BEHIND THE SCREEN · B2/C1 · 50 min

Contagion

A single handshake in Hong Kong sets off a pandemic that ends civilisation as usual — and the fictional virus was built to be terrifyingly real.

Today: you'll tell the story of Contagion — a deadly new virus that spreads from a single handshake to the whole planet — discover how much of its science is genuinely real, and master the language English uses to weigh up what's likely, possible or almost certain to happen next.
Before we begin — talk it through: How fast do you think a new, unknown disease could spread from one small outbreak to the whole world today, given how much we travel? What's the first thing you would do if you heard of a mysterious illness spreading in your own city? And do you trust official health warnings more, or information shared by ordinary people online?

The words for today's story

Work through the four short activities. Each word is shown in a situation that gives its meaning away — no need to know the film yet. Say your answer out loud first, then reveal.

A. Infer from context — what does the bold word mean?

1. Bacteria exposed again and again to the same antibiotic will sometimes mutate, changing their genetic code so that the drug which used to kill them now does almost nothing.
to mutate (v) — to change genetically, producing a new form or variation of something.
2. After the storm cut off the only road for a week, a scarcity of bottled water sent prices in the one open shop rocketing overnight.
a scarcity (n) — a situation in which there is not enough of something; a shortage.
3. With rumours flying and no one visibly in charge, the crowd outside the shuttered pharmacy grew volatile, one shout away from turning into a riot.
volatile (adj) — likely to change suddenly and unpredictably, especially becoming dangerous or violent.
4. The flood defences were built to survive a once-in-a-century storm, but the unprecedented rainfall that fell in a single night broke every record on the books.
unprecedented (adj) — never having happened or existed before; without comparison.

B. Closest in meaning — which one is nearest?

5. to fabricate is closest in meaning to: (a) to invent falsely   (b) to repair carefully   (c) to publish officially
(a) to invent falsely — to fabricate (v) means to invent something, especially a story or evidence, in order to deceive.
6. credible is closest in meaning to: (a) impossible to believe   (b) believable and trustworthy   (c) extremely funny
(b) believable and trustworthy — credible (adj) means convincing enough to be believed.

C. Which meaning fits? (choose a, b or c)

7. A single retweet can disseminate a false claim to a million people before anyone has checked whether it's true.
To disseminate something is: (a) to disprove it; (b) to spread it widely; (c) to delete it permanently.
(b) — to disseminate (v) — to spread something, especially information, widely among many people.
8. When the power failed and the streets emptied, a few desperate people broke shop windows and looted whatever they could carry.
To loot is: (a) to steal goods, especially during a disaster or riot; (b) to donate goods generously; (c) to repair broken windows.
(a) — to loot (v) — to steal goods from shops or homes, typically during a war, riot or disaster.

D. Infer from context — two bigger ideas

9. Engineers built a sea wall as a countermeasure against the rising tides that had already flooded the town twice in five years.
a countermeasure (n) — an action taken to counter or reduce the effect of a threat or danger.
10. Fearing a shortage, the family filled their basement with a stockpile of tinned food, batteries and bottled water that could last them months.
a stockpile (n) — a large stored supply of something, kept in reserve for future use; also used as a verb, to stockpile.

Now use them — out loud

Talk it through before we watch:
  • Using mutate, scarcity and volatile, predict: what do you think happens to a city gripped by a fast-spreading, unknown disease?
  • Which of these words feel like they belong to a laboratory, and which feel like they belong to a crowd of frightened people? Sort them out loud and say why.

The film, in three parts

Steven Soderbergh's Contagion (2011). Read each part, try the quick check from memory, then discuss. (There are spoilers ahead — that's the point; we're here to talk about it. This lesson treats the subject soberly, as the film itself does.)

Part 1 — A handshake in Hong Kong

Beth Emhoff flies home from a business trip to Hong Kong, stopping over in Chicago on the way. She feels unwell — jet lag, she assumes — but within two days she is dead, killed by something no one can yet name. Her husband Mitch watches helplessly as her young son from a previous relationship dies of the same illness soon after, while Mitch himself, inexplicably, never falls sick at all.

