Interview with the Science Writer Who Predicted the Pandemic 8 Years Ago (thebulletin.org) 99
In 1945, after atomic bomb detonations at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, several former Manhattan Project scientists founded the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Publishing continuously since 1945, its current deputy editor, science writer DanDrollette, is also a Slashdot reader, and shared one of the nonprofit magazine's thought-provoking new interviews:
In 2012, author David Quammen wrote a book, Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic, that was the result of five years of research on scientists who were looking into the possibility of another Ebola-type disease emerging. The consensus: There would indeed be a new disease, likely from the coronavirus family, coming out of a bat, and it would likely emerge in or around a wet market in China.
But what was not predictable was how unprepared we would be.
Quammen: For 15 years, scientists have said: "Watch out for coronaviruses; they could be very dangerous." And for five years, Chinese scientist Zhengli Shi at Wuhan Institute of Virology has been warning us to watch out for the coronaviruses found in Chinese bats; SARS is a coronavirus, and it came out of Chinese bats in 2003. That was very dangerous to humans, but it didn't transmit as readily as this one does. But Shi and her group saw a virus very similar to it in bats in a cave in Yunnan Province and published a paper in 2017 saying, "Watch out for these particular coronaviruses in these horseshoe bats. They necessitate the highest preparedness." That was three years ago...
Everything about this outbreak was predictable, to me and to the scientists I was listening to, 10 years ago.
But what was not predictable was how unprepared we would be.
Quammen: For 15 years, scientists have said: "Watch out for coronaviruses; they could be very dangerous." And for five years, Chinese scientist Zhengli Shi at Wuhan Institute of Virology has been warning us to watch out for the coronaviruses found in Chinese bats; SARS is a coronavirus, and it came out of Chinese bats in 2003. That was very dangerous to humans, but it didn't transmit as readily as this one does. But Shi and her group saw a virus very similar to it in bats in a cave in Yunnan Province and published a paper in 2017 saying, "Watch out for these particular coronaviruses in these horseshoe bats. They necessitate the highest preparedness." That was three years ago...
Everything about this outbreak was predictable, to me and to the scientists I was listening to, 10 years ago.
Re:It's like those clairvoyants (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice trolling. Keep those scientists down. Who needs them!
The clear and distinct difference between a situation like this and a clairvoyant is these scientists wrote out their predictions and were very specific. The article literally says scientists have been saying to watch for coronaviruses. Then, a few years ago, a scientist narrowed it down even further to a specific coronavirus AND where it might come from.
Meanwhile, clairvoyants say, "There will some kind of medical issue affecting the world." Well golly gee, if you're clairvoyant, why can't you be more specific? What kind of medical issue? Is it a virus or obesity?
The other difference is scientists use facts and study to bolster their predictions whereas clairvoyants make wild-assed guesses. On, and clairvoyants aren't real.
Re: (Score:3)
No, there were a bunch of scientists saying this probably would be a problem. There are lots of papers pointing out how dangerous coronaviruses (and others) could be. The point is not that it's an amazing prediction, but that it's not. We narrowly dodged this situation in 2003. Predicting it would happen again and we might not be so lucky isn't impressive at all, any more than predicting that a bad flu pandemic might happen, as has happened numerous times in the past.
Re: Fantastic. INCOMPETENCY 2020 (Score:2)
2012... That would be Obama then. So, Covid-19 is all his fault then?
Re: (Score:3)
No, there were a bunch of scientists saying this probably would be a problem. There are lots of papers pointing out how dangerous coronaviruses (and others) could be. The point is not that it's an amazing prediction, but that it's not.
This is the best insight in this discussion so far.
The point is not that they miraculously predicted some outlandish thing. That their prediction came true does not make them prophets. They documented a bunch of facts, used knowledge and experience to describe what was almost surely going to happen, and warned that we weren't ready for it.
It's like saying to a friend or relative: "you know that this region is known as tornado alley, this particular trailer park has been hit multiple times over the past 30 y
Re: (Score:2)
And then your redneck friends replies, regarding your comment about tornadoes: "You do know that lightning never strikes twice at the same place, right?"
Re: (Score:2)
This is the best insight in this discussion so far.
The point is not that they miraculously predicted some outlandish thing. That their prediction came true does not make them prophets. They documented a bunch of facts, used knowledge and experience to describe what was almost surely going to happen, and warned that we weren't ready for it.
I thought this fact was intuitively obvious from reading the summary, but after reading the comments on this story, it surprisingly seems that it is in no way obvious.
Re:He's right (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because, nobel prizes or not, finance is not a science. Finance deals with money, which is a purely human invention.
