Bring science to the fore of our policy-making
For years, health experts and scientists knew a pandemic would sweep the globe. Numerous books, research papers and opinion pieces were written about it. Bill Gates delivered a Ted Talk five years ago in which he said the most likely threat facing humanity was not a nuclear war but a global pandemic.
As recently as October, a US-based independent think-tank, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, simulated an outbreak in which a coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to humans eventually became a pandemic. The similarities between what was hypothesised and our current reality are remarkable.
In the simulation, the virus starts from a pig farm in Brazil and slowly and quietly spreads through densely populated areas, resulting in an explosion of cases that would eventually, through air travel, reach other highly populated countries like the United States with devastating consequences.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? In fact, all the characteristics of the current pandemic were included in the scenario: its exponential growth, the 12-18-month timeline to produce a vaccine, the emergence of a potential antiviral drug to help the sick, the possibility of a second wave, and the severity of the societal and economic impact.
But how did the imaginary Johns Hopkins scenario end? Although some countries were initially able to contain the virus (think China, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and hopefully New Zealand), it continued to spread and be reintroduced. The imaginary scenario concluded at the 18-month point with 65 million deaths and 80-90 per cent of the global population being infected.
Now don’t panic. The above figures relate to a hypothetical situation. So why even mention it? Because it tells us an important fact: we had the science and the knowledge to know that once a respiratory coronavirus made the leap from animals to humans, its spread, at first slowly and quietly, could eventually devastate the world. In other words, we had every reason to take the initial outbreak in China extremely seriously, even when it seemed far away and contained.
In fact, the 2003 epidemic caused by coronavirus Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome) should have been enough to alert us to the importance of complete pandemic preparedness. But as Hegel said: ‘‘The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.’’
President Trump keeps saying the crisis was ‘‘unseen’’; that ‘‘nobody knew there would be a pandemic or epidemic of this proportion’’. The fact is the US intelligence community, public health experts and officials in Trump’s own administration warned him for years a pandemic was possible, with some specifically mentioning the possibility of a coronavirus-related respiratory pandemic. But instead of strengthening its resources, Trump’s administration disbanded the National Security Council unit focused on pandemic preparedness, leaving a crucial leadership vacuum in global health security. The US, despite its vast resources, even botched its own domestic response.
The Global Health Security (GHS) index grades countries on their pandemic preparedness. Scoring
83.5 out of 100, the United States ranks first among
195 countries. Despite that, it is currently the epicentre of the pandemic and has the highest number of cases in the world.
As is widely known, Trump wasted six weeks with faulty test kits and attempts to reassure Americans the virus was not as perilous as the flu, despite epidemiologists crying otherwise.
New Zealand’s grade is 54 out of 100, putting us
35th in terms of pandemic preparedness. In December, Dr Matt Boyd, Professor Michael Baker and Professor Nick Wilson reported on New Zealand’s poor ranking with the recommendation that the Government ‘‘needs to act promptly to upgrade the country’s defences against pandemic threats’’.
I hope the above advice was heeded. So far, we know our country has responded much better than many others, including the US and the UK.
New Zealand’s remote geographical location and acting early made all the difference. But deep down we all know we could have done even better if we had closed our borders just two weeks earlier.
You might say hindsight is a good thing but the whole point here is that we have science so we do not have to rely on hindsight. The science of an unknown respiratory coronavirus was always clear: time is of the essence, act early or suffer severe societal and economic impacts.
But governments everywhere have become reluctant to choose science over unpopular actions that may weaken their support base. Inaction over the looming climate crisis is a perfect example.
I hope this pandemic provides a real opportunity for us to get rid of populism and bring science and scientists to the forefront of politics and policy-making. Our suffering should not be in vain.
We had every reason to take the initial outbreak in China extremely seriously, even when it seemed far away and contained.