins with a news report announcing the creation of the KV virus, which was intended to cure cancer. This is followed by a “Three Years Later” transition to a shot of the run-down, empty streets of New York City. Robert, a scientist, is the last known human survivor in the city and he is surrounded by KV-infected killer zombies. Robert tries to find cures, but continuously fails. Eventually, a woman named Anna and her son appear in NYC and try convincing Robert to journey with them to a ‘survivor zone’ but before they are able to go, they get attacked by the zombies and Robert gives up his life to protect Anna and her son. Before he dies, he gives Anna a vial of blood from a zombie test subject whom he was trying to cure. When Anna arrives at the survivor zone, they are able to use the blood to cure KV zombies and save humanity.

This film does not increase the salience of pandemics because realistically, the idea of a virus turning people into aggressive, human-eating zombies is nearly impossible. However, there are some elements in the film that did mimic situations with COVID-19. For example, the KV virus was created in a lab by humans, and even though coronavirus didn’t originate this way, there are definitely human factors that contribute to the emergence and spread of new infectious diseases, like through climate change. Because many deadly viral outbreaks have been brought on by human's interference with nature, the message is in this movie and in reality is clear: humans play a role in our own demise. Reading through the film’s Rotten Tomatoes, one reviewer in April 2021 said something very insightful--“This film from 2007 takes on new life in the world of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a lot easier today to imagine NYC in the post apocalyptic state shown in the film than it was in 2007” (Taekwondo Life M). This comment did resonate with me because a year and a half ago, I would have never imagined living through a deadly pandemic. The mass hysteria and disruption of everyday life for a virus that has a 1-6% fatality rate around the globe makes it hard to even imagine what a virus with a fatality rate even slightly higher could bring , and I hope we never have to find out (Maps & Trends). Even though COVID-19 can’t compare to the fictional KV virus, the only way to ensure that we never endure a deadlier pandemic is for humans to reflect on the ways that environmental destruction not only hurts the planet but also ourselves, and use that knowledge to plan for a pandemic-free future in which humanity survives.

Hajek, Olaf. “The Ecology of Disease” The New York Times, 12 May 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-ecology-of-disease.html

I am Legend. Directed by Francis Lawrence, performances by Will Smith, Alice Braga, Charlie Tahan, Warner Brothers, 2007.

“Maps & Trends - Mortality Analyses.” Johns Hopkins University and Medicine, Coronavirus Resource Center, coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality. Accessed 10 May 2021.

Taekwondo Life M. Comment on, “I am Legend Reviews.” Rotten Tomatoes, 09 Apr 2021, www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_am_legend/reviews?type=user&intcmp=rt-scorecard_audience-score-reviews.

[blakekushner]

salience #framing #pandemic #contagion

This week's topic of pandemics and pathogens I find very interesting because of how viruses (and pathogens in general) are usually depicted. In the beginning of the film "I Am Legend" the scientist is describing viruses as if they are purposely infecting our bodies and causing us harm: "picture the virus as a very fast car driven by a very bad man". I think that portrayals such as this-- personifying and ascribing characteristics to viruses that aren't even really considered to be "living" (though that's up to debate) is a bad road to go down when trying to convey the realistic consequences of outbreaks. Not to mention that the demonization of viruses prevents research and attention to novel treatments such as an attenuated poliovirus being used to treat brain cancer (https://www.uhhospitals.org/Healthy-at-UH/articles/2020/01/clinical-trial-studies-treating-brain-tumor-with-genetically-modified-poliovirus#:~:text=Researchers%20at%20Duke%20first%20discovered,Sloan%20says.). All this is to say, that I believe this depiction of viruses makes people less weary of contracting and spreading it in the case of pandemics. If the virus is just a "bad guy" then maybe sheer willpower will help the person to survive the infection instead of taking the correct precautionary measures and knowing that it is based on pure biology that has no basis in moral or conscious efforts. This kind of thinking helps the spread of both misinformation and purposeful disinformation as seen in the COVID pandemic with the spread of how hydroxychloroquine helps covid cases or in the movie Contagion how Forsythia is touted as the cure even though it has no effect. As humans we tend to anthropomorphize almost every object, but I think it is necessary to address viruses and pandemics in purely biological terms, since if we stray from that, it allows a space for untrue things to enter into the narrative.

I also wanted to mention how the film Contagion not only covered the course of a deadly pandemic, but it also highlighted the many instances of inequality that goes along with the pandemic (and any existential crisis, for that matter). The film showed what lengths some people will go to ensure that their people will not be forgotten or a victim of the inequality in society. An example of this in the film is with the small village that the WHO officer gets kidnapped and held in to ensure that they receive the vaccine. When it is later revealed that they received placebos, the WHO officer breaks down, despite the fact that they held her hostage, because she knows that they were just trying to acquire some semblance of equality, and they were still deprived of it. The film also shows how the high ranking government and WHO officials were able to get the vaccine first, and how the rest of the country had it rely on birthdates. This is still relevant in the covid pandemic as those with poorer socioeconomic classes are more affected by this virus (http://info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/blog/social-conditions-shape-covid#:~:text=There%20is%20abundant%20evidence%20that,status%20have%20lower%20life%20expectancies.&text=These%20socioeconomic%20conditions%20influence%20our,nearly%20all%20other%20health%20indicators.).

[panunbali]

origin #risk #framing

Of all the possible world-ending apocalypses we have covered and will look to cover in this class, I feel least concerned about the threat of a pandemic. I’m still somewhat concerned about it, of course but not nearly as much as the other possible threats. After the past year, that may seem like a stupid thing to say, but I think that humanity’s ability to combat a potential pandemic is the thing I have the most faith in, compared to the possibility of fighting off the other threats. Unlike nuclear annihilation, artificial intelligence or global warming, the entire globe can and would unite against fighting off a pandemic. As the past year has shown, poorer countries with limited infrastructure and poor leadership will suffer more but overall, the process of fighting off COVID-19 has been a concerted, international thing. On top of that, fighting off a pandemic has a very clear start-date and tipping point which makes it easier to grapple with existentially than something like global warming or the artificial intelligence revolution, apocalypses that evolve a bit more gradually. Our increasing understanding of medicine and technological improvement when it comes to things like viruses and illnesses also give me faith that any damage a pandemic wreaks (and don’t get me wrong, it has wreaked an incredible amount) would be short-term and fixable, and would definitely not destroy a population the way the Black Death did. I recognize the increased risks of living in the modern world and the heighten possibility of other pandemics and the fact that COVID-19 is hardly the worst possible case, but I think it says a lot that as much damage as COVID has done, the death toll is still under 0.05% of the entire population (far less than other past pandemics). Much of the damage will be economic and mental, but those can be resolved and fixed with time.

