Throughout the history, many lethal diseases ended civilizations such as the black death, which is believed to have killed as much as half of Europe in a span of only four years in the middle of the 14th century, from 1347 to 1351[1]. Unfortunately, at that time people did not have enough knowledge or technology to predict these lethal diseases or even treat them. Nowadays, due to the development in Biology, scientists are not only able to fight the current diseases, but also able to set predictions for what might emerge in the future, depending on the basis of evolution theory. These predictions enable scientists to prepare cures for future diseases. Wendy Orent in her article -Ignore predictions of lethal pandemics and pay attention to what
…show more content…
In addition, she argues that Americans now have forgotten about Ebola virus because they are sure that America is not one of the affected countries, while Sierra Leoneans and Liberians go on dying.
Orent's argument is an interesting, challenging and well organized one. Her argument is organized in a way such that each prediction is falsified by a hard evidence. For instance, she disagreed with the prediction that a blood- and fluid-borne virus can develop airborne transmission by stating that there are physical and evolutionary barriers. Furthermore, the writer shows a great sympathy towards West Africa countries by emphasizing on the importance of giving the medical care to these …show more content…
Firstly, Orent chooses to focus on the unlikeliness of the predictions to happen, ignoring their other important dimensions of these predictions. Scientists believe that predicting lethal diseases enables them to prepare suitable cures, which will reduce the potential damage in the future. Secondly, she claims that there are significant barriers preventing the easy adaptation of an animal disease to the human species, however the opposite of this claim seems to be true. It is believed that 75% of human viruses come from animals [2]. Furthermore, we only know about 8.7% of all the living species [2]. As a result, considerable amount of viruses is expected to come from the rest unknown species. "This is something that's going to continue to happen. I think we're going to see more coronaviruses continue to emerge because of what we're doing to the environment. It's our punishment"[3].
In summary, Orent's argument is an interesting, well-organized, and logical one. In addition, the writer used strong evidences to support her argument. On the other hand, there is a problem concerning the scope of the writer. A final shortcoming of this article is that the author failed to prove that there are biological barriers banning the easy adaptation of an animal disease to the human
In addition, she argues that Americans now have forgotten about Ebola virus because they are sure that America is not one of the affected countries, while Sierra Leoneans and Liberians go on dying.
Orent's argument is an interesting, challenging and well organized one. Her argument is organized in a way such that each prediction is falsified by a hard evidence. For instance, she disagreed with the prediction that a blood- and fluid-borne virus can develop airborne transmission by stating that there are physical and evolutionary barriers. Furthermore, the writer shows a great sympathy towards West Africa countries by emphasizing on the importance of giving the medical care to these …show more content…
Firstly, Orent chooses to focus on the unlikeliness of the predictions to happen, ignoring their other important dimensions of these predictions. Scientists believe that predicting lethal diseases enables them to prepare suitable cures, which will reduce the potential damage in the future. Secondly, she claims that there are significant barriers preventing the easy adaptation of an animal disease to the human species, however the opposite of this claim seems to be true. It is believed that 75% of human viruses come from animals [2]. Furthermore, we only know about 8.7% of all the living species [2]. As a result, considerable amount of viruses is expected to come from the rest unknown species. "This is something that's going to continue to happen. I think we're going to see more coronaviruses continue to emerge because of what we're doing to the environment. It's our punishment"[3].
In summary, Orent's argument is an interesting, well-organized, and logical one. In addition, the writer used strong evidences to support her argument. On the other hand, there is a problem concerning the scope of the writer. A final shortcoming of this article is that the author failed to prove that there are biological barriers banning the easy adaptation of an animal disease to the human