Emerging and re-emerging diseases are particularly dangerous as populations previously not exposed to such diseases have a lower immune system that makes them more susceptible to catching the virus and being unable to fight it. Such diseases, especially when spread by zoonotic sources, become even more dangerous as they threaten to spillover, meaning they can spread easily to a huge portion of the population. Examples of zoonotic factors that have facilitated the spread of disease are mosquitos that carried Zika in Uganda in 2015, and bats that carried Ebola in Guinea in 2013[1]. When diseases are spread in this way, it is harder to immediately identify or control the spread. This is because unlike infected humans, animals to not show sickly systems, and in some cases, like mosquitos for instance, contact is practically unavoidable.
Is there any way to combat this and better prepare or defend ourselves against a new outbreak of disease? The social implications of outbreaks could perhaps help with this.
Outbreak culture, which relies on the way that the spread of the infectious disease is portrayed in the public, could perhaps actually help this effort. Although the media can be flawed in its oversensationalization of events and threats, in the case of infectious outbreak, this is actually more helpful than not. Allowing the media to advertise the disease, its origin, its symptoms, and any sort of pattern that can be used to trace the outbreak, works in the favor of public health as the education can help bring forth new patients for diagnosis and keep the rest of the population away from possible sources of contamination[2]. The down side of this however, is the hysteria and social isolation that comes as a part of outbreak culture. Panic and fear of catching diseases can easily lead to cruel conditions for those with the disease. The AIDS epidemic was a prime example of this where the outbreak created an intense social stigma around what was labeled “the four Hs – homosexuals, heroin addicts, hemophiliacs, and Haitians.” [3] Is the ostracization of such social groups worth the impact such publicity may have on preventing the disease from spreading?
Past disease research suggests that it does not have to be an either-or decision. Scientists researching Ebola attempted to combat this isolation by naming the disease after a local river rather than the village where the most recent outbreak originated[4]. Their actions here not only prevented the creation of a stigma, but also aided preventing the spread of disease as enough information was still released. This is an easy habit to adopt, but what also must be adopted is a proactive mindset more than just a reactive mindset when it comes to disease prevention.
Without an active political agenda and government funds dedicated to researching new diseases, the United States will never be ‘ahead of the curve’ of infectious diseases. Investing in proper infrastructure and resources is essential to decreasing our susceptibility of another pandemic[5]. Also necessary is vigilant monitoring of populations and regions, such as West Africa, that are prone to the spreading of infectious diseases[6]. A rapid treatment, isolation, and monitoring plan that is put in place would be extremely beneficial in preparing for an attempting to counteract the next major outbreak.
[1] Spillover Movie
[2] “Media Messages and Perception of Risk for Ebola Virus Infection, United States”
[3] “Panic, Paranoia, and Public Health — The AIDS Epidemic’s Lessons for Ebola”
[4] Spillover Movie
[5] “Beyond the Ebola Battle — Winning the War against Future Epidemics”
[6] “After Ebola in West Africa — Unpredictable Risks, Preventable Epidemics”