3 ms·

Calling attention to this but "as the number of humans is growing, and we are encroaching on the natural habitats of wildlife further and further" is a "mother-

Calling attention to this but "as the number of humans is growing, and we are encroaching on the natural habitats of wildlife further and further" is a "mother-nature's revenge" meme and isn't really true. Zoonotic plagues are not new but pandemics can spread much faster now due to cheap travel and relatively open borders.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Expansion into previously unpopulated areas (logging the Amazon, for example) does have risks. Marburg virus likely comes from an animal living in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitum_Cave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitum_Cave ; it's hardly implausible that expanding human habitation/activity into new areas may uncover more. Speed of travel certainly makes things worse, but even in the 1300s diseases were able to spread widely.
nradov 4y ago
The speed of transmission hasn't really changed much since the beginning of the worldwide shipping trade. Whether the virus spreads in a few days or a few weeks hardly matters over the full course of a pandemic. We know that a virus (either influenza or another coronavirus) spread worldwide in 1889 fairly quickly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2022.104111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2022.104111
est31 4y ago
It's more than a meme, but documented by research. Some citations: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn2222 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn2222 > The key issue, then, is not that zoonotic diseases appear in humans, but that their emergence seems to be increasing in frequency (3). Major changes in land use, increasing urbanization, and global connectedness are well documented as driving disease emergence through increasing human–animal contacts and accelerating transmission rates, and climate change will similarly accelerate the rate of zoonotic events. It's not a paper in itself but it says what I've been saying above way more eloquently. It also cites this paper: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06536 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06536 > Here we analyse a database of 335 EID ‘events’ (origins of EIDs) between 1940 and 2004, and demonstrate non-random global patterns. EID events have risen significantly over time after controlling for reporting bias, with their peak incidence (in the 1980s) concomitant with the HIV pandemic. EID events are dominated by zoonoses (60.3% of EIDs): the majority of these (71.8%) originate in wildlife (for example, severe acute respiratory virus, Ebola virus), and are increasing significantly over time. Lastly, some other recent research: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29378-2 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29378-2
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  I will stand by the meme characterization. The first links assumes Covid was zoonotic which is a fine assumption but not a high quality conclusion and the second link shows the trend peaking in the 80s and then decreasing. Since the world population was only 60% what it is today, that is strong evidence that at absolute minimum the relationship is nonlinear and perhaps inverts at higher population sizes (as wild biodiversity decreases). To be quite honest, citing research on a politically polarized topic is not as useful as it used to be. The political polarization within the academy means that there is a lot of pretty loose research that may get through if it has the appropriate orientation. In practice, you can almost always find (low quality) research supporting one’s position if the position is lefty.

ceejayoz 4y ago

Expansion into previously unpopulated areas (logging the Amazon, for example) does have risks. Marburg virus likely comes from an animal living in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitum_Cave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitum_Cave ; it's hardly implausible that expanding human habitation/activity into new areas may uncover more. Speed of travel certainly makes things worse, but even in the 1300s diseases were able to spread widely.

nradov 4y ago

The speed of transmission hasn't really changed much since the beginning of the worldwide shipping trade. Whether the virus spreads in a few days or a few weeks hardly matters over the full course of a pandemic. We know that a virus (either influenza or another coronavirus) spread worldwide in 1889 fairly quickly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2022.104111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2022.104111

est31 4y ago

It's more than a meme, but documented by research. Some citations: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn2222 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn2222 > The key issue, then, is not that zoonotic diseases appear in humans, but that their emergence seems to be increasing in frequency (3). Major changes in land use, increasing urbanization, and global connectedness are well documented as driving disease emergence through increasing human–animal contacts and accelerating transmission rates, and climate change will similarly accelerate the rate of zoonotic events. It's not a paper in itself but it says what I've been saying above way more eloquently. It also cites this paper: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06536 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06536 > Here we analyse a database of 335 EID ‘events’ (origins of EIDs) between 1940 and 2004, and demonstrate non-random global patterns. EID events have risen significantly over time after controlling for reporting bias, with their peak incidence (in the 1980s) concomitant with the HIV pandemic. EID events are dominated by zoonoses (60.3% of EIDs): the majority of these (71.8%) originate in wildlife (for example, severe acute respiratory virus, Ebola virus), and are increasing significantly over time. Lastly, some other recent research: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29378-2 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29378-2

AbrahamParangi 4y ago
I will stand by the meme characterization. The first links assumes Covid was zoonotic which is a fine assumption but not a high quality conclusion and the second link shows the trend peaking in the 80s and then decreasing. Since the world population was only 60% what it is today, that is strong evidence that at absolute minimum the relationship is nonlinear and perhaps inverts at higher population sizes (as wild biodiversity decreases). To be quite honest, citing research on a politically polarized topic is not as useful as it used to be. The political polarization within the academy means that there is a lot of pretty loose research that may get through if it has the appropriate orientation. In practice, you can almost always find (low quality) research supporting one’s position if the position is lefty.