The misnomer "patient zero" is related to HIV, but still harms everyone today. Don't use it, experts urge
The "patient zero" in relation to the spread of the coronavirus is now the subject of media speculation around the world. However, on social media and in individual countries, many users are literally "lynching" those who "brought" the virus into the country. In the Czech Republic in particular, those who have been skiing in Italy have been targeted. However, none of these people were definitely "patient zero" and it should be stressed that this term is, according to experts, misleading and not only does not solve anything, but moreover, due to the associated stigma, only does harm. But how did the label come about in the first place?
Although the phrase 'patient zero' abounds in the media, few people know that it was originally linked to the spread of HIV and was coined through a misunderstanding of a technical text. When a study tracing the spread of HIV infection appeared in the Journal of Medicine in 1984, researcher Dr. William Darrow looked at cases primarily in California and Los Angeles. Darrow then referred to one of those infected as patient "O." In this context, however, it should be said that this was not a symbol for zero, but the letter "O", which referred to the fact that the infected patient was an "O-ut of California", i.e., from outside the study area. Yet the letter "O" was misinterpreted and mistaken for a zero.
But the whole situation then led to one thing: this very man, Gaëtan Dugas, who earned his living as a steward, was accused of bringing HIV into the United States. It was not until many years later that his name was cleared and indisputable evidence was provided that the virus had appeared in the US much earlier. Although this man no longer faces the accusation, the term "patient zero" remains. And it continues not only to raise misconceptions about the spread of disease, but to arouse unnecessary passions across the general public.
"Zero, it's a fascinating word, it actually means nothing, but it can also mean the very beginning," sums up University of Cambridge historian Richard McKay. Regardless of the label's somewhat controversial nature, however, "patient zero" is still used today to refer to the first documented cases of the disease, whether observed or reported to health authorities. It must be said, however, that many scientists also object to the label, not least because of the associated stigma. "On the one hand, identifying one person as patient zero can give the wrong impression about how diseases occur and, on the other hand, imply that someone should be held responsible for the outbreak," Friedrich summarises, adding that it is, of course, scientifically important that people understand the principle of community transmission in the first place, while at the same time being able to actively prevent it.
In fact, as other scientists add, many sources of infection are present in the environment for many years or even decades without being detected or manifested - an infection can occur suddenly, but usually not in just one person (animals are the carriers of infection in many cases, and the key point is the transmission of the virus from their organism to humans). It should also be taken into account that some people are able to resist infection more effectively than others, even during the spread of infection. This is also why it is more appropriate to talk about "super-carriers" rather than patient zero.
And what are the actual lessons for us? Let's not blame the skiers, and above all - let's not eat bats...(not to mention huskies).
