zlacker

>>codech+(OP)
It is, the narrative last year was that if you pointed at Wuhan, or Chinese Lab Leak, you were racist/bigoted.

>>rootsu+y8
That's not how I remember the narrative.

It was split in two.

1. Calling it "the china virus", as the former president was wont to do, was labelled racist/bigoted/nationalistic by those who did not simply agree with anything he said.

2. The claim that it originated in the Wuhan lab was viewed as unlikely, and there was (is) an alternative biological origin story which at the time seemed credible and more likely.

>>PaulDa+Eb
> Calling it "the china virus", as the former president was wont to do, was labelled racist/bigoted/nationalistic

While the racist violence that happened was deplorable, it is entirely amusing to me that we are fine with calling it UK/Brazil/South African/Indian variant but not call it the China virus/flu.

The same publications like Guardian which did not use the term China virus/flu because it was considered racist had no problem in using Brazil/Indian variant as the names of the variant. They are still doing it even after WHO came up with different non country based names for each variants.

> The claim that it originated in the Wuhan lab was viewed as unlikely, and there was (is) an alternative biological origin story which at the time seemed credible and more likely

Wuhan lab leak being shot down so easily was the thing I found non convincing and the fact that so many journalists didn't cover it was surprising. While we might be able to ascertain that the virus is natural or man made easily, but a natural virus leaking out would seem high on the probability list to me as there is conveniently a lab at the same place where the outbreak first happened; and it was doing research on the same thing.

>>actuat+of
Trump's use of the term "the China virus" was clearly, absolutely, unambiguously to blame China for the virus/pandemic.

By the time the variants started to emerge, the virus' biological structure and mechanism was sufficiently well understood that seeking to blame any particular locale for the emergence of a variant was seen to be pointless.

About pointless as blaming China for the virus itself appeared to be at the time, even if that may no longer be the case.

>>PaulDa+Jh
I agree that Trump's use was to definitely please his supporter base and blame China. But except for some racist bigots, I really doubt calling it the China virus/flu means that someone is trying to blame Chinese people for it, just like you are arguing for variants.

My point was, the same concerns people had for not using the country name on virus were applicable for variants too. If we chose one standard for the virus, we should have kept the same for variants too, after all there are some variants which are considered more dangerous than the others.

>>actuat+zi
You don't see a difference between:

"the virus that killed at least 3.5M people worldwide came from <COUNTRY>"

and

"as the pandemic spread globally, and as expected for almost any virus and for coronaviruses in particular, variants of the virus emerged in <COUNTRY A>, <COUNTRY B> and <COUNTRY C>"

?

>>PaulDa+Aj
Well, both the statements are worded way differently. The same variant thing can be worded as

"Covid-19 variant wreaking havoc and causing severe hospitalisations and has killed 3.5M people came from #{COUNTRY_A}"

The same carefully worded statement like yours for the variant one can also be used for the first outbreak country's name. It is the usage that is the issue not the term itself. My point still is, if someone saw downfalls of using the country name in one situation, they should have seen it in the other as well. At least WHO did, that's why they came up with the new names.

>>actuat+ak
That's like saying "The child was murdered by a Black man," vs "The child was murdered by a man wearing a hoodie and a scar on his left cheek." Both sentences use details that could be true accurate descriptions, but choosing which descriptors to use allow you to control the opinions of the reader and the associations to the bad thing (murder) with some traits. It gives the writer a powerful propagandistic tool. The question is what descriptors are important enough to be associated with the bad thing? Could any man, or even person, have murdered a child? Could the virus have come from anywhere? If so, then shaping opinions by associating with the trait of "Black man" or "China" is counterproductive.

Better descriptors could be: "Covid-19 ... wreaking havoc... came from laboratory with poor hygiene practices and safety measures."

"Child was murdered by insane person."

These titles stick to the point rather than trying to bias public opinion, and associate the bad thing with what the actual underlying cause was.

>>chrisc+oo
> That's like saying "The child was murdered by a Black man," vs "The child was murdered by a man wearing a hoodie and a scar on his left cheek."

Why do you think the latter is more "to the point" than the former?

>>alenti+tv
That wasn't meant to be an example of a more on-point variant. It was meant as an example of a different set of potentially arbitrary details to focus on that changes the perceptions and associations. It works to associate hoodies, scars, and left cheeks with murderers.