Bill Overview
Title: Wildlife Disease Surveillance for Pandemic Prevention Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes programs, grants, and activities to support surveillance of and response to diseases that affect wildlife (i.e., any animal that is not livestock or poultry).
Sponsors: Rep. Porter, Katie [D-CA-45]
Target Audience
Population: People potentially affected by pandemics related to wildlife diseases
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The legislation targets diseases in wildlife, which can impact human populations through zoonotic disease transmission.
- Zoonotic diseases, which are diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans, are a primary concern for pandemic prevention.
- The population affected by pandemics is global, as infectious diseases can spread internationally through human travel and trade.
Reasoning
- The policy mainly affects wildlife researchers, public health officials, and communities near wildlife habitats. These groups might see a direct impact.
- There is a significant indirect benefit to the general population in preventing potential pandemics, but most will not perceive an immediate personal impact.
- Given the limited budget and broad target population, direct impacts on individual well-being are expected to be low for the average person.
- Some may have more direct experiences if they live near affected wildlife zones, participate in surveillance initiatives, or have occupations related to public health or wildlife.
- Self-reported well-being changes will account for both direct and indirect perceptions of safety, security, and community health.
Simulated Interviews
Wildlife Biologist (South Dakota)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act will significantly enhance our ability to monitor wildlife health and respond swiftly to potential threats.
- Having better resources for wildlife disease surveillance means we are better prepared for containing outbreaks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Public Health Official (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a crucial step for long-term pandemic prevention.
- It allows us to gather important data on zoonotic diseases, which affects our preparation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Ranch Owner (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this doesn't directly impact my daily work, the results could affect wildlife management near our ranch.
- It's another layer of protection, but I don't expect immediate changes to our routines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Healthcare Worker (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased surveillance might not change hospital policies immediately but provides valuable data for patient treatment.
- Any effort towards reducing potential outbreaks is beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tour Guide (Alaska)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Healthier wildlife populations mean fewer tour disruptions and safer interactions for tourists.
- I'm hopeful this will sustain our business in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (Oregon)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation aligns with my advocacy for better wildlife management.
- I'm optimistic it will strengthen efforts to protect our ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired School Teacher (Florida)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this means I'll see more healthy species around in my local wildlife reserves.
- I feel a bit more secure knowing there are people watching out for disease.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Graduate Student (New Mexico)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to know that there might be more data available for my research.
- Surveillance efforts can indirectly influence the topics and scope of my academic work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Illinois)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the act is more focused on wildlife, any data that can help prevent disease outbreaks is good for business.
- I'm interested to see if it indirectly affects pet health advice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Software Developer (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is reassuring, but it's not something that'll change my day-to-day life.
- I feel it's a responsible measure to protect health globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $255000000 (Low: $205000000, High: $305000000)
Year 3: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 5: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 100: $350000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $400000000)
Key Considerations
- Surveillance programs need sustainable funding to remain effective in real-time monitoring and quick response.
- There may be ethical and environmental considerations in wildlife surveillance and management strategies.
- The balance of investments between prevention and reactive measures is crucial for long-term success.