I must state a big distinction that I haven’t yet, but much of this applies mostly to natural pandemics. I’ve written another memo on the movie 12 Monkeys this week and I wrote about man-made pandemics which feel far more threatening to me. But they do feel completely distinct to me in the ways that we might approach them and resolve them, so I’m not really thinking of them as two types of the same thing but two different things entirely.

[ghost]

policy #solutions

The issue of whether or not to wear a mask has been one of the most hotly debated issues of the COVID-19 pandemic. What should have been a simple and yet highly effective way of mitigating the spread of the COVID-19 virus turned into a political weapon that Republicans and Democrats alike wielded against each other. When another pandemic inevitably strikes, as Dr. Fauci and other experts have warned us will happen, we cannot allow masks to become a debate. More broadly, science and facts cannot become a debate. A country operating on alternate sets of facts cannot expect to pull together and address a problem that requires such a coordinated and national response.

It is honestly terrifying that science was turned into a political weapon – and it’s even more horrifying when we look at how that weapon actually worked. Americans turned against each other for the simple act of wearing a mask or keeping six feet apart, for choosing not to travel or gather in large groups. Generally speaking (and with the understanding that there were obviously exceptions), conservatives refused to wear masks or follow guidance from the experts and liberals did their best to comply with the latest guidance coming from Dr. Fauci and the CDC. The word “sheep” was often used to describe those who did follow the guidance and abided by mask mandates and other such orders. Adjectives such as “ignorant” and “selfish” were used to describe those who refused. Science was not the unifying factor that it should have been, or a rallying cry to encourage Americans to protect themselves and one another against this invisible enemy. Instead, it was twisted and turned into a political weapon for both sides – one that worked beautifully to divide the country.

In my opinion, the biggest lesson that we must take away from this COVID-19 pandemic has nothing to do with vaccination hesitancy or pandemic preparedness. We must remember that science does not care about political party, just as the virus does not care whether you believe in it or not. We can never again allow for the facts to be twisted to suit a political agenda, regardless of which party is trying that strategy. This lesson applies to a multitude of political issues, but COVID-19 is the one I think to be the most pressing, what with its ever-increasing death toll in the United States and around the world.

[chakrabortya]

policy #framing

Steven Soderberg’s Contagion is a realistic film about the scientific and governmental response to a pandemic. The movie brings to light several themes, including but not limited to ethics in the face of an existential threat and the evolving role of capitalist urbanisation in paving the path of a pandemic.

The movie demonstrates people’s sentiment at both the group and individual level. It shows the more intangible effects of social isolation through the Emhoff family (played by Matt Damon and his in-film daughter) and the more measurable changes in public sentiments, such as the increase in crime, changes in consumer behaviour, and reliance on alternative media. The graph below is the PEW research centre’s effort in quantifying the sentiments discussed in contagion. I chose to include the data from March 2020, because it most closely resembles the timeline occupying the bulk of the movie. According to this report, 18% of adults said they had a physical reaction at least some or a little of the time when thinking about the COVID-19 outbreak, and 73% of adults felt “nervous anxious or on edge” in the 7 days before the survey. For context, a 2018 federal survey found that only 9% of U.S. adults reported feeling nervous most or all of the time over the past 30 days, indicating a clear change in sentiment. Contagion does a good job of depicting this change in the early stages of the pandemic.

The second, more subtle theme that arises in the ending scene of Contagion is the connection between our economy and the pandemic. The regulatory environment and capitalist government infrastructures have made it so that the costs of profit are externalised either to different races, classes, or countries. Contagion shows how the pandemic was born from the combination of deforestation and pork consumption. The profits of these industries were taken by a select few (the companies involved and the consumers of the food in question) while the costs were incurred disproportionately by the poor in Hong Kong and eventually the world.

After reading Biodefense in Crisis, I became fascinated by the concepts of military-civilian collaboration, bio-surveillance, and biological intelligence committees and how these measures can prevent future pandemics. What stood out to me was that all of these solutions seemed to be occurring at a federal level. I would like to talk more about the role that local governments have in regulating the business activity to make it more circular and less risky from a pandemic standpoint. In the US, local governments have anaemic capabilities when it comes to dictating land-use policies but have arguably the best understanding of how land and resources should be used. How can we rethink policymaking to enable local governments to drive the pandemic related business regulations that are necessary?

[ishaanpatel2022]

bio #risk

In the movie, Contagion, the world is struck by a deadly pandemic that threatens to upend society. While the recent COVID-19 had catastrophic consequences, it did not have the potentially world ending power of the virus in contagion. Therefore, it is interesting to consider if a virus like the one in Contagion is truly possible?

To begin, it is interesting to consider whether scientists even believe future pandemics are possible, or whether ones of the past were anomalies. Historically, the CDC has deemed that the world has seen 5 pandemics, but only the H1N1 pandemic was on par with the devastation seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is a general consensus among experts that the COVID-19 will not be the last global pandemic. Even though H1N1 is the only disease on par with COVID-19, experts believe that there have been six significant threats in the past 20 years: SARS, MERS, Ebola, avian influenza, swine flu, and COVID-19. As Prof. Matthew Baylis said, “We dodged five bullets, but the sixth got us.” Moreover, due to human encroachment on the natural world, experts believe we have created a “perfect storm” for diseases from wildlife to infect humans (which is how pandemics are created). This is because deforestation and human development on former wildlands brings animals and humans closer together. More specifically, the species of wildlife that are most tolerant of humans appear to be more effective at transmitting pathogens. Therefore, it takes no stretch of the imagination that a disease novel to the human immune system could be transmitted from animal to human, creating another global pandemic.

