Preventing the next pandemic
How $30 billion can prevent the next COVID-19

Date:
July 23, 2020
Source:
Princeton University
Summary:
A new article shows that an annual investment of $30 billion should
be enough to offset the costs of preventing another global pandemic
such as COVID-19.



FULL STORY ==========================================================================
Thus far, COVID-19 has cost at least $2.6 trillion and may cost ten times
this amount. It is the largest global pandemic in 100 years. Six months
after emerging, it has killed over 600,000 people and is having a major
impact on the global economy.


==========================================================================
"How much would it cost to prevent this happening again? And what are the principal actions that need to be put in place to achieve this?" asked
Andrew Dobson, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at
Princeton. He and colleague Stuart Pimm of Duke University assembled a
team to seek answers.

Their team has now written a Policy Forum article for the journal Science,
a research-based opinion piece. In it, the multidisciplinary group of epidemiologists, wildlife disease biologists, conservation practitioners, ecologists and economists argue that an annual investment of $30 billion
would pay for itself quickly.

"There have been at least four other viral pathogens that have emerged
in the human population so far this century. Investment in prevention
may well be the best insurance policy for human health and the global
economy in the future," Pimm said.

Two major factors loom large as drivers of emerging pathogens: destruction
of tropical forests and the wildlife trade. Each has contributed two
of the four emerging diseases that have appeared in the last 50 years:
COVID, Ebola, SARS, HIV.

Both deforestation and the wildlife trade also cause widespread damage
to the environment on multiple fronts, so there are diverse benefits
associated with reducing them, note the researchers. Increased monitoring
and policing of these activities would allow future emerging viruses
to be detected at a much earlier stage, when control could prevent
further spread.



==========================================================================
All the credible genetic evidence points to COVID-19 emerging from a bat species traded as food in China. The wildlife trade is a major component
of the global economy, with principal economic products including food, medicine, pets, clothing and furniture. Some of these are traded as
luxury goods, which can create an intimate association that enhances
the risk of pathogen transmission to the merchant or the buyer. Wildlife markets are invariably poorly regulated and unsanitary.

The organization tasked with monitoring international wildlife trade --
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) -- has a net global budget of "a mere $6 million,"
said Dobson. "Many of the 183 signatories are several years in arrears
in their payments." The monitoring of this trade needs to be expanded,
the authors argue. In particular, scientists need vital information about
the viral pathogens circulating in potential food and pet species. They
suggest using regional and national wildlife trade monitoring groups, integrated with international organizations for monitoring animal health.

Monitoring and regulating this trade will not only ensure stronger
protection for the many species threatened by the trade, it will also
create a widely accessible library of genetic samples that can be used to identify novel pathogens when they emerge, say the authors. It will also generate a genetic library of viruses with two key roles: more speedily identifying the source and location of future emerging pathogens, and developing the tests needed to monitor future outbreaks.

Ultimately, this library will contain the information needed to speed
the development of future vaccines.



========================================================================== Although there have been calls to close the "wet markets" where wild
and domestic animals are sold, to prevent future outbreaks of emerging pathogens, the authors acknowledge that many people are dependent
on wild-sourced foods and medicines, and suggest that better health
oversight of domestic markets is required.

They suggest that the risk of new viruses emerging can be mitigated
if more people are trained in monitoring, early detection and control
of pathogens in wildlife trade, and working with local communities to
minimize risks of exposure and onward transmission.

"In China, for example, there are too few wildlife veterinarians, and
the majority work in zoos and animal clinics," said co-author Binbin Li,
an assistant professor of environmental science at Duke Kunshan University
in Jiangsu, China.

"Veterinarians are on the front line of defense against emerging
pathogens, and globally we desperately need more people trained with
these skills," noted Dobson.

The expansion and development of better ways to monitor and regulate
the wildlife trade could be done for around $500 million a year, which
the authors call "a trivial cost" when compared with the current costs
of COVID, especially considering the add-on benefits such as curbing
wildlife consumption and sustaining biodiversity.

Slowing tropical deforestation would also slow viral emergence, plus
it would reduce carbon inputs into the atmosphere from forest fires and
protect forest biodiversity. On the other hand, it reduces revenues from timber, grazing and agriculture.

Is it worth foregoing these tangible, but economically focused,
benefits? The authors undertake this part of their cost-benefit analysis
from two complementary economic perspectives: first ignoring and then
including the benefits of carbon stored as a hedge against climate
change. They make no attempt to put a value on the loss of biodiversity.

The Policy Forum article sharply focuses on the bottom-line costs needed
to prevent the next COVID.

"Pathogen emergence is essentially as regular an event as national
elections: once every 4 to 5 years," said co-author Peter Daszak, an epidemiologist with Ecohealth Alliance in New York, pointing to numerous studies. "New pathogens have appeared at roughly the same rate as new presidents, congressmen, senators and prime ministers!" "We may see the
costs of COVID soar to beyond $8 to $15 trillion with many millions of
people unemployed and living under lockdown," said co-author Amy Ando,
a professor of agricultural and consumer economics at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign.

The annual cost of preventing future outbreaks is roughly comparable
to 1 to 2% of annual military spending by the world's 10 wealthiest
countries. "If we view the continuing battle with emerging pathogens
such as COVID-19 as a war we all have to win, then the investment in
prevention seems like exceptional value," Dobson said.


========================================================================== Story Source: Materials provided by Princeton_University. Note: Content
may be edited for style and length.


========================================================================== Journal Reference:
1. Andrew P. Dobson, Stuart L. Pimm, Lee Hannah, Les Kaufman, Jorge A.

Ahumada, Amy W. Ando, Aaron Bernstein, Jonah Busch, Peter
Daszak, Jens Engelmann, Margaret F. Kinnaird, Binbin V. Li,
Ted Loch-Temzelides, Thomas Lovejoy, Katarzyna Nowak, Patrick
R. Roehrdanz, Mariana M. Vale.

Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention. Science, 2020; 369
(6502): 379-381 DOI: 10.1126/science.abc3189 ==========================================================================

Link to news story: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200723172208.htm

--- up 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 55 minutes
* Origin: -=> Castle Rock BBS <=- Now Husky HPT Powered! (1337:3/111)