Buzz
A lot of you have watched the 2011 film 'Contagion.' I know because, when a certain now-deleted Twitter thread about the new coronavirus’s R0 went viral, many kept asking me if I'd seen the part where Kate Winslet's character clarifies the term for a group of doubtful government officials.
The movie's popularity surged after 2019-nCoV started making headlines. It gets many aspects of epidemiology correct but tends to exaggerate for dramatic effect. Here's a quick breakdown of what's realistic and what's not.
Spoilers ahead; you’ve had almost a decade to watch this movie.
Realistic: doctors and scientists work swiftly to control outbreaks and discover their causes
Kate Winslet’s character acts as an epidemic detective, sent by the CDC to the city where the outbreak first starts in the US. She identifies herself as a member of the Epidemic Intelligence Service, which is a real organization.
She begins tracking individuals who have been in contact with confirmed patients; this method, known as contact tracing, is crucial for both understanding and controlling outbreaks. In general, most of the events in the movie reflect real life, with accurate and appropriately used terminology. Winslet’s character even uses the term 'quarantine' correctly, which is rare in mainstream media, when she says:
We’re isolating the sick, and quarantining those we suspect were exposed.
Semi-realistic: the virus features a mix of characteristics from real-life viruses
Like SARS, the virus shows respiratory symptoms and spreads via droplets and surfaces. Similar to Nipah virus, it causes brain inflammation and appears to have originated from animals like bats and pigs. New viruses frequently emerge from animal infections that mutate in a way that allows them to infect humans.
Throughout the movie, health officials and others refer to real-life past outbreaks and their challenges. Avian flu, SARS, H1N1, and the 1970s 'swine flu' are all mentioned. Each of these was, or is, considered a major threat during its time.
Unrealistic: information doesn’t always spread so quickly and smoothly
By day 7, scientists have not only sequenced the viral genome but also created computer models demonstrating how a key virus protein interacts with its human target. Soon, everyone knows exactly what the virus is, and work on a vaccine can begin.
In reality, finding these answers takes more time and more people. There might even be a delay in recognizing that we’re dealing with a new disease. As the doctor tells Matt Damon’s character early on, unusual illnesses lead to deaths all the time. It's only when a significant number of people develop similar symptoms—and there's evidence of connections between them—that it becomes clear we’re facing an outbreak.
Unrealistic: the timeline is sped up
While it's understandable for a movie to fast-track events for dramatic effect, a significant part of the fear surrounding MEV-1 comes from its rapid spread and how quickly people panic about it.
It turns out the disease has an R0 of 2, and even after a catastrophic mutation, the R0 increases to only 4. Both Ebola and SARS had R0 values in this range, and although these diseases spread across borders without a vaccine or specific treatment, they didn't result in the mass death seen with the fictional virus in Contagion. Measures like isolation, and even closing schools and other places people gather, are fairly effective at slowing the spread.
The timeline for vaccine development is also drastically shortened. Maybe they just got lucky. The film does portray some of the difficulties involved in developing a vaccine, including complex lab work (remember the scientist who figured out the right cells to grow the virus in) and the necessary animal and human trials, which take time and can be frustrating when time seems to be running out.
Realistic: people do foolish things when they're scared
Panic takes hold. The film’s global scale demonstrates just a few of the poor decisions people might make when overwhelmed by fear, from a conspiracy theorist profiting off worthless supplements to mobs rioting in desperation over the lack of food and medicine. Matt Damon’s character spends much of the movie shielding his daughter from the virus, but later grabs a gun, suggesting that the greatest threat to their small family may actually be other people.
Public health officials are caught in a delicate balance between informing the public of the severity of a new threat and unintentionally fueling panic, prompting people to hoard supplies, turn on neighbors, and enact harmful laws (or attempt to bypass them). Just last week, the World Health Organization urged nations not to impose travel bans for the new coronavirus, warning they would do more harm than good. Despite this, several countries implemented travel bans and quarantines just days later.
Contagion is filled with ethical dilemmas, many of which are left intentionally unresolved, exploring the choices scientists, health officials, and ordinary people must face when surrounded by fear and trying to protect their loved ones. Watching the movie may provoke thought experiments about what you would do in such a situation, but keep in mind that it’s not entirely accurate when it comes to virology or the real-world management of epidemics.