Even if future pandemics are possible, a Contagion level disease would need to have a death rate far above that of COVID (estimates put the global COVID-19 death rate at 5%). An example of a couple of diseases with death rates similar to the Contagion pathogen are the Nipah virus and MERS-CoV. The Nipah virus emerged in Malaysia in 1999 as a viral infection carried by fruit bats. It has a fatality rate of between 50% and 75%, which is even greater than Contagion, whose virus had a death rate of between 25% and 30%. While the Nipah virus has an extremely high death rate, MERS-CoV kills around 35% of the patients it effects, which is similar to Contagion. Therefore, it can be seen that there are viruses that exist and will exist that have extreme death capabilities. However, because these diseases have such severe symptoms and kill quickly, contact with hosts becomes limited, yielding low case counts: for example, MERS only infected 2574 people worldwide and Nipah infected only 700. Similar analysis has been done by experts in general, and it is quite commonly excepted that diseases with high death rates are unlikely to become global pandemics as they cannot spread. Therefore, I would hypothesize that the world may see pandemics on the scale of COVID-19, but the scenario that plays out in Contagion will never become a reality.

Image Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52775386 https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/movies-tv/sf-pandemic-thriller-contagion-ignored-after-2011-is-the-film-of-2020

Other Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/basics/past-pandemics.html https://www.visualcapitalist.com/history-of-pandemics-deadliest/ https://www.the-scientist.com/feature/characteristics-that-give-viruses-pandemic-potential-67822 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52775386 https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid https://www.biospace.com/article/compare-1918-spanish-influenza-pandemic-versus-covid-19/ https://www.who.int/health-topics/middle-east-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-mers#tab=tab_1 https://www.who.int/health-topics/nipah-virus-infection#tab=tab_1

[BuffDawg]

salience #connection

The potential for pandemics to end the world should never be understated. Even the coronavirus that has plagued the Earth for over the past year, with its measly death rate compared to other known diseases in human history, was able to hamper the world economy producing shockwave effects that we still are enduring today. If it were spreading and killing at rates comparable to the Black Death that swept Europe in the middle ages, the effects could be multiplied one hundred fold. The globalization of Earth is one of the causes for such exposure to worldwide pandemics, with planes and ships travelling country-to-country around the world there is no realistic way to ensure that every sick or infected individual is barred from travel. Any attempt to increase security from epidemics is likely to impact productivity but will also suffer from compliance issues. The only way to properly stop the spread of pandemics is rigorous monitoring where each individual country needs to have a responsibility for any outbreak that escapes their borders, because it seems like if there were significant penalties involved then China likely would have been more effective in containing the initial COVID-19 outbreak. One of my personal favorite pandemic novels is Blindness by José Saramago. In this story, an entire city is swallowed by a pandemic where the infection causes complete blindness in those who contract it. The local government is able to quarantine them in an asylum, but cannot attend to them for fear of contracting the illness, and quickly become hostile to the blind detainees. If a disease like this were to ravage the Earth, the catastrophic effects could easily be beyond what even “Contagion” predicts. What if there becomes a virus that leaves people permanently infectious or able to spread through masks? In that scenario, the world would have to enter a state of true lockdown and the economic impacts would eventually ripple into poverty and famine induced death beyond the disease at hand… I for one am simply grateful that we have had such a mild pandemic that has transformed the way we interact and communicate both with sickness but with online communication. Nowadays, we are much more equipped to handle future quarantine lockdowns and also more advanced in creating vaccines to counter future threats.

[cdrovetsky]

origin #risk

“Contagion,” released in 2011, bears some shocking resemblances to the most recent coronavirus pandemic. The fictional MEV-1 virus is transmitted via airborne water droplets, and causes symptoms similar to the coronavirus such as sweating, headaches, and sore throat. While some stark differences between the two viruses exist, such as the MEV-1 having a much higher mortality rate than the coronavirus, it is still unsettling to see just how topical many plot points in the film have become. From frantic attempts from public health officials to both contain infections and communicate to the public responsibly, to statistics on how many times the average person touches their face per day, many small details in the film feel eerily familiar to the events of the past year or so. The Mev-1 virus was even traced back to a pig infected by a bat at an open “wet market,” as many experts believe is the origin for the coronavirus. On the one hand, it is unsurprising that such plot points were shown in such a realistic manner given the extensive consultation the filmmakers had with the World Health Organization on the topic of infectious diseases. On the other hand it is worrisome that we had the foresight in even 2011 to describe the events/very similar events that could lead to the most recent pandemic, and we still were unable to prevent it or contain it.

In 2020, the film experienced a renewed popularity. In March 2020, the film saw over a five-thousand percent increase in streams due to its similarities to the coronavirus pandemic. In an interview with the Washington post, screenwriter Scott Burns reflected on how the film was able to capture so many accuracies: “It is sad, and it is frustrating. Sad because so many people are dying and getting sick. Frustrating because people still don’t seem to grasp the situation we are now in and how it could have been avoided by properly funding the science around all of this. It is also surreal to me that people from all over the world write to me asking how I knew it would involve a bat or how I knew the term "social distancing." I didn’t have a crystal ball — I had access to great expertise. So, if people find the movie to be accurate, it should give them confidence in the public health experts who are out there right now trying to guide us." If nobody had a “crystal ball” back in 2011, and we still knew all the events that led us to where we are today, and we were still left unprepared -- what does this mean for our future? Are we left chronically unprepared for inevitable subsequent pandemics?

sources: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/movies/contagion-movie-versus-coronavirus-scn-wellness/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagion_(2011_film)#Renewed_popularity

[bbroner]

In the visualized piece on the history of pandemics an idea that really alarmed me was how societies that increase urbanization and agriculture are more likely to be hit by novel pandemics. The reason why this is so alarming is because humanity is moving towards a civilization that is far more urban. A century ago only 2O% of the world population lived in an urban environment and now that number is just under half our population. While its clear that urban areas would lead to higher spread of a virus due to the population's close proximity there are other concerns at play as well. From 199O - 2O12 the number of individuals in urban settings that lack sanitation facilities has increased from 215 to 756 million.

