It could easily be a scene from a science-fiction film. A microscopic virus has brought the entire modern world to a grinding halt. As we wrap our heads around this absurd reality, we need to look at the issue at four different levels – each of them calling us to review the way we produce, the way we live and the way we eat.The novel coronavirus and COVID-19 have brought home the contradictions of today’s societies in an acute and concentrated way.Are pandemics natural ‘curses’?No and yes. The virus behind the present pandemic has some things in common with its predecessors – animals are often the sites/hosts of such diseases. The spread, then, is accounted to a ‘zoonotic transfer’, or the jumping of infections from animals to humans. This jump, in turn, is facilitated by proximity and regularity of contact. New and ideal opportunities for this are provided by modern practices of agricultural intensification and dual use of land (Nipah virus), forest encroachment (Ebola virus) and wildlife trade in wet markets (preliminarily the coronavirus).In the last three decades alone, over 30 novel infectious agents have been detected – leading to diseases that haven’t occurred in humans before, called ‘emerging diseases’. About 60% of these infectious agents are of zoonotic origin and the ‘jump’ can be traced to anthropogenic ecological upheavals. Robert Wallace, in his 2016 book, Big Farms Make Big Flu, makes an exhaustive case for the connection between capitalist agribusiness and the etiology of epidemics from SARS to Ebola.Also Read: A Pandemic Is the Price We Pay for Ignoring the WarningsDissemination and transmission is silver quick in a globalised and urbanised world, not only on account of commodity circuits and migration but also since “this very process of circulation also stimulates the virus to mutate more rapidly”. Of course, this is not the first epidemic and it will not be the last. And although humans do not ‘manufacture’ these ‘virus strains’, we do need to revisit the profit-driven practices of agribusinesses and the industrial rearing animals for slaughter in tightly packed spaces with close human interaction.A 3D model of the novel coronavirus. Photo: PixabayIs the world ready to face the problem?While w are confronted with a surreal and war-like situation, the medical community does not seem surprised. Dr Kristian G. Andersen, from Scripps Research, pointed out to the New York Times, “We hear that nobody could have predicted a pandemic, except for everyone who works in infectious diseases.”Were we prepared? As governments panic, regardless of their position in the global development hierarchy, may be it is time to question whether profit-driven health services are working for us.In the US, people are known to postpone healthcare because of high testing costs and lack of sick paid leave – not very convenient when you are attempting to curb a community outbreak. On the other hand, Cuba (with its socialist healthcare) has been praised for its response; a contingent of Cuban doctors has been sent to Italy and healthcare workers are engaged in door-to-door monitoring. World Bank Data (2017) indicates that Cuba has 8.2 physicians per 1000 people; compare this to 2.6 physicians per 1000 people in the US and to the abysmally low 0.8 physicians in India. With shortages of personal protective equipment and ventilators, the answer regarding preparedness is a decisive no for India and even the US. India spent merely 1.28% of its GDP on public healthcare in 2017-18.When it comes to preparedness in terms of vaccines, the ‘slow burn’ research that goes into vaccine development is at odds with Big Pharma’s model of profit-driven innovation. The virus responsible for the current pandemic is from the same family of coronaviruses that led to the SARS and MERS outbreaks. But the regionalised infections did not interest global pharmaceutical players to develop anti-coronavirus drugs. Even if lengthy trials and testing do culminate in a vaccine, we certainly cannot guarantee its accessibility and affordability to the masses.Are we all equal in resisting the disease? Resoundingly, the answer is no. Although the virus has hit the rich as much, if not more, than the poor at this point, the capacity for prevention and treatment is highly unequal across countries and classes. The reader may investigate this inequality by attempting to answer the following questions: Apart from the elderly and the unwell, which section of the populace is malnourished, immune-compromised and hence more susceptible to infection? Can the gig economy, with its network of delivery workers, function remotely from home? Is social distancing a possibility outside of gated residential colonies in countries like India? The population density in Mumbai is nearly double that of New York. In a country where a large majority of people live in cramped spaces with virtually no sanitation, social distancing remains a joke. Is regular hand wash practicable in a water-insecure country like India, where 600 million people are grappling with high to extreme water shortage? With job cuts imminent on the horizon, can everyone afford immunity-boosting diets in many countries already struggling with acute malnutrition?Also Read: No, There Is No ‘Indian Coronavirus’ That Is Weaker Than the Viruses ElsewhereThe first instances of discriminatory treatment on the basis of capacity to pay can already be seen in India, with the Delhi government setting up paid quarantine facilities in three private hotels. In China, Europe, the US and now India, while government hospitals test for free, private labs and hospitals have been authorised to charge a fee. Regardless of any caps on pricing, the onus of testing in a pandemic should be on the government.People stand apart in a line to receive free food being distributed on a street in New Delhi, India March 30, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Anushree FadnavisHunger or DiseaseSocial media is full of images of daily wage-earning migrant workers trying to leave Delhi in the aftermath of the announcement of a 21-day lockdown.In a time of ‘social distancing’, they are cramped together trying to get on to whatever bus will take them back. Without any work and no resources to fall back on, they seem convinced that hunger and not the coronavirus will be their death sentence. This is not entirely unexpected. Less than 20% of India’s workforce has some kind of regular job. With a majority being either self-employed (tea-seller, rickshaw puller), or employed on a contractual and casual basis, a lockdown means no work and no money. Unemployment was already at an all-time high before the beginning of the pandemic. This kind of job market situation has been the result of years of policies aimed at reducing labour costs and increasing profits. Today, despite the best pronouncements by the Central and the state governments, the migrant workers do not have the privilege of worrying about the disease when their children have nothing to eat.The pandemic has brought home the acuteness and the intensity of the contradictions of our society. The same very policies and practices – in agribusinesses, in the health industry, labour policies – which have rained profits for the few have got us in this catastrophic situation. If this crisis ends without the widespread recognition of the need to revisit and review the way we have produced, lived and made money, we will simply be marking time till the next pandemic.Archana Aggarwal teaches Economics at Hindu College, University of Delhi. Urvi Sikri is a student of BA (H) Economics, III Year at Hindu College
