Skip to main content

No, This Isn't Unprecedented

"Add now the communications between the peoples, today so numerous and more and more rapid; the navigation by steamship, the railways, and on top of that this happy tendency of the populations to visit each other, to mix, to merge, a tendency that seems to make of different peoples a sole and large family, and you will be forced to admit that for such a disease, so widespread and under these conditions, cordons and quarantines are not only powerless and useless, but they are, in the very great majority of cases, impossible." - A delegate to the International Sanitary Conference regarding cholera, 1851

The word "unprecedented" describes something that has never happened before. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 2020's Word of the Year. Politicians are constantly referring to the "unprecedented circumstances" we find ourselves in, and the "unprecedented measures" taken to combat the coronavirus.

But, as Professor Deepak Kumar (perhaps slightly harshly) pointed out, "It is not unprecedented in any way. Only politicians and ignorant people would call the current pandemic unprecedented." Were it not for politicians' ignorance, we may have been better prepared, and hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.

Coronavirus has many historical precedents. From the bubonic plague to cholera and more recent pandemics, such as SARS, MERS and Ebola, this situation is not novel.

Our response to the virus also isn't new. Wearing masks and banning mass gatherings can be dated back to the plague which ravaged Europe in the Middle Ages, and quarantine and isolation were used to combat Spanish flu.

Image by Wellcome CollectionCC BY 2.0.

Image by Nicholas LePan and Visual Capitalists


Even the xenophobia and attempts to define coronavirus by its Chinese origins have historical precedents. Just as President Trump has nicknamed coronavirus the "Chinese Virus," the Victorians called cholera "Bengali disease." And whilst Chinese people have faced xenophobic attacks in 2020, it was Jewish people who were scapegoated during the plague.

This is all historical of course, maybe easy to point out in hindsight. Politicians can still argue this pandemic was unforeseeable, a useful argument that washes their hands of their failure to prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths. It's easy to believe when the current situation is not something that you or I, as laypeople, could have imagined. Many of us have never experienced a pandemic; this feels new and unpredictable. But you and I are not responsible for predicting pandemics. Our politicians should have seen it coming - scientists certainly did.

We have known about the threat of a global pandemic since the 90s - scientists wrote books which became bestsellers (take "The Hot Zone" and "The Coming Plague"). Just last year the WHO reported on the "very real threat of a rapidly moving, highly lethal pandemic of a respiratory pathogen." Just look at this list of news articles compiled by the WHO, all warning of the possibility of a future pandemic, and the world's unpreparedness for that eventuality.

Last year, just 59 countries in the world had a health security programme, and not one was fully financed. No wonder our leaders would rather we think the coronavirus pandemic is unprecedented - all the warnings were there, and yet we were unprepared.

As WHO Director Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus explained last year, "As leaders of nations, communities and international agencies, we must take responsibility for emergency preparedness, and heed the lessons these outbreaks are teaching us. We have to 'fix the roof before the rain comes.'"

Our leaders didn’t do that, and instead, they are claiming that this pandemic is "unprecedented." It's not, and if we believe them, we will let them get away clean-handed with the devastation they could have prevented.

This article was originally published by TheLatest.com

Popular posts from this blog

We Need To Talk About "Bridgerton" (spoiler alert)

My social media has been spammed lately with fans of the programme Bridgerton lamenting the departure of the much-loved Duke of Hastings (Simon) played by RegĂ©-Jean Page. The seriousness with which people have taken this is what I am lamenting. No, @regejean ! You CANNOT leave me like that. I WILL NOT have it! @bridgerton !!!!!! — Dionne Warwick (@dionnewarwick) April 3, 2021 I have an admittedly unpopular opinion on the programme Bridgerton, in that I think it is objectively bad. Bridgerton is a Netflix series based on a series of novels by Julia Quinn. The programme is set in London during the reign of King George III, and the first series followed the life of the upper-class Daphne Bridgerton, and her courtship with the aforementioned Duke of Hastings during her first season out. Daphne and Simon Bridgerton, Netflix I watched the first series of Bridgerton upon the recommendation of several friends, and I had (relatively) high hopes. I really like period dramas, and I am a fan of...

Power Play at the Olympics

I have really enjoyed these Olympics. We have been treated to new sports, surprise victories (naming no names, Italy), and the usual astonishment when humans achieve the impossible. However, there is always an extremely political side to the Olympics, and that's what I wish to analyse in this article. Superpowers wear gold The term “superpower” was first used in 1944 to describe the UK, US and the USSR. During the 20th century, Britain lost influence and, with the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the US became the only superpower. This led Samuel Huntington to write : “There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar [rather] a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers.” So what we can learn about the current world order from this year’s Olympics? It's no secret that sport isn't the only thing in play during the Olympic Games. Many will remember the US boycotting the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and medal races between Ru...

Down and Out in Paris and London

Take a look at these two graphs. Depicted on the left is the number of COVID-19 cases reported daily in the United Kingdom. The peak of the epidemic seems to have been in early April, with almost 9’000 cases on the worst day. On the right, we see France, whose peak came in late March, with almost 8’000 cases. I notice two things when I look at these graphs: Many more cases have been reported in the UK than in France, both as a daily average and in total; Whilst France had got through the worst of its epidemic by early May, the UK is still reporting well over a thousand cases every day, months after its first reported case. I don’t think now is the right time to try to draw complex comparisons between these two countries, but I do want to take a moment to write down my experiences under lockdown/confinement in Britain and France. At a time when the rest of Europe seems to be creeping back to normalcy, the UK is floundering. I cannot help but notice a stark difference between what I ex...