The key issue here is that there is currently uncontrolled growth of slum type settings in urban environments. While one would assume that increased urbanization would lead to increased access to sanitary environments and clean drinking water the fact that much of current urbanization is very low income makes it so thats not the case. Also increased urbanization brings humans more into contact with rat populations that can be a massive spreader of disease.

A very alarming development is that we are now seeing diseases typically associated with rural environments causing issues in urban settings. The World Health Organization released a list of 17 neglected tropical diseases and in the past few years several of them have been found in Urban settings. The reasoning for this may be that when migrants movie to cities with their domesticated animals they are possibly bringing diseases to a prime breeding ground. This is seen as numerous mosquito types that lay their eggs in man made water containers have been popping up in urban environments creating outbreaks due to viruses such as West Nile virus and the dengue virus.

While I appreciate the benefits of Urban life it is incredibly important for governments to prepare for how increased urbanization can continue to cause massive outbreaks such as Covid-19. Unfortunately the most unsanitary urban conditions tend to occur in not wealthy countries it will be important for governments with big monetary reserves to lead this fight.

Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4481042/

[nataliamedina1202]

framing #policy

In this week's film and readings on pandemics, I was particularly struck by the connection between COVID-19, the CDC guidelines, and the film “Contagion”, and I wondered how the dominant framings of pandemics perpetuated through these models could be incomplete.

In “Contagion”, there were many elements of the film that resonated with what we’ve seen in the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically in public and governmental responses to the crisis. First, in the film’s CDC team, there were disagreements on how to go about the virus because there was dual emphasis on both contact-tracing and stopping the spread to keep the public safe, but also not causing mass hysteria. Despite the effort to avoid a violent response, there was a hysteria among people for access to food and the supposed-cure, Forsythia. Dr. Cheever at the CDC, when talking to the man who created massive distrust for the CDC and the vaccines, argued that spreading these lies is more deadly than the virus itself. This definitely rings true because the distrust for science and the government mobilizes individuals to go against CDC guidelines, which is especially detrimental before virus’s vaccines are available. For example, in our reading of the CDC’s personal protective measures, there were recommendations for voluntary home quarantine, use of masks in community settings, and social distancing (Qualls et al, 1). When there is rhetoric to undermine the CDC, we see a rise in cases and deaths. Alternatively, when there is rhetoric promoting hysteria, there are toilet paper shortages and buy-outs of grocery stores.

There is a lot to be said about the eerie parallels between the film and real life, but I argue that we should also heavily consider the equity problems in the framings around pandemics. For example, in “Contagion”, there was no mention of poorer communities, people who don’t live in single-family homes, or people of other races or ethnicities. There was just the fact, stated over and over, that the virus will kill 1 out of 4 of those infected. Officials did not even insinuate that this number could vary significantly when looking at different subpopulations, which is in complete contradiction to what we saw with the disproportionate infection and death by COVID-19 (just recently being acknowledged by the CDC in their publishings on health equity in minority groups). Also, it was interesting that in the movie we saw how officials with high rankings were able to cheat the system and get their loved ones vaccines first, which is questionable on many levels. Further, there was this idea that people could just get up and leave when the chaos began, but this disregards the millions of Americans who live paycheck-to-paycheck and don’t necessarily have vacation homes or money to run away and live in seclusion until the virus dies. These socioeconomic intricacies, both lacking in the movie and in our present framings of disease, create an insufficient understanding of pandemics and equity-based risks. This narrow scope can impede on solutions that prioritize marginalized, less privileged groups, disrupting our ability to mitigate these issues on large scales.

Contagion. Directed by Steven Soderbergh, performances by Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, and Gwyneth Paltrow, Warner Brothers, 2011.

Qualls, Naureen, Alexandra Levitt, Neha Kenade, et al. “Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza - United States, 2017.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention MMWR Recommendations and Reports, vol. 66, no. 1, 2017, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/cme/serial_conted.html.pdf.

Wilkinson, Signe. “Age, race, and poverty meet Covid.” Found, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6 May 2020,

[jcrary711]

Salience #Policy #Framing

As Covid-19 is now considered to be inside of the top ten deadliest pandemics in history with more and more deaths tallying each day, one simple item that continues to be our largest defense against the virus (aside from the vaccine, as for a majority of the Covid-19 pandemic a vaccine has been unavailable) seemed to be underutilized. This simple item is the face mask. From the beginning of the pandemic, health officials have stressed the importance of wearing masks, especially when social distancing was impossible. While masks prove to be quite effective in preventing the spread of Covid-19, as studies show masks are 79% effective in stopping the spread of the Covid-19 virus, the intriguing politicizing of face masks has led to its underutilization in many areas of the United States (1). Recent surveys show that roughly 63% of Democrats and democrat leaning independents believe mask should be worn always, compared to only 29% of Republicans and Republican leaning independents. This survey also revealed that just 4% of democrats believe masks should never or rarely be worn, while 23% of Republicans believe that masks should rarely or never be worn (2). The fact that something scientifically based has become so politically divided is both confusing and frustrating. Theoretically speaking, if everyone were to wear a mask when coming into contact with another person outside of people they live with, the Covid-19 virus would have died out a long time ago. However, this politicizing of masks has led not only to a more devastating and deadly pandemic, but has also led to significantly more damage to our economy (as multiple lockdowns over the course of several months has hurt many businesses and individuals alike). This pandemic is an unfortunate example of what happens when policy ignores science entirely.

(1) https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 (2) https://theconversation.com/video-how-did-mask-wearing-become-so-politicized-144268

[smshiffrin]

salience #framing

When watching the movie Contagion, I felt it was a sort of bridge between COVID-19 and the Bubonic Plague. In Contagion, a lot of what happens is very similar to COVID-19 since it takes place only ten years ago. Technology is at a similar level in 2011, with air travel expediting the spread of the virus across the globe, and smartphones, computers, and the Internet allowing rapid communication of information about the virus—both true and false. Technology and knowledge within biomedical science and epidemiology were also at an advanced level, allowing for the rapid response to the disease, and a rapid development of the vaccine (which according to Anthony Fauci was “slightly unrealistic, but not egregiously so” (1)).