Re: (Score:2)
It's both.
https://www.investopedia.com/t... [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is true that both clairvoyants and scientists are sometimes wrong and sometimes right. But that doesn't mean they're doing the same thing.
Now it's kind of silly to say that a science writer predicted the emergence of a serious zoonotic diseases. Scientists have known something like this to be a virtual certainty for decades based on experience and evidence.
Zoonotic events are commonplace; every year there are documented instances of animal pathogens hopping over to people. The pathogen usually isn't
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the negative results have a hard time getting published.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is true but irrelevant here.
Not like SF should be about the future, eh? (Score:3)
What a wasted FP. But what else to expect on Slashdot 2020? For my own benighted insight and futile hopes, I searched for "Fermi", "SF", and "science fiction" and came up null every time. But it's still early on Slashdot story time, so maybe things will get better?
Anyway, there are lots of SF predictions of various plagues. Covid-19 has rather mild parameters compared to any of the literary examples I can recall. Main thing to note is that we got off quite lightly. This time the half-baked responses were ad
Re: (Score:2)
I should have checked before writing. Thought the name rang a bell. Turned out I read the book Ebola extracted from that book...
My still unanswered question is whether bats have especially weak immune systems to reduce their weight for better flight? The joke about (prolific) mice with wings, eh?
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Score:1, Insightful)
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is now a bunch of crackpots. No one is going to listen to you when you continuously publish bullshit, even if you get it right once in a while. And yeah, "wet markets" are a problem. You don't have to be a "scientist" to know that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Which method we'll change — or simply ignore — when it stands in the way of the Greater Good. Such as, for example, abolish the falsifiaibility requirement in the "Climate Science" [theconversation.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Which method we'll change — or simply ignore — when it stands in the way of the Greater Good. Such as, for example, abolish the falsifiaibility requirement in the "Climate Science" [theconversation.com].
But I think it is, you just need to reduce it to more fundamental sciences... so for Climate Science, we'd need to reduce that to, well, chemistry and newtonian physics, then quantum mechanics, and then ultimately, pure mathematics, and... wait a minute! How is a correct mathematical proof falsifiable? Great, now mathematics is junk. I always hated math. Thanks. But quantum mechanics is also, for the most part, not falsifiable. Much of the Standard Model is not falsifiable. Cosmology I think in whole is not
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that you stepped on the third rail of political correctness by attacking the priesthood of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
A -1 moderation with "No comment history available." The executioners at the inquisition wore black hoods as well.
The problem is the people predicting it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
America (Score:2)
Re: America (Score:2)
Trump isn't anti-war; he just wants to war with America and knows he can't fight two fronts.
This is objectively false (Score:1)
Serious
Re: (Score:1)
While that's true (Score:3)
Go ask George Floyd or the 100+ dead protestors about a country killing it's own citizens. Oh wait, you can't. They're dead.
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls. But if we keep playing this game of false equivalence we'll never get anywhere. Every country is terrible. Fuck, we've literally got groups in Syria where one side is fighting with weapons from our Pentagon and the other from our CIA. We ne
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This is objectively false (Score:2)
Peace deal? Guess you never read it. All it was was a piece of pap with the principal aim of pushing the blame for Iran going nuke down the road 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Please get yourself tested for COVID - symptoms can include idiocy, belief in conservative propaganda, and spewing easily-disproven conspiracy theories on /.
Re:The problem is the people predicting it (Score:5, Insightful)
> if you told me in 2008 that in 2020 America would in the middle of a pandemic cut off access to medical care to 20 million people because they lost their jobs I'd have thought you were nuts
Why? Health care in America has always been pay to play. Lose your job, you lose your health insurance unless you have enough savings to tap into - which most American's don't. And then you get the best medical care no money can buy. Take an aspirin and don't bother calling me in the morning. Why would you think a pandemic would make any difference to the fiercely "I've got mine, go fuck yourself" mentality that governs the U.S. economy in basically all other situations?
Don't worry, there's a nice public safety net in Medicaid - all you have to do is qualify, which involves first liquidating and spending all significant assets you own. After all we don't want to help out people with cars, houses, retirement funds, or anything else that they could liquidate to pay their own way. That would go against the "every man for himself" American spirit. We're not heartless, we'll keep you from starving to death, but only after you've fallen so far that you're going to have to start from scratch financially.
Because my younger, less cynical self (Score:2)
You're right about Medicaid. I've tangled with it and it's not a public safety net.
We only keep you from starving to death because that's the point where people form roving bands of bandits.
Re: (Score:2)
You're more optimistic than I am. I'm trying to think of the last time we all pulled together to fix a problem that didn't affect the rich, and nothing springs to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual words to the song are "You put the lime in the coconut and call me in the morning".
