This is due to the fact that people sick with communicable infections may unknowingly board planes and spread their illnesses to both fellow passengers and the residents of their destination country. Led by Charles Perrings, a professor of environmental economics at the university, the team behind the research cited the recent Ebola outbreak as an example – while a global pandemic did not occur, and the majority of the 8,000 people who died from the disease were from the outbreak’s source countries in West Africa, a man from Liberia did become patient zero in the US and later died from Ebola.
Two of his attending nurses also contracted the disease, although they later recovered. While this was a thankfully small-scale example, it can be considered a microcosm of what a larger epidemic or pandemic might look like.
The research paper also pointed towards international trade, mentioning the hoof and mouth outbreak that cost the government of the UK billions, and other diseases such as swine and avian flu.
In terms of solutions, Perrings suggested addressing these issues ‘at the source’, and confronting those behind the import and export of potentially dangerous materials with the risks.
“The recent Ebola outbreak made us realize that we are all just a plane ride away from exposure to emerging infectious diseases,” said Perrings.
“The more trade grows as a proportion of global production, the more likely it is that diseases will be spread through trade, and the higher the economic cost of resulting trade bans. What is at risk is the food we eat, the fibres we wear and build with, and the fuels we burn. In addition, many infectious diseases that affect animals also affect people.
Zoonoses like SARS, MERS, HIV, AIDS [and] highly pathogenic avian influenza all originated in wild animals and were then spread person-to-person through trade and travel.”
He went on to say: “There are two problems to address. One is that disease spread is an unintended (external) effect of trade.
To solve this problem exporters and importers need to be confronted with the risks they impose on consumers. The other is that the control of infectious disease is a public good – the benefits it offers are freely available to all, and so will be under supplied if left to the market.
To solve this problem, we need to undertake co-operative, collective control of infectious diseases at the source.” He suggested financial incentives for risk reduction in developing countries and establishing a global fund to combat and control infectious diseases.
Currently, countries have the right to act defensively in their own interests once a disease is introduced, controlling the outbreak and working to reduce the possibility of reinfection by banning trade with countries that pose a risk. This, however, will not stop new diseases emerging, said Perrings:
“The One Health Initiative suggests that what is needed is co-operative collective action to reduce risk at the source. This requires a partnership between the rich countries that have the resources to fund global prevention, and the poor countries where disease is most likely to emerge.
The management of infectious diseases of animals and plants, like the management of infectious diseases of people, is now a global problem that requires global solutions.
This in turn requires a more strongly co-ordinated and co-operative approach than is currently allowed under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement.”
culled from international travel and health insurance journal.
