Did the Covid Pandemic shock you? The next one is right around the corner, if we don’t get our act together!

Do you remember those early days of the Covid-19 Pandemic? Schools were shut down. Zoom meetings were the norm. Graduation parties, birthdays, and weddings all felt like another era. But, worst of all, the number of people who succumbed to this virus and lost their lives was just horrific. More people died from Covid than during 9/11 or World War 2. Those people were brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, and uncles. Each of them meant something special to someone else. We put our hope in the scientists and researchers, and don’t get me wrong they were amazing! But every step of the way, the virus stymied and defied even the best scientists. Scientists initially thought that once vaccines came along, our relationship with the virus would be significantly different. They thought that by summer 2021, life would return entirely to normal and that Covid would be a thing of the past. However, the virus turned out to be much more formidable than many of them imagined, and in some ways, even now, the world does not have a good handle on this virus, and we are still living by its command. There is no ability to clearly tell what is going to come next. Some suspect that there will be another winter wave, but that the impact on hospitals will be significantly lower than the last two years. Others think that there will not be a winter surge at all. The most pessimistic of experts, though, suggest that hospitals could be in for a tough few months as we head into the holidays. But, if you want to hear the even more sobering news folks, keep this in mind. This will not be the last pandemic that shakes up the world like this. In this post, I hope to inform you about why we should not be complacent into thinking that this was a one time tragedy, how we keep making ourselves more and more prone to pandemics, and what we might be able to do to better be prepared.

So you might be wondering, what type of virus is fit to become a pandemic? When do we know that we’ve got a pandemic on our hands? To put it simply, a pandemic is a worldwide epidemic. An epidemic is when there is the exponential growth of a disease in a certain country. A pandemic is when a disease has been able to grow exponentially in multiple countries. This concept of exponential growth is key. There have been so many diseases that have spread to multiple countries. SARS spread to about 30 countries. Ebola spread to 7 countries outside of the continent of Africa. But do you know what the difference was? Do you know what the saving grace was? Countries were quickly able to get a handle on who was carrying the disease and who was sick, so they could isolate them before they were able to spread it to anyone else. You can think of diseases like SARS and Ebola like the villian, Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter. Voldemort was cruel and terrible, but he made it clear from day one that he hated Harry, and that he would do whatever it took to kill him. SARS and Ebola were like that as well. They were extremely nasty illnesses, but it was extremely clear when someone had it because their peak viral load or the time that they would be most likely to transmit the infection to other people would be when they were having symptoms. Covid-19; however, was completely different. Most of the spread occurred when people did not even know that they had the virus. There were people walking around, who were positive that felt perfectly fine. For god sakes, some of them did not even have a runny nose! This raises the question, how do you fight something when you do not even know what you are fighting? How do you fight off an enemy, when you do not even know that that enemy exists? This is precisely where the problem laid. By the time, health authorities figured out that a person had the virus, he/she had already passed it to 4 other people, and those 4 people had passed it to 4 other people, and so on. You can quickly see how 1 infection can become a 100 and a 1000 in just the course of a few days. Plus, to add to the issue, no one had any preexisting immunity to this virus. So, we were essentially facing an invisible enemy without even any armor. Plus, Covid was also deceptive, where, even when a person had symptoms, those symptoms coincided with other diseases that we have learned to accept as part of our daily existence. All this created the perfect storm for a devastating global pandemic. So, to recap, there are really three things that increase the risk that a virus will have the capability to cause a pandemic. First of all, it has the capability to spread in a way that cannot be easily detected/kept up with. Second of all, the symptoms that it causes are not easily distinguishable from other diseases. But, third, and most importantly, no one in the population has any form of immunity to it.

Assuming you read that, you’re probably wondering, “Okay, I understand that certain viruses are capable of causing pandemics, but how do these powerful viruses even make it to the human population in the first place? How are they even spread to humans in the first place? Where do these viruses originate from? I can understand the curiosity. It seems mysterious how a virus that did not even exist before 2019 suddenly made its way to humans. However, I’m here to tell you that the answer is not as mysterious as you think. The answer to that is simple! Covid likely came from an animal reservoir. You might be thinking, “Wait, how? We don’t even have that much contact with animals on a daily basis?” What you have to remember, though, is that it only talks one source of contact. All it takes is one unlucky encounter, and the virus can jump to humans. Given the wrong circumstances, it is possible, and then once that human spreads it to another human, you have begun the stage of community transmission. In fact, recent research has even shown that there are multiple stages of zoonotic transmission, where in each stage, the viruses involved not only get better in transmitting from animals to humans, but also get better equipped to stay in the human population. For instance, research by Brian Pike and others suggests that there are about five stages of zoonotic transmission. According to them, viruses that are in stage 1 are solely present in humans, while diseases viruses that are in stage 5 are solely present in animals. Put another way, stage 1, a virus is solely present in animals. When that virus has gained the ability to jump to a human, it is in stage 2. However, that still does not mean that it is time to be concerned yet. Viruses at stage 2 are still not guaranteed to cause a pandemic because they are not able to transmit readily between humans. They have just been passed on from an animal reservoir. When you reach stage 3 and 4; however, things are much more concerning. At stage 3, the virus is not only present in humans, but it has actually gained the ability to spread from one human to another. Put another way, it has become fit enough to spread between humans. Stage 4 takes it up a notch because the frequency of this human to human transmission only increases, as the virus transmits more and more periodically from person to person, without even the involvement of an animal host. For instance, if you think about the Influenza virus, it is a stage 4 virus because it is transmitted significantly on a periodic basis during the winter between humans, and there are no animal reservoirs involved (Pike et al., 2010). Think about it, you do not get the Flu from an animal! You get it from another person. Additionally, this other fact comes to mind. Viruses that are in stage 4 are more and more likely to mutate. This also helps to explain how the Covid Pandemic kickstarted itself. Initially, Covid may not have been the most fit. However, by continuously spreading from person to person, it reached a point where it essentially begun to learn how to become smarter and more fit so ask to skirt any developed immunity and infect more people at once. Viruses obviously cannot mutate to obtain an advantage if they are not able to replicate, which also sheds insight as to why stage 3 and 4 viruses are significantly more dangerous and more prone to cause pandemics.