Beth's death is not an isolated case. Within days, unexplained clusters of the same symptoms are surfacing in Hong Kong, London and Tokyo, with no obvious link between them. At the CDC, Dr Ellis Cheever grows alarmed at how fast the illness is moving and sends a young epidemiologist, Dr Erin Mears, to investigate the outbreak spreading outward from Minneapolis, where Beth had lived.

Meanwhile, in isolation and dread, Mitch shuts his surviving teenage daughter, Jory, almost entirely indoors, terrified of losing her too. Around them, the illness keeps spreading — through the air, through surfaces, through the countless small contacts of ordinary life — long before anyone understands what it even is.

Quick check — answer from memory, then reveal:

1. What happens to Beth Emhoff after she returns from her business trip, and to those closest to her?

2. What does Mitch do to try to protect his surviving daughter?

1. She falls suddenly and fatally ill within days of returning; her young son from a previous relationship also dies of the same illness, while Mitch himself never catches it.

2. He keeps her almost entirely confined indoors, cut off from friends and the outside world, desperate not to lose her as well.

Discuss:
  • Mitch's instinct is to isolate his daughter completely rather than let her take any risk at all. Is that a reasonable response to genuine danger, or does fear start to do more harm than the disease itself?

Part 2 — Naming the enemy

Dr Mears works the Minneapolis outbreak from the ground up, mapping every place Beth visited and every person she touched, and explaining to nervous officials the concept of R0 — the average number of new people each infected person passes the virus on to. She traces the chain back to a casino dinner in Macau, but before she can finish her work she becomes infected herself and dies, one more victim among a rapidly rising toll.

At the CDC and in a high-security laboratory, scientists race to grow the virus and read its genetic code, eventually discovering it is a hybrid — carrying genetic material from both bats and pigs. A WHO epidemiologist, Dr Leonora Orantes, traces the outbreak's roots to Hong Kong, only to be taken hostage by a village demanding vaccine doses in exchange for her release.

As the death toll climbs and quarantines spread, a blogger named Alan Krumwiede claims online that the authorities are hiding a cure, and begins promoting an unproven herbal remedy, forsythia, as protection. Desperate crowds mob pharmacies for it; supplies vanish within hours, and looting and violence break out as ordinary trust in institutions collapses.

Quick check — answer from memory, then reveal:

1. What happens to Dr Erin Mears while she investigates the Minneapolis outbreak?

2. What does the blogger Alan Krumwiede do, and what effect does it have on ordinary people?

1. She becomes infected herself while tracing the outbreak and dies before she can finish her investigation.

2. He promotes an unproven herbal remedy as a cure; desperate people mob pharmacies for it, supplies run out within hours, and panic tips over into looting.

Discuss:
  • Alan insists people have a right to distrust the authorities — yet his own claims turn out to be false and dangerous. Where's the line between healthy scepticism and dangerous misinformation?

Part 3 — The vaccine, and the truth

CDC scientist Dr Ally Hextall finally develops a vaccine that works in trials — but rather than wait through the months of testing normally required, she injects the unapproved dose into herself and then deliberately exposes herself to her own infected father to prove it protects. It does. Governments begin distributing the vaccine using a lottery based on birthdate, and, agonisingly slowly, ordinary life starts to return: shops reopen, quarantines lift, Mitch's daughter is finally allowed a small, cautious dance with a boy in their own back yard.

The final scene answers the question the whole film has been building toward: how did it actually begin? Bulldozers clear a forest to build a new development — the very company Beth worked for — disturbing a colony of bats. Fleeing the destruction, a bat drops a piece of fruit into a pig enclosure; an infected pig is later slaughtered and prepared by a chef in a Macau casino kitchen, who, without washing his hands, is called away to pose for a photograph and shake hands with a guest: Beth.

The virus that kills millions and unravels society for months began with felled trees and one ordinary handshake.

Quick check — answer from memory, then reveal:

1. How is the vaccine finally proven safe, and how is it distributed once it exists?

2. What does the final scene reveal about how the virus really began?

1. Dr Hextall tests it on herself and confirms it works by exposing herself to her infected father; it's then distributed to the public through a birthday-based lottery.

2. Deforestation disturbs a bat colony; a bat drops food near pigs; an infected pig is prepared by a chef who then shakes hands with Beth without washing his hands first.

Discuss:
  • The film traces a global catastrophe back to a felled forest and a single handshake. Is that ending unsettling because it's so ordinary, or because it quietly points a finger at all of us?

