A virus engineered by a bioterrorist, released deliberately across multiple places at once
Bill Gates, hablando desde la experiencia de años dedicados a pensar en amenazas sanitarias globales, ofrece una advertencia que no busca alarmar sino orientar: existe una probabilidad del cincuenta por ciento de que la humanidad enfrente otra pandemia en las próximas dos décadas. Su reflexión sitúa esta posibilidad en la intersección de tres fuerzas —la naturaleza, la ambición humana destructiva y el cambio climático— y nos recuerda que la vigilancia colectiva no es un lujo, sino una forma de responsabilidad compartida.
- Gates cifra en un cincuenta por ciento la probabilidad de una nueva pandemia en veinte años, una estimación que no es catastrofismo sino cálculo frío.
- Tres vectores de amenaza convergen: virus conocidos que mutan, patógenos diseñados por bioterroristas, y enfermedades zoonóticas impulsadas por la invasión humana de ecosistemas salvajes.
- El brote de viruela del mono en Europa inquieta precisamente porque el virus parece transmitirse de formas inusuales, aunque Gates descarta que sea el preludio de una nueva crisis global.
- Para reducir el riesgo, Gates propone un equipo internacional de tres mil especialistas y un aumento del veinticinco por ciento en el presupuesto de la OMS —una apuesta costosa frente a la alternativa de esperar.
- La pandemia de COVID-19 dejó, al menos, una herencia útil: una vigilancia global más afinada que hoy permite detectar amenazas como la viruela del mono con una atención que antes no existía.
Bill Gates concedió una entrevista este fin de semana en la que expuso una conclusión incómoda pero metódica: hay una probabilidad del cincuenta por ciento de que el mundo enfrente otra pandemia en los próximos veinte años. El cofundador de Microsoft no llegó a esa cifra por alarmismo, sino por años de análisis sobre amenazas sanitarias globales.
Cuando se le preguntó por la viruela del mono, Gates reconoció que el brote europeo merecía atención —el virus parecía transmitirse de manera distinta a lo habitual— pero descartó que fuera la próxima gran crisis. El verdadero peligro, dijo, podría llegar desde varias direcciones: una cepa conocida como la influenza o un nuevo coronavirus, lo que al menos daría a los científicos cierta ventaja; un patógeno diseñado y liberado deliberadamente por bioterroristas, una posibilidad que describió como genuinamente aterradora; o un virus que salte de animales a humanos a medida que el cambio climático y la expansión humana alteran los ecosistemas.
Para hacer frente a ese horizonte, Gates propuso construir un sistema internacional de vigilancia epidemiológica: unos tres mil especialistas de distintas disciplinas trabajando con datos sistematizados, rastreando señales de brotes emergentes. El costo sería considerable —un aumento del veinticinco por ciento en el presupuesto de la OMS— pero la alternativa implícita era simplemente esperar.
Hubo también un matiz casi esperanzador en sus palabras: la pandemia de COVID-19, con todo su devastador peso, había afinado la atención del mundo. Sin ella, la viruela del mono apenas habría aparecido en los titulares. Esa vigilancia renovada era, en sí misma, un activo. Si resultaría suficiente ante la próxima amenaza, eso seguía siendo una pregunta abierta.
Bill Gates sat down with a Spanish newspaper this past weekend and laid out a stark calculation: there is a fifty-fifty chance that humanity will face another pandemic within the next two decades. The Microsoft co-founder, who has spent years thinking about global health threats, was not being alarmist. He was being methodical.
When asked about monkeypox—the virus that had already begun appearing across multiple countries—Gates acknowledged the concern but stopped short of naming it the next catastrophe. The virus, he said, had a low probability of becoming the defining health crisis of our time. Yet something about the European outbreak troubled him enough to mention it. Cases were appearing in places where monkeypox had never been common. The virus seemed to be transmitting differently than it had before. That shift warranted investigation, even if it did not warrant panic.
The real threat, Gates suggested, could come from several directions. A new pandemic might emerge from a virus humanity already knows—a strain of influenza, perhaps, or another coronavirus variant. That scenario would at least offer some advantage: scientists would have existing knowledge to build upon, a head start in developing treatments and vaccines. But the future held darker possibilities too. A bioterrorist could engineer a pathogen and deliberately release it across multiple locations simultaneously. That prospect, Gates said, was genuinely frightening. Or the threat could arrive through the back door of nature itself—a virus jumping from animals to humans as the human population expanded into wild ecosystems and climate change reshaped the world.
Gates estimated a fifty percent probability that a naturally occurring pandemic would strike within twenty years, driven in part by environmental change. To reduce that risk, he proposed building an international surveillance apparatus: roughly three thousand specialists from various disciplines, working with systematized data, constantly hunting for signs of emerging outbreaks. The cost would be substantial—a twenty-five percent increase to the World Health Organization's budget. But the alternative, he implied, was to wait and hope.
There was something almost grateful in Gates's tone when he reflected on the current moment. The coronavirus pandemic, devastating as it had been, had sharpened the world's attention. Without it, monkeypox would barely register in the news cycle. That heightened vigilance, that willingness to take novel outbreaks seriously, was itself valuable. It meant the systems for detecting the next threat were at least partially in place. Whether they would prove sufficient remained an open question.
Notable Quotes
The next pandemic could come from a virus we already know, or from something entirely new—or from someone deliberately engineering and spreading a pathogen— Bill Gates, in interview with El Diario
It's actually positive that we're paying attention to monkeypox now. Without the coronavirus pandemic, this outbreak wouldn't even be in the news— Bill Gates
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
When Gates says there's a fifty percent chance of a pandemic in twenty years, is he drawing that number from epidemiological models, or is it more of an educated guess?
He doesn't specify the methodology in the interview, but given his foundation's work on disease surveillance, it's likely informed by modeling and historical patterns. Still, it's a round number—which suggests it's a probability estimate, not a precise calculation.
He mentions three possible sources: natural spillover, engineered bioterrorism, and known viruses. Which does he seem most concerned about?
The bioterrorism scenario gets the most explicit language—he calls it genuinely frightening. But he spends more time on natural spillover, linking it to climate change and human expansion. That suggests it's the most probable in his mind, even if bioterrorism is the most alarming.
Why does he think monkeypox is worth monitoring even though he doesn't think it's the next big pandemic?
Because something has changed in how it's spreading in Europe. That shift—from a virus that was rare in Europe to hundreds of cases—suggests either the virus has mutated or transmission patterns have altered. That's the kind of anomaly that deserves investigation, regardless of whether it becomes a global crisis.
His proposal for a three-thousand-person surveillance team—is that realistic, or is it more of a thought experiment?
It's a concrete proposal with a price tag attached. Whether governments would fund it is another question. But Gates is describing what he believes would actually work, not what he thinks is politically easy.
There's an interesting moment where he says it's good that monkeypox is in the news because of pandemic awareness. Is he saying the pandemic made us smarter about disease threats?
Partly. He's saying the pandemic created a baseline of vigilance. People are now attuned to the possibility of novel outbreaks in a way they weren't before. That awareness, he suggests, is a silver lining—even if the pandemic itself was catastrophic.