The fictional virus MEV-1 was quite different from COVID-19, however, in that it seemed to be much more contagious and far deadlier than COVID-19. In the film, they introduce the R0 value of the virus, which “tells us how many susceptible people, on average, each sick person will in turn infect,” (2). This value is likely higher than that of COVID-19 because MEV-1 was reported to have killed about 26 million people across the globe after 35 days (3), in comparison to the 3.2 million deaths since the start of the pandemic in 2019 (2). Another key difference is how quickly MEV-1 causes symptoms and deaths, often within days or even hours, in addition to the far more frightening intensity of the symptoms (3). In this regard I believe the disease in Contagion is more akin to the Bubonic Plague. The Bubonic Plague was incredibly contagious, killing about 200 million people, and about a third of the population in Europe (2). The symptoms of the plague were also very intense, including swollen lymph nodes across the body, killing the victim within hours (4). It’s very possible that MEV-1 could have been as deadly as the Bubonic Plague if it weren’t for the modern knowledge of infectious disease and technology available to combat it.

These differences are what made the Bubonic Plague and MEV-1 so catastrophic and horrifying. I believe that since the symptoms were so much more frightening and fast-acting, this added a great deal of fear towards the disease—victims would fall ill in the street, so more people were witnessing the horrors of the disease first hand (3). This is unlike COVID-19 where many people have had the privilege of not experiencing any of the impacts of the pandemic, and only hearing about it through the media. This distance has contributed to the manner in which a large number of people have been reacting to the pandemic, with many people believing it’s a hoax, or that they won’t get it. The film Contagion did a great job at highlighting the emotional aspect of pandemic, and how fear is such a large factor in intensifying the population’s reaction to a threat. If a pandemic were to cause the end of civilization, I believe fear will heavily expedite the process, causing many people to turn against each other, intensifying conflict and the collapse of society.

The Bubonic Plague was feared by all, this fear often portrayed in paintings of the disease at the time.

Sources: 1 https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2011/09/contagion-portrays-extreme-not-impossible-scenario 2 https://www.visualcapitalist.com/history-of-pandemics-deadliest/ 3 Film Contagion 4 https://www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/black-death Image: Hans Holbein, https://www.blogs.hss.ed.ac.uk/selcie/2019/06/21/myn-yonge-barne-or-the-child-on-the-shore-growing-up-in-medieval-scots-literature/selcie-medieval-dance-of-death/ (not my movie memo)

[brettkatz]

risk #framing #movie

Humanization seems hard to project in media. Depicting the emotions created by interpersonal relationships between a “main character” and their friends, family, and most importantly random strangers becomes bizarre in media regarding the apocalypse. “I am Legend” is a film in which most of humanity is infected with a virus meant to cure cancer, which inevitably turns most humans into dangerous, cannibalistic, virulent mutants. I find it an insightful contrast to the film “Contagion”. Raw fear is portrayed in “I am Legend” during the pandemic through the representation of those infected. During a true pandemic, the way in which people view their family and friends can be depicted as a balancing act between enjoying their company while simultaneously fearing it. In “Contagion”, quite little social distancing measures are actually taking place, rather side-by-side people pile in anarchy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, people varied widely in their actions, which directly relates to the weight they put onto either end of this balance. Some valued the company of family and friends over the risks of contracting the virus and prolonging the pandemic for everyone else. Both “Contagion” and our COVID-19 pandemic involved this balance to a degree. However, this balance is largely absent from “I am Legend”. Instead, the film shifts entirely to the extreme of fear. In order to portray total fear of those infected, infected humans are turned into cannibalistic monsters. I find this depiction of those infected to perfectly resemble this raw fear, as in a pandemic, those infected are seen as a fearful danger to yourself. By making those infected turn physically non-human and cannibalistic, it justifies the main character Robert Neville’s actions in avoiding most any human contact unless imminently pertinent. There is no balancing act, the only side of the scale that matters is fear of infection from other humans.

One of the most “human” scenes in this movie involves the death of Neville’s dog Sam (I cried). Although Sam isn’t actually a human, his infection and subsequent death at the hands of Neville offer one of the few instances in which we actually sympathise with those infected.

[laszler]

salience #framing

Before the COVID-19 Pandemic, Contagion had always been one of my favorite movies, at least in the sense that I would watch it every time I was home sick from school. As other memos have already discussed details of Contagion at length, I’d like to in particular focus on one of the film’s characters: Alan Krumwiede.

Though the film follows the lives of multiple characters throughout the pandemic, Krumwiede—an Australian journalist living in the United States — is unique in that he is the only conspiracy theorist. From his attempts at the beginning of the film to pitch a story to the newspaper before the outbreak is global news, to his arrest at the film’s end for fraud, until 2020, I had always found him to be the most annoying character in the film. Since then, however, I think he may have actually been the film’s most prescient character. Krumwiede parrots cabal theories, makes accusations against the CDC’s director on national TV, and spreads other misinformation on his blog, called Truth Serum Now.

The reason I found Krumwiede annoying was because I always considered it unlikely that people would dismiss correct information in the face of the pandemic. However, the early months of the pandemic proved that Contagion may have, in fact, understated the potential role actors like Krumwiede would play. Anti-lockdown protests, anti-vaccine misinformation, and flouting of coronavirus guidelines all would have seemed out of place in Contagion, perhaps even making the film feel unrealistic.

When President Donald Trump continued to advocate for the use of an unproven drug, Hydroxychloroquine, to be used to fight COVID-19, it evoked a strong parallel to film in that Krumwiede’s persistently promotes the drug Forsythia in order to make a profit, even though there was no proof it worked. Krumwiede claims to have had MEV-1 and to have been cured by Forsythia, but an FBI agent later confirms he never actually had the virus. Additionally, in the film, a lack of Forsythia causes civil unrest as shoppers attempting to buy it end up confronting one another.

As a result, I have the following questions. Before the pandemic, Contagion was a frightening movie precisely because it felt realistic — had the producers included some plot lines similar to what actually happened in 2020, the movie may have felt too outlandish. If this is the case, is it possible to actually produce accurate movies about potential disasters without them seeing too unrealistic? And if not, is there any way to effectively alert the public about impending disasters that would make them take action?

