The Pandemic Turns 5. We Are Still Not Prepared for the Next One

It’s hard to believe it’s been five years since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2020, the disease has killed more than 1.2 million Americans—more than in any other country. That accounts for more than 1 in 7 reported COVID-19 deaths in the whole world (although the true global death toll is likely much higher due to under-reporting). Don’t be fooled by some social-media revisionist historians who would have us believe that COVID-19 was “mild”—it was one of the most lethal infectious disease outbreaks in human history, ranking only behind the 1918 Spanish Flu and the Bubonic Plague (not including the ongoing HIV/AIDS epidemic). [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Thankfully, in 2025, the days of lockdowns and quarantines now seem a distant memory for many—even though the physical, mental, and emotional impacts of the pandemic persist in many ways. However, the question remains: Are we better prepared for next time?

Sadly, if anything, we are less prepared than before.

Pandemics are not necessarily once-in-a-lifetime events. We already saw in 2009 a swine flu pandemic that killed up to half a million people globally. H5N1 bird flu continues to spread in poultry, wild birds, and mammals in the U.S., with each case increasing the risk of further spillover into humans—making the U.S. a possible epicenter of any new flu pandemic, should the virus evolve further to spread easily among humans. MPox, MERS (another coronavirus with a high fatality rate), and Ebola are just some of the currently circulating pathogens with pandemic potential. And, of course, “Disease X” (a potential virus that could emerge in the future that we don’t yet know about) is always a possibility.

What should we be doing that we’re not? First, we should be making investments, not cuts, in pandemic preparedness. The U.S. has withdrawn funding from the World Health Organization. Working alongside local and national health authorities, the WHO is a key “first responder,” identifying and containing infectious-disease outbreaks before they spread. The U.S. contributed approximately $120 million in 2023-2024 on responding to acute health emergencies and to preventing pandemics and epidemics, so our step back leaves a massive hole in resources designed to tackle emergencies and stop outbreaks from spreading. Also, recent funding cuts or freezes to agencies like USAID are already having ramifications on the ground, with public-health professionals concerned that progress in tackling diseases like tuberculosis will stall or regress. With less funding, pandemic preparations also slow down, and the U.S. ceasing negotiations for the Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations makes matters worse.

Nationally, purported plans to de-prioritize infectious-disease research and defund some CDC training programs are a recipe for having a public-health workforce that is under-resourced and under-skilled to deal with future pandemic threats. Although some employees have since been rehired, sweeping and hasty cuts to key staff involved in potential pandemic response will mean a loss of invaluable experience of those working on the public-health frontlines during COVID-19.

Read More: Measles Is Back. And a Lot More People Are at Risk

Second, the ideologies and track records of some of those with the greatest responsibility for protecting public health in the U.S. would suggest that, if a new pandemic were to emerge in the next few years, the response would be hands-off. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently endorsed (albeit weakly) the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to fight the measles outbreak in Texas. While that was a welcome move, he has a long history of spreading misinformation on vaccines. RFK Jr. has lobbied against and opposed COVID-19 vaccines. The Trump Administration is said to be re-evaluating nearly $600 million funding for H5N1 mRNA vaccine research. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the likely new head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), held views on COVID-19 that deviated from the scientific mainstream, which included arguing in favor of a herd-immunity approach that thousands of scientists argued would have led to preventable deaths. While the U.S.’s COVID-19 policies were far from harmless and perfect, and while some of the more draconian and harmful measures like extended school closures could hopefully be avoided in the future, doing too little during the next health emergency would be reckless. How much would pandemic measures like vaccines be promoted next time?

Third, we should be helping to rebuild public confidence and trust in science—which declined during the pandemic—not continuing to undermine it. Recent rhetoric used not just by Trump and Kennedy but also highly influential social media personalities and podcasters are cultivating a conspiracy mindset toward science and health organizations, who are being pegged as “corrupt” and inefficient. We know from five years of COVID-19 research that one of the biggest predictors of whether people will follow public-health guidance is how much they trust science and health authorities. Can the new administration restore trust in science and health organizations? If not, will people trust public-health guidance during future health emergencies, including infectious disease outbreaks?

If the answer isn’t “yes” by the time the next pandemic arrives, the risks will be grave.