Re: (Score:2)
There's a song?
Re: (Score:1)
Health care in America has always been pay to play. Lose your job, you lose your health insurance unless you have enough savings to tap into
"always"?. No. All of your lifetime, sure. But the country is older than that.
Employer-provided health insurance (which really isn't insurance, for the most part, in the sense that every other sort of insurance is insurance) is a new thing. A workaround (or loophole) used to get around FDR's wage controls, and which was later used as a way to provide compensation to employees that was not subject to tax (or loophole).
Prior to that people paid cash (or made time payments) for routine things, and used f
Re: (Score:2)
How is paying insurance yourself, or paying for service directly, not still "pay-to-play" for receiving medical services?
Used to be Americans had a lot more savings so that you could still pay for insurance when you lost your job, or even pay directly for some modest medical care. But if you couldn't afford the bill you still died on the street. Though I have heard rumors that medical care used to be dramatically cheaper, and doctors more kind-hearted, so your chances of being able to afford medical servi
Re: (Score:1)
If you local library does not have the book, perhaps you can borrow it via interlibrary loan.
You might learn something. I sure did.
_From mutual aid to the welfare state : fraternal societies and social services, 1890-1967_, by David T Beito. https://www.worldcat.org/searc... [worldcat.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot says you're replying to my message. Your message content suggests otherwise.
I beg you .. let's not tell tales about our wonderful health insurance system.
I wasn't.
But since you brought it up: it sucks. It provides disincentives for good things, incentives for bad things. People do unpleasant things to get or keep "insurance". Entire books have been written about bad it is.
Layering ObamaCare on top of it just puts some lipstick on the pig. (Actually, I wish that was all it did. Not the best metaphor.)
Better metaphor: More like diarrhea icing on a turd pie.
Re: The problem is the people predicting it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs
Re: (Score:3)
David Quammen interview from 2012 (Score:5, Interesting)
If this isn't a lesson (Score:4, Insightful)
If this pandemic, as well as previous (and future ones) aren't a wake up a call to make people realize Scientists should have more of a hand in politics, nothing will. This isn't any one person's fault. Scientists also have to choose to run be more civically engaged. This is hard, I know this as being in the sciences myself. We generally want to conduct our research and investigate nature, and social and political issues often feel like a distraction to that. However, if you're not engaged at all, then eventually others will be limiting your scientific enterprises in one way or another, be it through lack policy or overzealous policy.
We need more scientifically oriented politicians, or more politically oriented scientists, playing a larger role in society. In general, we need political leaders to give scientists more influence over policy. In the US, at least, lawyers and business people have an outsized influence on politics. This is not new by any means, but the detriment of it is becoming ever more clear.
Re: (Score:3)
There are scientists, who are able politicians. There are carpenters who are good decision makers. There are novel writers with a knack f
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If this isn't a lesson (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a waste of their expertise putting scientists in office, not to mention any scientist who could win an election probably isn't the one you want in power anyway.
Just elect politicians who aren't too dumb to listen to experts.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a huge investment in electric flying pigs. Would you like to buy some shares? They are very fond of lipstick, and quite fashionable.
Re: (Score:2)
SARS and MERS (Score:5, Insightful)
People forget that SARS and MERS were scaring the world at the time ... this wasn't that hard to speculate. It wasn't totally unexpected .. if this prediction was made before SARS (2003) or MERS (2009) then yeah I'd be like maybe it was prescienct.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually MERS was emerging and in teh news right around the time of this article (2012). .. So yeah it wasn't some mighty fantastical prediction.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually MERS was emerging and in teh news right around the time of this article (2012). .. So yeah it wasn't some mighty fantastical prediction.
The precursor to SARS-2 might even have been around about then.
http://www.mattridley.co.uk/bl... [mattridley.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I also predicted the football pools for many years with limited success.
If you shoot enough arrows into the air, one of them is bound to hit something eventually.
In case you are interested, I am currently predicting another civil war in America - and Puerto Rico will win!
And then Some Guy Named Burk... (Score:1)
Sent someone to a cave named LV-426 to retrieve a specimen for study...
Lets put a finer point on this. (Score:3, Insightful)
But what was not predictable was how unprepared we would be.
What was actually not predictable was that when the inevitable pandemic hit that we would have a U.S. president that would undo the preparations put in place by the prior administration.
That isn't to say that we would have been well prepared. Just that we would have been much better off if that hadn't happened.