[ydeng117]

movie #origin #framing

Before watching the movie contagion, I thought the “villain” of the movie was the pandemic that people infected with. Nonetheless, after watching the film, I would argue that the main “villain” of this movie was the reporter who was spreading rumors and misinformation. It is true that the advent of a deadly illness would cause harm to human society both biologically and economically. A highly infectious and deadly virus, like the Black Death, would kill millions of people, posting no fewer threats than a nuclear crisis. However, as this week’s readings show, humans had developed multiple methods not only to stop the spread of an illness but also prevent future ones from happening. No matter how powerful a pandemic is, the illness itself may not pose an existential threat to human civilization. Nonetheless, as shown in the film and in the history of pandemics, what exacerbated a pandemic was usually the spread of misinformation. In the movie, the morally corrupted reporter intentionally spread wrong information about the disease and led to social chaos, which hindered the pandemic prevention measures. Throughout human history, we can find that our ancestors claimed that spirits and gods inflicted disease and destruction upon those that deserved their wrath. This unscientific perception usually led to disastrous responses that resulted in the deaths of thousands, if not millions. Hence, the existential threats brought by pandemics actually have two origins. First, a deadly and infectious disease has the ability to kill millions of lives. Moreover, the spread of misinformation, either intentionally or unintentionally, leads people to follow the wrong instructions and do the wrong things. Therefore, when we contemplate the threats of infectious viruses, it is far from enough to only think about the prevention and the intervention. Another aspect we should concern about today is information warfare, especially cyber-enabled ones. The government would probably face a harsh trade-off between protecting people’s freedom of speech and censoring the wrong information. When it comes to the issue of infectious disease, I would support that the government should have more regulatory power in surveilling and censoring harmful misinformation.

[Samcorey1234]

Solutions

There are a few lessons we can take from this pandemic. According to the reading that highlighted the visualization of the history of pandemics, quarantining as a practice began during the 14th century to protect coastal cities from epidemics. But after experiencing several pandemics since that time, and particularly since the most recent one (that we’re still not out of), there’s more than just quarantining that is necessary to combat a highly infectious, deadly virus.

If it wasn’t obvious, the U.S. messed up early on during the most recent pandemic. It acted much too slowly after information about Covid-19 had already traveled across many continents during the previous administration’s rule – with those in power at the time going so far as to claim that it wasn’t much of an issue at all and would go away soon. The truth, however, is that the U.S. and other Western countries could have acted swifter and with better protections to prevent mass death of their own citizens.

South Korea is a good example of what should be done during the wake of a pandemic: test, trace, and isolate. (Vietnam, Taiwan, and China are also good examples.) Early on, the country was hit with rising cases of Covid-19 until they began determining all those who had been infected, tracing those people to others that were infected (thus identifying everyone who had been infected), and isolating those individuals (or quarantining them) for a two-week period. Maybe most important to these actions, however, was quick actions. That is, because South Korea acted so quickly and decisively along these lines — testing for Covid-19, tracing the outbreak to others, and isolating those infected – they were able to halt the virus in its tracks.

Acting quickly can’t be emphasized enough. China locked down its cities that had hundreds of infections and halted all travel — both internally and externally — in order to stop the spread of the virus. As a result, they were able to open up cities and the country over the past year. Conversely, the U.S. never fully locked down its borders or put everyone in quarantine (each locality deciding on what to do on its own). As a result, we never were able to go out and live our lives, slowing the economy and enduring a social recession that never seemed to end. The only success that came from the U.S. example is the rapid emergence of vaccines. Alternatively, if we had tested, traced, and isolated with speed, maybe we would be living in a very different, more open and excited social world.

[chasedenholm]

policy #solutions #biowarfare

In the readings as well as the movie, we were introduced to pandemics as an existential threat. In terms of population trends, we are seeing a massive increase in urbanization globally. However, although pandemics and diseases have persisted throughout the history of humanity, there has been a gradual reduction in the death rates. As we come to terms with recognizing that humanity is mortal and there is potential for a hard-hitting disease out there, we need to examine the risk of biowarfare in our society moving forward. As humanity becomes more civilized and advanced, there are new forms of warfare that can leave severe damage. There has been an increase in the prevalence of cyber warfare, and now we are beginning to see the emergence of biowarfare as a form of war we need to find a way to protect against.

The most common bioweapons are composed of an agent called anthrax, which is a bacteria that produces lethal spores. A fatal agent when breathed in a large quantity, anthrax also has a very impressive shelf life of about 100 years if out of direct sunlight. Biowarfare was present during World War I, World War II, in the 1980s, and in 1995. In World War I, it was mainly the Germans using anthrax on enemies, however, France also used biological weapons. In World War II, anthrax was used again, this time by the Japanese. In the ’80s, mustard gas and sarin were used by Iraq on Iran during the Persian Gulf War. And finally, in 1995, sarin gas was used on the Tokyo subway system. Over the 19th century, biological warfare became far more sophisticated as microbiology developed. The discreteness in this form of weaponry is certainly alarming. As we move forward, I believe the best bet to preventing pandemics and biowarfare as an existential threat is through policy efforts that prevent the development of these weapons in the first place. Another area where we can strive to improve is through better disease detection and treatment. As we are still under the cloud of COVID-19, if there has been anything we should learn from this pandemic it is that as a society we need to be better prepared for something like this in the future. It means investment into tech in this space needs to ramp up significantly and increased regulation efforts need to be put into place sooner rather than later.

