At the beginning of the spring 2020 semester, in the latest iteration of my Ecology of Infectious Disease class, I explained the relatively frequent phenomenon known as “zoonotic spillover” – when a pathogen jumps from an animal host species into a human population. Throughout each semester's class we habitually follow the emergence of a zoonosis. In recent years, we have monitored swine flu, MERS, and Ebola virus…and earlier this year I noted that students ought to keep a close eye on the status of a “Wuhan virus”, a novel coronavirus that at the time had yet to be officially named.

We discussed the difficulty of identifying the wildlife species that originally harbored the virus associated with COVID‐19 (the reservoir host), just like SARS before it, and tracked the various potential red herrings present at the Wuhan wet market: snakes, pangolins, and bats. And we started to concede that the virus was probably spreading in human populations before the outbreak that is now associated with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. We watched the 2011 movie Contagion as a lens through which to understand the issues, though, of course, it was a Hollywood take on a slightly preposterous scenario where a virus causes global lockdowns and unrealistic death rates.

I had no preconception that this real‐world outbreak would be remembered like few others. That the class would move online, and that all of us would be socially distant and at home for the rest of the semester. That nearly a third of the globe would experience some degree of “lockdown”. At the time of writing – late June – the world has surpassed 9,290,000 confirmed cases and 479,000 deaths (both likely underestimates). In places, the impact has exceeded that of hurricanes, terrorist events, and the Spanish flu. And the impact on economies and employment is unprecedented and only just beginning.

I had no idea that so many global leaders and their advisors would have failed my class this spring. We saw them eschew public health responses, hope for nationwide herd immunity, and advocate the use of bleach or injected UV light as potential cures. I did not foresee the scientific ambulance‐chasing cavalcade to publish without an appropriate understanding of not only sampling bias in host surveillance but also test validity, or without knowing how to build phylogenies.

And I have wrestled with ethical dilemmas. If put in the position, would I be able to speak truth to power, especially given the degree of scientific uncertainty? Would I be willing to go to work as a health care provider and risk exposure to the virus, like my sister and brother‐in‐law? Or keep going to work in a supermarket, in a prison, or in the public transport sector?

So – as an ecologist – are there silver linings to the coronavirus cloud? Perhaps the pandemic is a shining (glaring?) example of the usefulness of the One Health approach. For those unfamiliar with the concept, One Health advocates for interdisciplinary recognition that the health of humans, wildlife, and the environment are linked. I get frustrated when One Health is used as a term that simply describes obvious truths: that animals and humans can share diseases, or that environmental factors can influence the incidence of zoonoses. But I get excited when One Health galvanizes us to look at ways to optimize clever upstream solutions to mitigate adverse health impacts. As the lockdown has quashed travel and business, we have observed new trajectories of air quality (including pollution emissions), mass tourism, and wildlife behavior. We have glimpsed the dramatic impacts on environmental health that are achievable if we modify our actions. There is growing recognition that investment in health, rather than military defense or stock markets, should be considered prudent and beneficial. And it's clear that we can get the response right and use science and intelligence to curb the virus’ spread (think New Zealand, South Korea, and Vietnam).

We have watched as the response to COVID‐19 has laid bare the inadequacies in our societies, and highlighted injustices to the US's Black and other minority populations, which have borne the brunt of COVID‐19's impacts. The pent‐up frustration and dire economic situation of the past few months have been exacerbated by and become rightfully conflated with entrenched racial inequalities. Could 2020 be the start of a One Health global initiative, where social change, health, and the environment begin to emerge as critical guiding lights for our global decision‐makers? Or will we quietly forget these critical lessons that have emerged at the cost of lost lives and livelihoods in the last six months?

在2020年春季学期开始时，在我的《传染病生态学》课程的最新迭代中，我解释了一种相对频繁的现象，称为“人畜共患病外溢”，即病原体从动物宿主物种跃入人类种群。在每个学期的课程中，我们习惯性地遵循人畜共患病的出现。近年来，我们对猪流感，MERS和埃博拉病毒进行了监测……今年早些时候，我注意到学生应该密切关注“武汉病毒”的状况，“武汉病毒”是当时还没有发现的新型冠状病毒。被正式命名。

我们讨论了识别最初带有COVID-19病毒（水库宿主）的野生动物物种的难度，就像之前的SARS一样，并跟踪了武汉湿市场上存在的各种潜在红鲱鱼：蛇，穿山甲和蝙蝠。我们开始承认这种病毒可能在爆发之前就已经在人类中传播，而这种疾病现在与华南海鲜批发市场有关。我们通过观看2011年电影《传染病》作为了解问题的镜头，但是，当然，这是好莱坞采取的一种有点荒谬的假设，即病毒导致全球封锁和不切实际的死亡率。

我没有先入为主的想法，这种现实世界的爆发会像其他人一样被记住。该班将在网上上课，并且我们所有人在下半学期都将远离社交，并且在家中度过。全球将近三分之一的人口将经历某种程度的“锁定”。在撰写本文时（6月下旬），全世界已确诊的病例超过9,290,000例，死亡479,000（可能均被低估了）。在某些地方，其影响已超过飓风，恐怖事件和西班牙流感的影响。对经济和就业的影响是空前的，只是刚刚开始。

我不知道这么多全球领导人和他们的顾问今年春天会不及格。我们看到他们避开了公共卫生的对策，希望在全国范围内实现牛群免疫，并提倡使用漂白剂或注入的紫外线作为潜在的治疗方法。我没有预见到要发布科学的救护车追踪队列，而不仅要对宿主监测中的抽样偏差没有适当的了解，而且对测试的有效性也没有适当的理解，或者不知道如何构建系统发育。

而且我在道德困境中挣扎。如果处于这个位置，我是否能够对权力说出真相，特别是考虑到科学不确定性的程度？我是否愿意像我的姐姐和姐夫那样去当医疗保健提供者，并冒着感染该病毒的风险？还是继续在超市，监狱或公共交通部门工作？

因此，作为生态学家，冠状病毒云是否有一线希望？流行病也许是“一个健康”方法有用的一个光辉的（明显的）例子。对于那些不熟悉该概念的人，One Health倡导跨学科认识，即人类，野生生物和环境的健康是相互联系的。当我用“一个健康”作为一个简单地描述明显事实的术语时，我感到沮丧：动物和人类可以共享疾病，或者环境因素可以影响人畜共患病的发生。但是，当“一个健康”号召我们寻找优化聪明的上游解决方案以减轻对健康的不利影响时，我感到很兴奋。由于封锁已使旅行和商务活动消失，我们观察到了空气质量（包括污染排放），大众旅游和野生动植物行为的新轨迹。我们已经瞥见了如果我们修改我们的行动可以对环境健康产生的巨大影响。人们越来越认识到，对卫生的投资，而不是军事防御或股票市场，应被认为是审慎和有益的。很明显，我们可以正确地做出响应，并利用科学和情报来遏制病毒的传播（例如新西兰，韩国和越南）。

我们已经注意到，对COVID-19的回应暴露了我们社会中的不足之处，并突出显示了对美国黑人和其他少数族裔的不公正待遇，这些不公正行为首当其冲。根深蒂固的种族不平等加剧了过去几个月来令人沮丧的沮丧和严峻的经济形势，并使之正确地混为一谈。2020年是否可以成为“一个健康”全球计划的开始，在该计划中，社会变革，健康和环境开始成为我们全球决策者的关键指导信号？还是我们会静静地忘记过去六个月以牺牲生命和生计为代价而出现的这些重要教训？