No source of covid-19 has been found.
Similar lab leaks happen frequently.
BUT.. you're not allowed to discuss it with the undertones that you're a bad person. If you say china virus you could be accused of being a racist. But if you say South African or British variant it's okay. The mental acrobats are insane. If you suggest people aren't thinking critically about it you will be accused of flamebaiting or trolling. If you call out people who are trying to silence your comments you'll be accused of "making boring reading".
I think it should be discussed, debated and seriously considered. There is a suggestion in here to assume both the animal farm and the lab were the cause and to respond appropriately. With lack of further evidence I think this is the best idea.
It's not mental acrobatics. It's pragmatism and empathy.
No acrobatics necessary.
Anything can be said or used with ill intent, because intent matters and is separate from actual language. That's why we have tone in speaking and writing to help distinguish this. Our nonverbal cues say a lot more than the words themselves.
A rise in violence against Spaniards cannot sloppily be attributed to the use of "Spanish Flu" to describe a virus that some believed to either come from Spain, or affected Spain the worst.
It's morbidly irresponsible to assume negative intent when people are trying to name and classify a virus based on its best known origins, and attribute "racism" towards a people group of that same origin as being caused by the naming of a virus.
This is a fine example of: correlation does not imply causation.
A person who cannot separate the two concepts cleanly is the person who needs deep understanding for why they are wrong, especially when there is no credible data to support that assumption.
The media outlets reporting hate crimes caused by the naming of a virus are, in effect, assuming that all or most Americans are too stupid to act reasonably and understand these two very different concepts, so they declare the correlation however they see fit and expect their viewers to latch on and make the same poor and irresponsible assumptions blindly.
We are so much smarter than this. Pay close attention to the way journalists mold and shape the narrative based on assumptions and opinions to get you to believe their take. Also pay attention to the fact that CNN and others called this virus "the Chinese virus" well before our 45th President used the phrasing.
How does a media outlet get to blame behavior they created without first examining themselves?
Some people drop the N-bomb without ill intent either. There's plenty of precedent for agreeing that certain words and phrases just can't be used anymore in good faith.
When was Science about prescribing blame?
Ok sure. What did you win? Have you now advanced science and solved all unknown problems in virology? Was the progress of mankind so impeded by the inability to call COVID-19 the Chinese variant? Seriously ask yourself why you are so hung up on being able to call it the China virus. Are doctors around the world completely unable to sequence this virus because they can’t say the word “China virus”, or does it just make you feel better to be able to prescribe blame to a group of people?
I think we can agree there’s open mystery about the origin of the virus without getting caught up in culture war trite. British people aren’t being murdered because of some loose connection to a virus, the very least you could do is show some tact and try not to insert your bias at every opportunity.
Maybe if the US didn't have a very large number of people who are willing to harass people of visibly different races we wouldn't have to have these discussions and worry so much about our language. But we do, and we have a track record of specific races being attacked when nations that have a majority of that race become embroiled in international issues.
I don't think generalizations like these are useful or productive because they contradict themselves when you apply any other context to them. It's double-think in its most overt form.
https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-pra...
“In recent years, several new human infectious diseases have emerged. The use of names such as ‘swine flu’ and ‘Middle East Respiratory Syndrome’ has had unintended negative impacts by stigmatizing certain communities or economic sectors,” says Dr Keiji Fukuda, Assistant Director-General for Health Security, WHO. “This may seem like a trivial issue to some, but disease names really do matter to the people who are directly affected. We’ve seen certain disease names provoke a backlash against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals. This can have serious consequences for peoples’ lives and livelihoods.”
Diseases are often given common names by people outside of the scientific community. Once disease names are established in common usage through the Internet and social media, they are difficult to change, even if an inappropriate name is being used. Therefore, it is important that whoever first reports on a newly identified human disease uses an appropriate name that is scientifically sound and socially acceptable.
The best practices state that a disease name should consist of generic descriptive terms, based on the symptoms that the disease causes (e.g. respiratory disease, neurologic syndrome, watery diarrhoea) and more specific descriptive terms when robust information is available on how the disease manifests, who it affects, its severity or seasonality (e.g. progressive, juvenile, severe, winter). If the pathogen that causes the disease is known, it should be part of the disease name (e.g. coronavirus, influenza virus, salmonella).
Terms that should be avoided in disease names include geographic locations (e.g. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Spanish Flu, Rift Valley fever), people’s names (e.g. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Chagas disease), species of animal or food (e.g. swine flu, bird flu, monkey pox), cultural, population, industry or occupational references (e.g. legionnaires), and terms that incite undue fear (e.g. unknown, fatal, epidemic).
WHO developed the best practices for naming new human infectious diseases in close collaboration with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and in consultation with experts leading the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
Words and labels have become a very difficult thing for people to handle rationally. Within a span of just 5-10 years, a big handful of them went from being tools to bond people to being a dangerous virus that haphazardly assumes each and every person is immeasurably fragile.
It's a clear sign when there is a dramatic shift in how comedians are treated and responded to, that our society in general is more quick to jump to ill conclusions than they're ready to use insults and slurs to poke fun at each other and walk away unscathed, laughing with an eye-roll to top it off.
I miss those days when the majority (around me) were more light-hearted and understood that these moments of fun weren't used to harm others, but to build camaraderie by jesting about our differences and unique cultural idioms.
I worked with a very diverse team in the restaurant industry, and the majority of our jokes were racial stereotypes of one another, and it's safe to say, we all went home feeling seen, appreciated, and laughing our asses off.
It was fun that other people knew a few quirks about my origins that I was secure enough to laugh at, instead of feeling threatened by them. Many friendships were formed with light insults (and yes, often racial) used to break the ice.
But, what if there was a person in your group that was actually offended? And couldn't say so because they'd be out of the group? Does it matter? (To me, yes). Does it matter enough to change the group's behavior? (Maybe). Does it matter enough to change the entire world's behavior?
It's through these that we may move away from disproportionate responses to what feels uncomfortable and find common understanding with each other, but alas, never perfectly.