References: Readings https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200679/ Pictures: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/biodefense-market

[chasedenholm]

movie #pandemics #policy #solution #IamLegend

In the movie, I Am Legend, starring Will Smith as Robert Neville, Neville is living in a desolate New York City three years after a virus develops from a mutation from a cancer cure. After news of the virus's development and symptoms broke, New York City was quarantined with all pathways in and out of the city destroyed. Robert Neville is one of the few that is immune to the virus that destroyed most of humanity. The virus itself either kills the host or creates a response that makes the host zombie-like and deconstructs all human behavior, resulting in amplified aggression, development of rabies, and nocturnal activity as they are hurt by different wavelengths of light. Robert Neville is adamant about staying at “ground zero” to develop a cure and help save humanity from this existential threat. He develops various vaccines and starts using them on rats. After one positive animal trial, he captures a mutant human and attempts to cure her by using the same vaccine he did on the rat. Although not successful at first, over time the mutant starts to show signs of recovery. However, it is a little too late for Robert as other mutants have located his home due to a previous encounter that left a trail of blood. Robert removes the patient's blood and hands it to other immune humans to save it as he fends off the mutants and sacrificed his own life so that the cure can survive. While watching this movie, I was fascinated by the response from humanity to the virus. The movie’s response was a magnified version of what happened when COVID first appeared in the United States. New York City was quarantined, and all ways in and out were destroyed. This movie did a good job in highlighting the fear of an unknown virus through the amplified response to news of the virus. The military was heavily involved and blew up the bridges leading into the city. For COVID, we certainly didn’t have a response as drastic as that. Obviously, having gone through COVID, we know how serious viruses can be and how quickly they can spread.

Looking back at the global response to COVID, humanity was not prepared whatsoever, that is quite evident in how long it took most to get back on their feet and how some are still trying to get back on their feet. As we move forward, we undoubtedly will face another pandemic at some point in the future. Society needs to properly address the threat of a pandemic so that we can be better prepared. If we simply recover from COVID and do not implement funding/policy for responses to another pandemic, there is a chance that we would be forced to face our end as a civilization. The next pandemic may not be as lethal as that which is depicted in this film, but how can we say that it cant? In an earlier memo, I discussed new viruses being released as a result of climate change through the thawing of the permafrost and thus the ability to escape for some of these viruses that humanity has never seen. In order to combat this existential threat, we need to develop solutions to increase our education on virus protection, increase funding in advanced technology (both for detection and treatment), and climate change policy. There are undoubtedly numerous other policies and solutions that need attention, but these are the main three that come to my mind after experiencing 2020 and watching this film. If we can make an effort to improve prevention, we give humanity a better chance at minimizing pandemics as an existential threat.

[madisonchoi]

solutions #policy

Covid-19 has killed 576,238 Americans to date according to the CDC. Covid is real and masks help prevent the spread of this infectious virus. These are facts based on science. So, how did Covid and mask-wearing become an issue along partisan lines? Why was our reaction to Covid and the practices that we chose to enact in our daily lives to promote public safety, such as wearing a mask, a political issue? Despite the fact that mask-wearing fundamentally has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with science and reducing the spread of the virus, mask-wearing remains a point of controversy as a result of political partisanship. Groups who refuse to wear masks argue that masks infringe on their personal freedoms and rights, and/or are not effective in reducing the spread of the virus. According to a Guardian article called “How did face masks become such an issue in America?”, experts explain that part of the resistance to wearing masks may have originated from the confusing information public health officials released at the beginning of the pandemic when they claimed that the public did not have to wear masks if they didn’t have symptoms. In addition, according to a study done by the UChicago Harris School of Public Policy, if messaging from Republicans and Democrats had been the consistent in news sources about wearing face masks, greater overall mask usage could have been ensured—not along political party lines. The findings from this study also showed that polarized countries like the US may be less effective at responding to pandemics and other major crises due to the lack of a collective opinion and consistent response from political leaders, which causes disagreement and disunity in public opinion.

In comparison, a smaller country like South Korea that is not polarized by bipartisanship had a very successful response to Covid starting from the beginning of the pandemic. According to a case study on South Korea, the South Korean government quickly responded to the pandemic by releasing very clear policy that followed a “trace, test and treat” program. People were advised to not gather in large groups or in public, to wear a face mask in public, to adhere to social distancing, and to follow quarantining measures. High rates of mask-wearing accounted for the low rates of transmission of the virus. According to this study, the reported rate mask-wearing among Koreans was around 94%, a shockingly high percentage of the population in comparison to divided Americans. South Korean citizens were not opposed to wearing a mask or following public health orders because government messaging was clear from the beginning, and thus, it was not a matter of political disagreement or rights to freedom but a clear mandate from science itself.

According to the Biodefense in Crisis by the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, the US had severely insufficient policies and measures in place to combat pandemics and biological threats. Moving forward, national biodefense must be founded on strong national leadership, coordination, and accountability. As the previous paragraphs explain, the US was lacking in consistence government messaging on how to react to Covid most safely. Ultimately, political disarray and polarization took a toll on our country—quite literally by killing hundreds of thousands of people—when really, we could have taken immediate action through the dissemination of factual public health information to prevent the spread of Covid. Thus, it is imperative that we, as a nation, work towards a future that promotes belief in science such that when we face the next pandemic, which we inevitably will, the country does not break down at partisan lines and instead faces it with preparedness.

Sources: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/13/asia/south-korea-masks-coronavirus-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291980/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/29/face-masks-us-politics-coronavirus

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/who-does-or-doesnt-wear-mask-partisanship-explains-response-covid-19

[nobro011235]

framing #policy

As the vaccine is distributed more freely in the population, I believe we need to pay more attention to the equity of distribution. In more ancient times, we did not have the ability to develop a vaccine as quickly as we do now. Thus, health equity issues were less apparent and largely ignored. Sometimes, such as the case of the black death, the urban merchant class may have even been in more danger than poorer citizens. However, as we turn our eye to the future of pandemics, and as we sort through vaccine distribution presently, we need to pay more attention to growing health inequities. While nearly 50% of Americans have been at least singly vaccinated, barely 10% of India has been vaccinated. Our next-door neighbor, Mexico, has barely reached the 10% single vaccination threshold as well. While people are still dying in hordes in foreign countries, vaccines are being wasted on American shelves as they are “equitably” distributed to rural communities that don’t want them. Colleagues of mine have driven hours to “Trump country” where vaccines are much more readily available due to lack of demand. This begs more than a few questions about how U.S.A views our role in the world. Furthermore, it goes a long way to underscore the weakness of the global community that exists currently. To better face future pandemics, we need to have systems in place that ensure poorer countries that don’t have the resources to buy vaccines have a safety net so that the catastrophe occurring right now in India doesn’t become a motif through history. We as a country have been debating for decades whether health care is a human right. If we indeed decide it is, why do we not believe it is a human right for non-Americans as well? Why are we not appalled that individuals who do not live in the western world do not have access to a vaccine that would benefit them more than it benefits us? While the Biden administration has taken steps to donate vaccines to several countries, it is nowhere near the amount that we are capable of giving, and nowhere near the amount that we should be giving. Additionally, giving more to a global community could simply be a case of enlightened self-interest- we are heavily dependent on a global economy that this pandemic has shaken. The reality of the current situation is that we are heavily limited in our resources to quickly and safely distribute vaccines. We need to be more prepared for a deadlier, more transmittable virus. We need to be more prepared to help those in classes that wouldn’t have access to THAT vaccine, and we need to start preparing now so we don’t have to once again learn the lesson that COVID-19 has taught us.

