Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is a physician, epidemiologist and former health director for the city of Detroit. He is also a CNN political commentator. The views expressed here are his. Read more opinion on CNN.
(CNN)America’s public health workforce is among the best in the world. But to me, reflecting on what it might be like leading a city’s response to this coronavirus outbreak, one thing is clear: Without the resources they need to do their work while operating under a culture that puts politics ahead of science, their job is much harder. And we are that much less safe for it.
As the former city health director in Detroit, I came to appreciate how much of public health is fundamentally political, a matter of the choices that elected officials make about how to keep us safe — which is the government’s primary role. At its best, that means allocating resources, believing in science and empowering trained and experienced officials. When our elected leaders fail that standard, we have a responsibility to hold them accountable.
Local health departments have been ravaged
by funding cuts that took hold during the Great Recession. Thin budgets have been further stretched because of the opioid epidemic. Reaching out to former colleagues all over the country, I am hearing from them about how a lack of funding or leadership at the very top of this response to coronavirus has left them flying blind and without the resources to take preventive precautions or respond vigorously. All the while, they are waiting for what seems now to be inevitable — that coronavirus will show up in their community, too, if it hasn’t already.
Why communities are facing even bigger challenges
It didn’t have to be this way. And in the past it probably wouldn’t have been.
If you’re chasing down a potential epidemic, time is of the essence. Lest social media lead us to forget what the word “viral” actually refers to: viruses like coronavirus have the capacity to reproduce themselves exponentially so long as there are susceptible hosts — or people who are susceptible to the disease. At every stage of spread, it gets exponentially harder to stop.
That means you’ve got to take the disease on at its source. After the Ebola outbreak in 2014-2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention internalized this lesson. They initiated steps to lead the fight against emerging infectious diseases abroad under a “Global Health Security Agenda
,” a global partnership to “prevent, detect, and respond” to emerging pathogens all over the world. They set up localized response units in 49 countries — because you never know where the next disease will emerge.
But in 2018 and 2019, the Trump administration attempted to cut its funding by 80%
, which would have forced the CDC to roll back its presence to just 10 countries. Though the cuts were averted by Congress, if public health is about planning for prevention, operating under constant fear that your program will be defunded year after year hampers your ability
to plan for the long term and fulfill your mission.
When trust breaks down
Trust is everything. The best tool to stop an infectious disease for which there is no vaccine is “contact tracing.” Contact tracing involves identifying people with the disease, and then painstakingly tracing literally everyone with whom they may have come in contact — and exposed to the disease — while they were contagious, and quarantining them. It creates a quarantine “net” of sorts to catch and kill the outbreak.
But contact tracing is an exercise in trust. People need to trust the authorities in order to tell them where they’ve been and to remain in quarantine. And the health officials leading the contact tracing efforts need to trust that their leaders will deliver the resources they need to pursue this work — and that the work won’t be politicized, thereby undercutting the community’s trust in them.
A number of new cases over the weekend with no known travel history or known infected contacts raises the alarm that our contact tracing net has been porous. Part of this is attributable to the nature of the virus itself. It can spread among people who do not yet have symptoms, and symptoms can be mild in some people who may not know they have it — though they are spreading it. Furthermore, it can survive on surfaces for some time, m