Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic

by David Quammen

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

A zoonosis is an animal infection transmissible to humans. There are more such diseases than you might expect. AIDS is one. Influenza is a whole category of others. Pondering them as a group tends to reaffirm the old Darwinian truth (the darkest of his truths, well known and persistently forgotten) that humanity is a kind of animal, inextricably connected with other animals: in origin and in descent, in sickness and in health. Pondering them individually—for starters, this relatively obscure case from Australia—provides a salubrious reminder that everything, including pestilence, comes from somewhere.

Diseases of the future, needless to say, are a matter of high concern to public health officials and scientists. There’s no reason to assume that AIDS will stand unique, in our time, as the only such global disaster caused by a strange microbe emerging from some other animal. Some knowledgeable and gloomy prognosticators even speak of the Next Big One as an inevitability. (If you’re a seismologist in California, the Next Big One is an earthquake that drops San Francisco into the sea, but in this realm of discourse it’s a vastly lethal pandemic.) Will the Next Big One be caused by a virus? Will the Next Big One come out of a rainforest or a market in southern China? Will the Next Big One kill 30 or 40 million people? The concept by now is so codified, in fact, that we could think of it as the NBO. The chief difference between HIV-1 and the NBO may turn out to be that HIV-1 does its killing so slowly. Most other new viruses work fast.

They were right, and the virus became known as SARS coronavirus, inelegantly abbreviated as SARS-CoV. It was the first coronavirus ever found to inflict serious illness upon humans. (Several other coronaviruses are among the many viral strains responsible for common colds. Still others cause hepatitis in mice, gastroenteritis in pigs, and respiratory infection in turkeys.) SARS-CoV has no ominous ring. In older days, the new agent would have received a more vivid, geographical moniker such as Foshan virus or Guangzhou virus, and people would have run around saying: Watch out, he’s got Guangzhou! But by 2003 everyone recognized that such labeling would be invidious, unwelcome, and bad for tourism.

What is it that makes this virus unusual? and What have we learned from the SARS experience? One thought that turns up in the latter sort is that “humankind has had a lucky escape.” The scenario could have been very much worse. SARS in 2003 was an outbreak, not a global pandemic. Eight thousand cases are relatively few, for such an explosive infection; 774 people died, not 7 million.

If SARS had conformed to the perverse pattern of presymptomatic infectivity, its 2003 emergence wouldn’t be a case history in good luck and effective outbreak response. It would be a much darker story. The much darker story remains to be told, probably not about this virus but about another. When the Next Big One comes, we can guess, it will likely conform to the same perverse pattern, high infectivity preceding notable symptoms. That will help it to move through cities and airports like an angel of death.

The Next Big One, as I mentioned at the start of this book, is a subject that disease scientists around the world often address. They think about it, they talk about it, and they’re quite accustomed to being asked about it. As they do their work or discuss pandemics of the past, the Next Big One (NBO) is at the back of their minds.

Moral: If you’re a thriving population, living at high density but exposed to new bugs, it’s just a matter of time until the NBO arrives.

Why are zoonotic diseases important? I’ve been asked that question, and have asked it of others, more than a few times during my six years of chasing the subject. (One fellow, a respected historian I met at a conference, suggested that I forget about Ebola and write a book on asthma, which afflicts 22 million Americans. He happened to be asthmatic.) Given the global scorecard of morbidity and mortality caused by old-fashioned infectious diseases—such as cholera, typhoid, TB, rotavirus diarrhea, malaria (excepting Plasmodium knowlesi), not to mention chronic illnesses such as cancer and heart disease—why divert attention to these boutique infections, these anomalies, that spill out of bats or monkeys or who knows where to claim a few dozen or a few hundred people now and then? Why? Isn’t it misguided to summon concern over a few scientifically intriguing diseases, some of them new but of relatively small impact, while boring old diseases continue to punish humanity? After my detour through the Cholera Hospital, after being pinioned by that mother’s expectant stare, I found myself asking the same thing: Why obsess about zoonoses? In the larger balance of miseries, what makes anyone think they should be taken so seriously? It’s a fair question but there are good answers. Some of those answers are intricate and speculative. Some are subjective. Others are objective and blunt. The bluntest is this: AIDS.

When the next novel virus makes its way from a chimpanzee, a bat, a mouse, a duck, or a macaque into a human, and maybe from that human into another human, and thereupon begins causing a small cluster of lethal illnesses, they will see it—we hope they will, anyway—and raise the alarm. Whatever happens after that will depend on science, politics, social mores, public opinion, public will, and other forms of human behavior. It will depend on how we citizens respond. So before we respond, either calmly or hysterically, either intelligently or doltishly, we should understand in some measure the basic outlines and dynamics of the situation. We should appreciate that these recent outbreaks of new zoonotic diseases, as well as the recurrence and spread of old ones, are part of a larger pattern, and that humanity is responsible for generating that pattern. We should recognize that they reflect things that we’re doing, not just things that are happening to us. We should understand that, although some of the human-caused factors may seem virtually inexorable, others are within our control.

“If you hold mean transmission rate constant,” he told me, “just adding heterogeneity by itself will tend to reduce the overall infection rate.” That sounds dry. What it means is that individual effort, individual discernment, individual choice can have huge effects in averting the catastrophes that might otherwise sweep through a herd. An individual gypsy moth may inherit a slightly superior ability to avoid smears of NPV as it grazes on a leaf. An individual human may choose not to drink the palm sap, not to eat the chimpanzee, not to pen the pig beneath mango trees, not to clear the horse’s windpipe with his bare hand, not to have unprotected sex with the prostitute, not to share the needle in a shooting gallery, not to cough without covering her mouth, not to board a plane while feeling ill, or not to coop his chickens along with his ducks. “Any tiny little thing that people do,” Dwyer said, if it makes them different from one another, from the idealized standard of herd behavior, “is going to reduce infection rates.” This was after I had asked him to consider The Analogy and he had pushed his brain against it for half an hour.