Some Observations About Pandemics

The virus epidemic is having a major impact. People are in quarantine in more than 100 countries. Thousands are infected. Almost 5000 have already died. Airlines, cruise ships, retailers, sporting events, hotels, tourism, schools and houses of worship are taking countermeasures to combat the spread.  Many employees have been urged to stay and work at home.

A Common Thread

Pandemics appear to be more frequent and more severe, although some experts will take issue with that. In the past century we have witnessed and experienced the Spanish Flu, Aids, Ebola, the Swine flu, SARS, the Coronavirus and other worldwide health tumults.  During the Middle Ages the bubonic plague alone claimed 50 million lives.

What do these pandemics have in common? They seem to have a common denominator: human interaction with animals. The bubonic plague was attributed to infected rats. The Spanish Flu, which did not originate in Spain, is attributed to human interaction with birds. Aids is suspected to have come from Africa as a result of human interaction with monkeys. Ebola has been associated with animal flesh eaten by humans. The Coronavirus is suspected to have been caused by eating rats and bats sold at an open food market. 

There is no room for politics when it comes to pandemics. It is also regrettable that folks would use racism, xenophobia and rumors to criticize the government response to the epidemic. Unless we are capable of examining and debating the issues rationally, we will not learn much from the experience and are surely condemned to repeat mistakes.

In all cases, lack of hygiene appears to be the principal reason for the dispersal of viruses. Unsanitary conditions are found everywhere but in developing countries they appear to be the worst. Poverty and local traditions that rely on eating exotic animals seem to compound the problem. Ignorance is another important factor in the equation.

Fundamental Risks of Globalization

In an increasingly inter-connected world, a virus in one country can affect the entire world. Unwittingly globalization has impacted many supply chains and disrupted world markets and local economies.

Developed countries have ceded self-sufficiency protocols, seduced by the low cost siren. The search for low cost has reached the diminishing returns point. Countries would be wise to pay attention to excessive reliance on imports. Time seems ripe to reconsider national strategic imperatives; and, it is wise to reduce dependencies.

High tech, biotechnology and manufacturing companies would be wise to adopt a fallback or backup position to protect their supply chain. In worst case scenarios companies must consider as a threshold the ability to continue production using home resources. Increased home capacity will create jobs and better level the wage field. It might be a cost worthy to be absorbed. The current crisis has caught many companies flatfooted and unable to mitigate the situation.

Reliance on India, China and other countries to provide the U.S. with generic medicines puts at risk millions of Americans who depend on these drugs for their survival. Cheaper prices become meaningless when the supply chain dries up. Certain drugs should be included in the nation’s strategic reserves. The US should have fallback plans to address this looming risk. China has threatened to stop shipping antibiotics to the US in retaliation of what it perceives unfair media and government in the US.

China has cornered the market for certain raw materials and rare minerals. As a result, sections of the US industry are at risk with their supply chain possibly being shut off during pandemics and wars. National interests should supersede low cost incentives. Rare minerals should be included in the country’s strategic reserves.

Globalization can be a conduit to social and climate cost transfer from one country to another.  A non-compliant country impacts the well-being and security of another. China and India comprise together about half of the undesirable emissions. Yet in the Paris Accord they are given a pass on emission restrictions because they have “special” development needs. This arrangement makes it difficult to have an integrated strategy to fight climate change.

Proponents of open borders need to open up their eyes, not just their hearts. Infectious diseases such as measles, mumps and tuberculosis once eradicated in the U.S, are infecting many citizens as thousands of people enter the country from developing countries.

Where Next?

It is time for the pendulum to swing back toward the middle. Let’s reap the economic benefits from globalization but let’s mitigate the social downside. Prudent planning might increase economic costs but it can make the nation more secure and less vulnerable to external instability and chaos.

Nations need to set aside the “nice guy” approach to international relations and support policies that are mutually beneficial. Striving to be loved has not enhanced national security. What might enhance it is respect for one another’s sovereignty and national interests. Lets face it, not all nations will cooperate; some are driven to be competitive.

My good friend and colleague Don Nielson reminds me that we need to reign in our compulsion to consume far beyond our needs thus falling prey to the cheapest rather than the better choices.  Don also cautions us to place limits to hoarding. Watching folks shop during this period at grocery stores and discount houses illustrates this phenomenon.