[jrgill-coder]

framing

While it is disputed, the prevailing wisdom is that the coronavirus made its leap into the fabric of humanity when someone ate a bat they acquired at a Chinese wet market. These unsanitary markets are prevalent throughout the world, leading to the United Nations’ biodiversity chief calling for their ban globally. This to me is another prime example of our many existential threats compounding one another, leading to truly complex moral situations. Does the global north have the moral authority to ask poorer countries to remove these markets? Can rich countries ever ask poor countries to make sacrifices in their development to avoid existential threats? Here there is a large overlap in the motivations of the global north in wanting to prevent future pandemics and climate change. In order to prevent these issues, which have largely been caused by the global north (climate change makes pandemics more likely, the global north is asking the poor of the world to pay down a debt that they have accrued for everyone, without their consent. Consumption patterns in the global north, including regulated food industries and product packaging, have allowed the first world to largely avoid infectious diseases, but these structures have contributed to the climate change that is making pandemics more likely. Wet markets aren’t prevalent in America because of climate change causing solutions to the problem of infectious diseases. To me, the only solution is for the first world to lead a massive transformation in global consumption patterns. Systems whereby less carbon is produced, less trash is produced, and highly infectious diseases are stopped before they enter humans are necessary to prevent the continual compounding of these existential threats; however, solving these problems simultaneously will be a mammoth challenge. The negative feedback loop of climate change making the spread of infectious diseases more likely to spread, climate change causing solutions are implemented to boost public health, leading to short-term gains and long-term pains. Short-term thinking is a tough one to solve.

[EmaanMohsin]

policy #framing #solution

Should There Be A Waiver On The COVID-19 Vaccine Patent?

On November 9, 2020, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Albert Bourla commented on the success of the vaccine in the interim phase, "[t]oday is a great day for science and humanity. The first set of results from our Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trial provides the initial evidence of our vaccine’s ability to prevent COVID-19" [1]. Now six months later, over 263 million Americans are fully vaccinated through one of the three vaccines available in the company. However, we begin to deal with vaccinating individuals in other countries who do not have companies developing vaccines. With vaccine rollouts being slower in countries like Libya and Madagascar, individuals call for there to be no patents on COVID-19 vaccines, tests, and drugs to allow these resources to become more widespread. Yet, will this no patent initiative really provide a better COVID-19 response across the world?

"Drugmakers and industry experts say lifting intellectual property won’t help with supply because the bottlenecks are in the limited raw materials and manufacturing capacity" [2]. Many countries will not be able to afford the equipment, ingredient, and labor necessary to make the vaccine effectively. There is then a danger in making wrongly formulated vaccines or counterfeit vaccines. Also, just because the COVID-19 vaccine patent may be temporarily waived does not mean companies like Pfizer or Moderna have to divulge their specific method of making the vaccine. Therefore, even if countries obtain better technology and ingredients, they will not necessarily have all information regarding the method of construction and ingredient provider lists. Countries like Germany and France also believe that a waiver on vaccine patents will not do much to increase vaccine roll out to other countries. Many EU leaders believe that a greater ability to mass-produce vaccines will do more to help individuals get vaccinated rather than waiving patent rights.

Additionally, many fear that a patent wavier may accelerate the "spread of the vaccine technology to other countries." Although seemingly a positive for the spread of scientific innovation, countries like China, Russia, India, and Japan who have proven biopharma industries, may be able to compete with American drugmakers with booster shots and future diseases. In the long term, this can provide a major hit to the sales of biotech companies in the U.S.

Taking into consideration the further necessary actions needed for the no-patent initiative to be effective, waiving patent rights by themselves does not seem like a viable solution. I am not concerned for the long-term effect of other countries having better capabilities to beat out American industries in vaccines, but rather the waiver initiative seems more symbolic than anything else. I like how the CEO of BIO, Michelle McMurry-Heath, framed the issue: "handing needy countries a recipe book without the ingredients, safeguards, and sizable workforce needed will not help people waiting for the vaccine” [3]. Instead of arguing for vaccine waiving, we need to ensure that companies like Moderna and Pfizer provide cost-free or reduced price vaccines to third world companies, an option that has been proposed but the U.S. government has not commented on. Additionally, for this waiver to be effective, we would need to invest in science industries in third world countries. This investment should happen regardless of the waiver to help prepare against future health crises. At the end of the day, the patent waiver does not seem to be an end-all to fixing the lack of vaccination in third-world countries. Therefore, there seem to be alternative solutions that will better achieve vaccine rollout in the short term. For long-term effects, this waiver may be of use but does not seem to be the solution that it is made out to be.

[1] Banerjea, Aparna. " 'Today is a great day for science and humanity': Pfizer CEO on covid vaccine trial results." mint. November 9, 2020. https://www.livemint.com/news/world/-today-is-a-great-day-for-science-and-humanity-pfizer-ceo-on-covid-vaccine-trial-results-11604923465455.html

[2] Hopkins, Jared. "U.S. Support for Patent Waiver Unlikely to Cost Covid-19 Vaccine Makers in Short Term." The Wall Street Journal. May 7, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-support-for-patent-waiver-unlikely-to-cost-covid-19-vaccine-makers-in-short-term-11620414260

[3] Garde, Damian et al. "Waiver of patent rights on Covid-19 vaccines, in near term, may be more symbolic than substantive." STAT. May 6, 2021. https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/06/waiver-of-patent-rights-on-covid-19-vaccines-in-near-term-may-be-more-symbolic-than-substantive/

[brettriegler]