Press "Enter" to skip to content

What You Learned About Zoonotic Disease Spillover Risk During COVID-19 Pandemic May Be Wrong

Disease spillover risk was poorly communicated and oversimplified during COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19First identified in 2019 in Wuhan, China, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It has spread globally, resulting in the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.” data-gt-translate-attributes=”[{“attribute”:”data-cmtooltip”, “format”:”html”}]”>COVID-19 has been the first pandemic that has taken place alongside the interconnectivity of the Internet and pervasive social media. As a consequence, the spread of ideas and information about the disease has been unprecedented—but not always accurate. Among the widely circulated headlines was one about the relationship between land change and the spillover of diseases from wildlife to humans.

Writing in the journal BioScience on September 16, Andre D. Mader of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies and colleagues survey primary and secondary literature, as well as webpage content on the subject of land change and zoonotic disease risk. Based on the troubling patterns picked up from this literature and media coverage, Mader and colleagues describe what amounts to a case study in improper science communication and its possible consequences.

According to the researchers, media messaging throughout the pandemic consistently described direct causality between zoonotic disease spread and land use change. This was despite the fact that only 53% of the surveyed peer-reviewed literature made this association. In the report the authors delve into theoretical scenarios that would demonstrate the difficulty of tracing the real risk of zoonotic spillover, emphasizing that the “complexity of pathogen responses to land change cannot be reduced to one-size-fits-all proclamations.”

Furthermore, the authors discovered that as the literature moves from primary research to review articles and commentaries, and finally to webpages, the “overstating of the evidence” continually increases. In fact, 78% of secondary papers imply the land use–zoonotic spillover association, and all but one of the sampled webpages make this association. In addition, the researchers also noted that secondary sources and web pages frequently failed to mention the uncertainty associated with their conclusions.

There are significant potential consequences of simplistic messaging and a lack of proper communication regarding zoonotic spillover. It can erode credibility, neglect the local community’s specific needs when it comes to policymaking, and detract attention from other factors that can lead to zoonotic spillover, say Mader and colleagues. They recommend more accurate, nuanced, and explanatory dissemination of the studies on zoonotic spillover risk, arguing that such an approach would also benefit science more broadly.

As Mader and colleagues conclude, “if the goal of science communication is to improve understanding, it must strike a balance: sufficient simplicity to be grasped by as broad an audience as possible but sufficient nuance to capture the complexity of an issue and contribute meaningfully to the discussion around it, especially when it goes viral.”

Reference: “Messaging Should Reflect the Nuanced Relationship between Land Change and Zoonotic Disease Risk” 16 September 20220, BioScience.
DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biac075 

Source: SciTechDaily