You have probably reached the point, where you’re thinking to yourself, Sachit, this is great information, but how is any of this important? How is any of this remotely optimistic or positive? Why am I telling you all this information? What I am here to tell you is that this information, while stressful and terrible, is actually extremely positive. Given that so many pandemics start when a virus is transmitted from an animal to a human, this also shows that we are not helpless and that there are many ways that we can help to prevent future pandemics. Many of them unsurprisingly come down to changing the way our relationship with the environment works. For instance, according to research done by Brian Pike, HIV became such a significant problem for the human population because of the significant amount of primate hunting and butchering that was going on in the early 20th century. Perhaps, even more surprisingly, the researchers found that there were a group of viruses that had not even been previously found to have had the ability to infect humans that humans had antibodies too. For instance, one of the most noteworthy facts that the researchers found was that there were individuals, living a Cameroonian village who had antibodies to the Simian virus. This is usually a virus that only affects monkeys, so the fact that it had obtained the ability to affect humans was astounding (Pike et al., 2010). SARS was thought to have arose from bats in a wet market that were captured. The H1N1 Pandemic, also known as Swine Flu was thought to originate because different flu viruses, typically only found in pigs essentially recombined to form a super fit strain that could infect humans. Guess how humans came into contact with pigs? Well, the answer is that it was the same way in individuals in the Cameroonian village came into contact with monkeys. It was through hunting them and butchering them. Sometimes, though, contact may not even come through hunting and capturing a given species. Contact may occur in circumstances in which an individual does not have any control. For instance, Lassa Fever is a devastating disease that spreads between humans who are in close contact with rats. Hence, many individuals who are in a situation where they live in crowded, congregate housing conditions are at significantly increased risk of catching a disease like Lassa Fever (Pike et al., 2010).

So, you might be thinking the solution is to just prevent human contact with animals, and that that will solve the problem. However, I want to tell you that that view fails to look at the full picture. There are other factors that make pandemics more likely to occur, other than just what I talked below. Activities that we do as humans, such as cut down trees may not seem harmful to us, but they kill species, and impact the diversity of our environment. This makes it much more likely for the perfect storm to occur for a virus to cause a pandemic. Have any of you seen the movie Contagion? Do you remember the ending scene where trees were cut down in the Macao forest, causing bats to fly out in droves? Pigs were exposed to the feces of these bats, causing them to become infected with the virus, and then when humans decided to butcher the pigs, they were exposed. It seems like an extremely far-fetched event, and it seems like something that would be unlikely to happen. However, the things that humans did ended up making something that was far-fetched all the more set to happen. If you don’t believe in movies, I can even give you a similar example of something eerily similar that happened in real life. In 1998, deforestation occurred, which caused a full livestock of pig to be exposed to fruit bats. Once a group of farm workers in Malaysia were exposed to these specific pigs, that was it. The situation was finished! (Pike et al., 2010).

Reading all this, I hope you understand, when you ask the question, who is responsible for a pandemic, there is no one answer to that question. No single person or group of individuals is responsible for a pandemic happening.  Instead, what I hope you have gained from this post is the understanding that there are truly things that we can do to not only reduce the risk of another pandemic occurring, but ultimately make the impact of the next one much lower. For instance, trying to encourage communities that participate in hunting a lot to use best hygiene practices, such as cleaning injuries, scratches, and bites with soap can go a long way. Additionally, if someone does have an injury, avoiding contact with an animal via hunting or butchering can also go a significantly long way (Pike et al.,2010). Similarly, not chopping trees and putting the health of the environment over the health of corporations likely will help to serve us in the long – term. However, it is understood that not every cause is preventable. In the cases where contact between animals and humans is not preventable, such as in congregate settings, there is no easy solution. However, perhaps maybe some sort of genomic surveillance can be instituted to monitor what types of viruses are most likely to spread in such populations on a daily basis. Maybe vaccines can be formulated and administered ahead of time, and given to these populations based on which viruses are most likely to spread in a given community at a given time. At the very least, what needs to be understood is that doing nothing is not going to get us anywhere. Pretending like we, in some way, as humans did not contribute to the Covid – 19 Pandemic and that it was out of our control is ridiculous. There are practices that we can institute right now that will reduce the likelihood that this will happen again. What those things are are not entirely clear, yet, but if we come out of this crisis as sitting ducks, we are making ourselves ground zero for an even more horrible pandemic in the future. Most of all, I hope this post equips you with information as to what you can do as an individual to make the next pandemic less likely because as much as we don’t like to hear it, all of us are at fault in some way or another! We need to stop pretending like we have control over Mother Nature. Mother Nature has control over us!

References:

Pike, B. L., Saylors, K. E., Fair, J. N., LeBreton, M., Tamoufe, U., Djoko, C. F., Rimoin, A. W., & Wolfe, N. D. (2010). The origin and prevention of pandemics. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 50(12), 1636–1640. https://doi.org/10.1086/652860

 

 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.