Re:Lets put a finer point on this. (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, the linked explanation on Number 6 is incorrect (I'm being kind). For every budget that Trump has submitted thus far, he has included a really steep cut to the NIH. If I recall correctly, the minimum was 20% and the maximum was 30%, thus far. Congress, for all three of the budgets, collectively said, "no" and instead increased the funding to the NIH. I, for one, am grateful.
If Trump had his way, we would have been in far, far worse straits than we are now, because we would have lost nearly an entire generation of post-docs and graduate students who are the backbone of the workforce in Biology, making our progress on fighting this particular virus slower.
(Aside: The idiotic part of Trump's desire to cut the NIH budget is the clear, well-supported observation that every $1 in NIH funding results in $2 in GDP. I defy anyone to identify a similar-scale ROI that is (a) so large and (b) sustained over so long a period. Want to rev-up the economy long-term? Increase the NIH budget. Clinton did, and over his administration, the stock market increased vastly more than under Trump's (look up the numbers for yourself, don't trust someone to do the analysis for you). For Trump to catch up in a second term, the Dow would need to triple from it's peak and be in the 90,000 range. Mark me down: that isn't going to happen, even without the C19-induced recession.)
So, again, so-called "Lie number 6" is, in fact, true. Not so surprising that an outlet that wears its politics on its sleeve isn't telling the whole truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worked well for Bush after 9/11, so the terrorists wouldn't win.
Re:Lets put a finer point on this. (Score:4, Informative)
Regarding 8, the trump administration was already criticized in 2018 and long before the pandemic about this:
"The abrupt departure of Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer from the National Security Council means no senior administration official is now focused solely on global health security. Ziemer’s departure, along with the breakup of his team, comes at a time when many experts say the country is already underprepared for the increasing risks of a pandemic or bioterrorism attack."
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
It's the year 2020 (Score:2)
Someone please make an interview with the guy who said 2020 is going to be the year of the impeccable hindsight and "I told you so!".
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
9/11 (Score:1)
The U.S. knew 9/11 was coming and did nothing. We don't do preparedness for rare events. That requires Congress to approve funding for something that's unlikely to happen before the next election. That's not gonna happen.
Re: 9/11 (Score:2)
The intelligence community had credible threats of an imminent Al Qaeda attack around May of that year. They also knew from previous intelligence that Al Qaeda had plans to hijack a plane to be used to crash into the WTC.
Health risks (Score:2)
someone's bound to predct anything (Score:2)
You only hear about the handful that got it right, not the hoards that got it wrong. Predictions like that, that far out, are just guesses, and only slightly educated at that. Don't give them credit just because they turned out to be right. Only if they have sound reasoning, hard evidence, and are drawing logical, unambiguous conclusions.
Some of them are like Nostradamos, who had a bunch of predictions come true, until you look and realize he wrote thousands of predictions, most of which never came true
This warning is from 2007, from a journal (Score:3)
This warning is from 2007, from a journal:
-- "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus as an Agent of Emerging and Reemerging Infection" [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Did he actually predict the pandemic... (Score:2)
oh for fucks sake (Score:2)
In after of 2 pandemics some shitbrains says "gee golly there might be a pandemic" and another shitbrains remembers a few years later
gee golly, give this man keys to the city, he's a fuckin genius
Scientific American Interview (Score:2)
Watch a interview of the author [youtube.com], David Quammen, by two Scientific American staff.
Note that Quammen is not a scientist. He is a science writer, who authored many books, and does a thorough job at that.
He does talk to the experts, and writes down what they say.
For when he asked the experts on the next pandemic, they said that the next pandemic will be:
a) a virus (influenza, coronavirus, or paramyxovirus)
b) jumps from animals,
c) has an RNA genetic code,
d) respiratory spread
This is not magic or prophecy. It is
"Pay to Play" is political corruption (Score:1)
Is paying for the bread you eat "pay to play"? Or the car you drive or the internet connectivity you use "pay to play". Obviously not.
The term "pay to play" is normally used to describe political corruption. An informal illegal fee (i.e. bribe) paid secretly or ostensibly for another purpose (i.e. bribing) to a politician or other official in order to be considered for a position or to do business with a government (i.e. corruption).
If a government or business were to donate to a foundation set up by a
this is the problem with crying wolf, isn't it? (Score:2)
Yes, a huge pandemic was a risk (still is). ...that eventually, normal people who have to go to work each day to provide for their families run out of energy "caring" about everything
So is running out of fresh water.
So is climate change.
So is overpopulation.
So is global nuclear war.
So is terrorism.
So are the terrible things happening in China/mideast/Yemen/to blacks/to the rohinga/to Indians 150 years ago/to natives when the conquistadors arrived/to the natives when they got sick because of Europeans/etc...