When it comes to pandemics, an ounce of prevention is worth far more than a pound of cure.
By Dr. Margaret Kinnaird, WWF, Wildlife Practice Leader
It’s been almost 2 years to the day since WWF shut its offices in Nairobi and adopted a work from home model, my daily commute dropped from being measured in minutes (50 on average) to paces (~10 from my bedroom to my home office). As we enter year three of the COVID pandemic, some aspects of isolation are beginning to ease up but life still feels Not. Quite. Right. We’ve already lost over 5.86 million lives worldwide to COVID and in spite of an unprecedented, rapid development and deployment of vaccines, people around the world are still getting sick and unacceptable numbers continue to die. ‘Long COVID’ saps joy and energy from many, and we’re just beginning to recognize long term effects of COVID infections on the brain, heart, lungs and other organs.
Meanwhile, small and medium-sized businesses continue to quietly disappear. Our prized parks and protected areas still suffer from lack of tourism resulting in significantly lower protection for iconic species and their habitats. And vast swaths of societies around the world are still intensely divided over mask regulations, isolation, and vaccine passports.
These pandemic-related events have an enormous impact on global productivity and cause huge economic losses that can reverberate for years. Understanding the extent of these impacts was the focus of a recent study published in Science Advances with which I had the privilege of being involved. The 20 authors have combined expertise in epidemiology, virology, medicine, economics, ecology, demography, conservation biology and policy. All of us were — and continue to be — astonished and frustrated that the global response to pandemics is to invest almost entirely in post-spillover actions. So we set out to evaluate the relative economic costs of preventing disease outbreaks before they occur instead of reacting after a disease has emerged.
Our research shows that, since 1912, viral zoonotic outbreaks, or spillover events (from wild or domestic animals) that can lead to pandemics, are happening more frequently, spreading farther, affecting many more people and becoming costlier to combat once they occur.
To estimate the reactionary costs, we calculated the average value of statistical lives lost globally (a cost benefit-analysis metric used by my economist colleagues), based on an estimated 3.3 m mean annual deaths from zoonotic diseases given the current global population, and the willingness to pay (WPT) to prevent a death. We estimate the WPT to vary between $350 Billion to $21 Trillion per year in economic losses. Additional annual economic loss due to pandemics (measured against the world gross national income in 2019 of $87 Trillion) starts at whopping $212 Billion.
When estimating the costs of viral spillover prevention, we considered three primary needs: (i) viral discovery and monitoring, (ii) stopping deforestation in agricultural frontiers, and (iii) reducing or stopping wildlife consumption and trade. All together, the costs of satisfying these needs came in at approximately $20 Billion; only 5% of the annualized cost of lives lost, and 10% of annualized economic loss. Clearly, preventing a pandemic is far cheaper than fighting one.
There are additional, key benefits associated with a well-planned, well-funded and appropriately implemented global pandemic prevention program. We’ll create a huge need for jobs across multiple skill sets. We’ll reduce agricultural intensification, deforestation, fragmentation, and wildlife consumption — all of which will help turn the tide on biodiversity loss and dramatically extend our reach towards satisfying CBD targets. These actions will also improve prospects for climate change by increasing carbon sequestration in forests and soils.
Regarding jobs, we highlight the critical need for more veterinarians. We find too many veterinarians focused on pets and livestock and woefully few focused on wildlife (especially in high biodiversity countries), most likely because of limited job opportunities for wildlife vets outside of zoos and conservation parks. In a global pandemic prevention program, wildlife veterinarians as well as animal health workers focused on wildlife in trade, nationally and internationally, will be the first line of defence in the war on viral spillovers.
As the past two, long years demonstrate, relying on a post-spillover strategy to fight pandemics is horrifyingly insufficient to protect us from the ravages of a pandemic. Which makes it surprising that preventing spillovers is not mentioned in reports and strategies from the likes of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB), a joint initiative of the World Bank and the World Health Organization that deals with pandemic preparedness. We need a new, vibrant strategy that goes to the core of changing business as usual. Surely, it makes economic sense to prevent the emergence of zoonotic diseases than to clean up the mess afterwards.