Grammar — probability & prediction

No film spends more time weighing up what's about to happen than Contagion. English has a whole scale of expressions for exactly this — from a live, open possibility right up to something almost certain. Getting the strength right is the whole point.

The expressions, from strongest to most open:
• be bound to + infinitive — near-certain, given how things are going: "If shelves stay empty much longer, people are bound to start panicking."
• be likely / unlikely to + infinitive — a strong, confident probability: "A virus that spreads by touch and by air is likely to be almost impossible to fully contain." "An untested herbal remedy is unlikely to do anything at all."
• stand a good chance of + -ing — a hopeful, realistic probability: "A vaccine built on solid science stands a good chance of actually working."
• may / might (well) + infinitive — a real possibility, more open than certain: "The next outbreak may well start in a city no one is watching." "Officials might not have an answer ready in time."
• could + infinitive — a possibility worth taking seriously, without commitment either way: "A single infected traveller could carry the virus to another continent within a day."
Feel the difference: the further up that list, the more confident the speaker is. Notice the grammar too: likely / unlikely / bound to take a to-infinitive; stand a good chance of takes an -ing form; may / might / could take a bare infinitive with no "to".

1. Choose the strength the meaning needs

Read the meaning in brackets and complete the sentence.

1. With three continents already reporting cases, this (spread) a great deal further before anyone can stop it. (near-certain, strong probability)

2. Cheever admits the mutation rate (mean) the virus behaves quite differently by the time a vaccine is ready. (a real, tentative possibility)

3. If the pharmacies stay empty another week, the crowds outside them (turn) violent. (almost inevitable, given the situation)

1. is likely to spread (be likely to — strong probability)

2. may well mean (may well — a real, open possibility)

3. are bound to turn (be bound to — near-certain)

2. Fix the form

Each sentence has the right idea but the wrong form. Write the corrected verb phrase.

1. A vaccine rushed through testing this fast (not / work) as well as everyone hopes, even once it's approved. (an open, real possibility)

2. Because Hextall tested it on herself first, the new vaccine (actually / protect) people in time. (a hopeful, realistic chance)

3. Given how contagious MEV-1 is, a second, deadlier strain (emerge) somewhere else entirely. (near-certain)

1. could not work (could — open possibility)

2. stands a good chance of actually protecting (stand a good chance of + -ing)

3. is likely to emerge (be likely to)

3. Complete the warning — mix the expressions

Fill each gap with a probability expression that fits the meaning. Read it aloud when you're done.

"Understand this," Cheever tells the room. "If we don't move now, this (be) far worse before it's better. At this rate, the death toll (double) within the month, and if people keep hiding their symptoms out of fear, we (never / contain) it in time."

is likely to be · may well double · might never contain

Notice the pattern: the more certain you are, the stronger the expression — from a live possibility (may / might / could) up to near-certainty (likely to / bound to).

Carry all five expressions into the Speak tab — this whole story turns on characters constantly weighing up what's likely, what's possible, and what's almost certain to happen next.

The Real Story — how much of this is true?

Here's what makes Contagion unusual among disaster films: its virus, MEV-1, has never existed — but almost everything about how it's studied, tracked and fought is drawn directly from real epidemiology.

🦠 A real virologist helped design the fictional virus

The film's science was overseen by Dr W. Ian Lipkin, an epidemiologist and virologist who directs Columbia University's Center for Infection and Immunity. Lipkin didn't just check the script for errors — he helped design MEV-1 itself, building it as a hybrid drawing on real paramyxoviruses and modelling it closely on Nipah virus, a genuine bat-borne disease with an alarmingly high fatality rate. More than a dozen scientific and public-health experts advised Soderbergh's team, and the film even names one of its virologist characters "Ian" as a quiet nod to Lipkin's role.

The concepts the film gets right

Early on, CDC officer Dr Erin Mears explains R0 (the "basic reproduction number") to a room of officials: the average number of new people one infected person passes the disease on to. It's a real and central tool in epidemiology, though scientists note the film simplifies it into something closer to a fixed growth rate than the messier, shifting number R0 actually is during a live outbreak.

