The months of magical thinking: As the coronavirus swept over China, some experts were in denial

Date:

The response to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States and other countries has been hobbled by a host of factors, many involving political and regulatory officials.

Resistance to social distancing measures, testing debacles, and longtime failures to prepare for the possibility of a pandemic all played a role.

But a subtler, less-recognized factor contributed to the wasting of precious weeks in January and February, when preparations to try to stop the virus should have kicked immediately into high gear.

Magical thinking — you could call it denial — hampered the ability of even some of the most seasoned infectious diseases experts to recognize the full threat of what was bearing down on the world.

As China was seeking to rid itself of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, a number of leading infectious diseases scientists mused that the outbreak would be controlled or might burn itself out. Yes, there were cases outside China — just over 100 had been reported to the World Health Organization by Jan. 31 — but they were spread out in relatively small numbers in 19 countries. The virus, the thinking went, didn’t appear to be behaving as explosively outside of China as it had inside it.

In hindsight, that argument, from a biological point of view, didn’t make any sense — and it ignored a soon-to-be-apparent Epidemiology 101 lesson: It takes time for a virus that spreads from person to person to hit an exponential growth phase in transmission, even if every new case was infecting on average two to three other people.

It wasn’t that the virus was behaving differently; we simply hadn’t yet seen what it was doing as it moved beyond China. When large outbreaks exploded in Iran and then Northern Italy in late February, the reality became abundantly evident. And then it was too late.

“Everybody was in denial of this coming, including the U.S. And everybody got hit — just as simple as that,” Gary Kobinger, director of the Infectious Disease Research Center at Laval University in Quebec, told STAT.

Kobinger himself thought the WHO’s immediate move to a war footing on the virus — the day after China made its first official report on it on Dec. 31 — was probably an overreaction. The rapid rise in cases in the city of Wuhan brought him around.

“After that I changed my mind and I said, ‘No, this is not an overreaction. This is what we need,’” said Kobinger, who is on an expert committee that advises WHO’s health emergencies program.

It’s not that infectious disease experts didn’t take notice of what was happening. When something that might be a new infectious disease emerges from China, spines tend to stiffen in this community. China has a track record of being a source of some scary new infections — SARS in 2002-2003; H5N1 bird flu, for about a dozen years starting from 2004; and H7N9 bird flu, from 2013 to 2018. And yet the immediate reaction this time was, perhaps, fairly cautious.

On Jan. 5, a day after STAT published its first story on what would become the novel coronavirus, Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told me he didn’t think the new outbreak would turn into a pandemic.

At that point Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, was reporting 59 cases. The disease didn’t yet have a name. It would be three more days until China even announced the cause was a new coronavirus, and five days until it posted the genetic sequence of the virus in a global database.

Osterholm, co-author of the 2017 book “Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs,” thought China was going to get a handle on whatever was responsible for the outbreak. Even if the cause was a new coronavirus — as was rumored from the first emerging word of the outbreak — the world had experience controlling coronavirus outbreaks. The SARS virus had been vanquished, and MERS, a related camel virus that causes sporadic human cases on the Arabian Peninsula, had never spread widely beyond it, except for one outbreak in South Korea in 2015.

Within days, Osterholm’s thinking shifted. By Jan. 20, he was warning the 3M Company — which makes N95 respirators — that the virus, in his opinion, would cause a pandemic. The company immediately moved to increase production.

Osterholm was nonetheless seen by some colleagues as too quick to pull the alarm, especially after he published an opinion piece in the New York Times on Feb. 24 with the headline: “Is It A Pandemic Yet?” (The WHO didn’t declare the outbreak a pandemic until March 11.)

“I was getting the same heat from people. ‘Oh, there you go again, you’re scaring everybody,’” Osterholm recalled recently. “I said, no, you don’t get it. This one’s real. This is it. And they didn’t get it.”

In late January, Wang Linfa, who co- discovered SARS, told STAT the virus was not as dangerous as its earlier cousin had been. “It’s too early to say if a SARS-like event will happen. But I have a gut feeling it won’t,” said Wang, director of the program in emerging infectious diseases at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore.

That interview occurred on Jan. 27, after China had taken the extraordinary step of quarantining tens of millions of people in Wuhan — a measure it never resorted to during the SARS outbreak. By that point, more than 2,700 cases had been diagnosed, most still in China. SARS-CoV-2 had infected in less than one month more than one-third of the cases recorded in the entire months-long SARS outbreak.

Through January and beyond, the WHO was exhorting countries to be ready to find and stop spread of the virus, championing a containment plan aimed at halting transmission. The agency made clear the virus was an extremely serious threat, but still hoped the new coronavirus could be relegated to the history books.

“There’s enough evidence to suggest that this virus can still be contained,” Mike Ryan, head of the WHO’s health emergencies program, told STAT on Feb. 1.

Like the WHO, the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention quickly recognized that the situation in Wuhan might spell trouble. On Jan. 7, the agency stood up an incident management structure for its Covid-19 response. The next day, it issued a notice to health care providers and state and local public health departments to be on the lookout for illness in people who had recently been in Wuhan.

Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, may have been among the first top U.S. health experts to publicly acknowledge the new coronavirus might cause a pandemic.

“If you were here at CDC in the emergency operations center, you would see us stood up just like we had been planning to do for a pandemic,” she told me in an interview on Jan. 24.

“I think the real question is whether other countries are going to see sustained transmission. And on hours where I’m feeling optimistic, I think about the fact that none of the other countries, including the U.S., have seen significant sustained chains of transmission,’’ Messonnier said. “But that doesn’t mean that it’s not coming.”

A week later, on Jan. 31, she told reporters who dialed into a CDC Covid-19 briefing: “We are preparing as if this were the next pandemic, but we are hopeful still that this is not and will not be the case.”

In the second week of February, Kobinger traveled to Geneva for a scientific meeting at the WHO that was attended by experts from around the world. The Asian scientists were all extremely nervous, Kobinger recalled, mentioning that a South Korean scientist he knew was shaky.

“I’ve never seen him like this, and I’ve known him for 15 years,” he said, without naming the scientist.

Read full article here.

Helen Branswell – STAT News – April 20, 2020.

Want More Investigative Content?

Curate RegWatch
Curate RegWatchhttps://regulatorwatch.com
In addition to our original coverage, RegWatch curates top stories on issues and impacts arising from the regulation of economic, social and environmental activity in Canada and the U.S.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

MORE VAPING

Industry Plot? | FDA Commissioner Denigrates Tobacco Harm Reduction | RegWatch

Does the regulator responsible for overseeing tobacco products in the U.S. believe in the practice of tobacco harm reduction? According to FDA Commissioner Robert...