I don't believe I've seen any examples of this until today, on a UN-affiliated site about biodiversity:
"The emergence of COVID-19 has underscored the fact that, when we destroy biodiversity, we destroy the system that supports human life. By upsetting the delicate balance of nature, we have created ideal conditions for pathogens–including coronaviruses–to spread," it says.
I am not sure what to make of this passage. I thought, Covid was good for biodiversity. Starting with the obvious fact that it's a new virus, so an enrichment of the viral gene pool; and moving on to how the ensuing lockdown has reduced emissions and contributed to the temporary expansion of wildlife. What is this paragraph saying, exactly? Unless it's arguing — very indirectly — what we know to be self-evident, i.e. that international travel or large cities contribute to the spread of infections, I don't know how to interpret it. But then, what are they suggesting exactly? Protecting Amazon rainforests, with all their biodiversity, will not make a dent in infection rates in the cities.