The film's origin story — a bat disturbed by deforestation drops food near pigs, which pass the virus to a chef who shakes hands with the woman who becomes "patient zero" — dramatises zoonotic spillover, the real process by which a pathogen jumps from animals into humans. This mirrors the actual pattern behind Nipah virus, which spread from fruit bats into farmed pigs and then into people during its first documented outbreak, in Malaysia in the late 1990s. And the film's obsessive attention to fomites — door handles, glasses, casino chips, a bus rail — reflects genuine research into how objects contaminated by an infected person can pass a disease on to whoever touches them next.

Where the film is honest — and where it was proven right

Vaccine development is compressed for drama: Dr Ally Hextall's decision to test an unapproved vaccine on herself, then deliberately expose herself to an infected patient, dramatises a genuine ethical dilemma researchers face — how much personal risk is acceptable to move faster during a real emergency. In reality, vaccine trials normally take far longer and pass through many more stages than the film has time to show.

MEV-1 itself has never existed. But when COVID-19 spread worldwide in 2020, Contagion was watched again by millions and widely praised for anticipating real details of pandemic life — from anxiety about surfaces to the phrase "social distancing" to the global scramble for a vaccine. Lipkin himself later caught COVID-19 and spoke publicly about it. The film's accuracy is really a matter of method, not prophecy: it got the pandemic right because it borrowed faithfully from how real diseases like Nipah actually behave.

Take these into the discussion:
  • Which parts of the film did you assume were pure invention — and which turn out to be real epidemiology?
  • Does knowing the virus is modelled on something real (Nipah) make the film more frightening, or does the fictional MEV-1 keep it safely at a distance?
  • The film traces the outbreak back to deforestation and a single handshake. Is that an honest warning, or does blaming "nature" let bigger structural problems off the hook?

Speak

This is the heart of the lesson — do it all out loud. The timer keeps you going; fill the time with detail.

Useful language: reach for today's expressions to weigh up what happens next — "cases are bound to keep rising", "a second wave may well follow", "the vaccine stands a good chance of working". For opinions: "What's striking is…", "You could argue that…", "On one level… but on another…".
Time remaining: 4:00
Task A · Tell the story (4 minutes)

Tell the story of Contagion in your own words, as if to someone who has never seen it. Move through the arc: the handshake in Hong Kong and the first mysterious deaths → the race to name the virus and trace R0 → the empty shelves, the blogger's false cure, and the quarantines → the vaccine, the lottery, and the final revelation of how it all began.

Work in at least five key words (mutate, scarcity, volatile, unprecedented, fabricate, credible, disseminate, loot, countermeasure, stockpile), and use today's probability expressions when you reach the uncertain moments: "a cure was unlikely to appear that quickly."

Task B · The blogger's dilemma (4 minutes)

Alan Krumwiede insists people have a right to distrust official information — and he genuinely believes he might be helping people, even though his own "cure" turns out to be false and dangerous. Build an argument: is it ever responsible to spread an unverified claim during a crisis if you sincerely believe it could help? Where exactly is the line between healthy scepticism of authority and dangerous misinformation? Bring in other examples you know.

Task C · Are we ready for the next one? (4 minutes)

The film imagines a world caught almost completely unprepared for a fast-moving new disease. Do you think humanity is better prepared for the next pandemic now than it was before, or have we already forgotten the lessons? Make your case.

Stuck for an idea? Pick one of these and run with it:

  • Whether you would trust an experimental vaccine over a slower, fully tested one, if someone you loved were dying.
  • A real outbreak or health scare you remember, and how people around you reacted.
  • Whether a lottery is a fair way to decide who receives scarce medicine first.
  • A time you weren't sure whether to trust an official warning or something you'd read online.
  • What you think a government owes its citizens during a genuine public health crisis.
  • What you think the world is likely to get right, and get wrong, next time.

To finish — the bigger questions

  1. The virus in the film starts with one careless handshake. What in your own daily life could spread in exactly that quiet, invisible way — for better or worse?
  2. Alan Krumwiede is wrong about almost everything, yet some of what he says about not blindly trusting authority resonates with real experience. Can someone be both dangerous and partly right?
  3. The film ends by tracing the outbreak back to a bulldozer clearing forest for development. Is that too neat an explanation, or exactly the kind of connection we usually refuse to make?
  4. Before you go — from memory: give one sentence using "likely to", one using "may well" or "could", and one using "bound to" or "stand a good chance of", about something in the news today.