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.
https://in.news.yahoo.com/italy-launched-hug-chinese-campaig...
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.
Not anymore. They're getting Greek letter designations now.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/01/covid-19-varia...
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.
> "The pandemic is conventionally marked as having begun on 4 March 1918 with the recording of the case of Albert Gitchell, an army cook at Camp Funston in Kansas, United States"
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.
I'm surprised you didn't get this memo by now, but Spain gained that ignominy only by being the sole country to not apply censorship regarding the topic at the time ("Land of the Free" included).
It's utter nonsensical bullshit like this that made us collectively move away from naming diseases after countries.
"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>"
?
"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.
the origin of the pandemic was made a central point of contention by trump. it appeared very important to him, based on his own language, that we identify china as the place where the virus first infected people, and for a while, as the place where authorities had failed to control its spread.
while i see downfalls in terms like "the india variant", they seem small because they generally do not have connotations of blame. by contrast "the chinus virus" term was entirely about blame (and also about deflection from the failure to manage the pandemic effectively).
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.
It was practice. Past tense. The WHO changed that practice in 2015 [1]. In fact they explicitly list Spanish Flu as an example of why that practice was flawed.
"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)."
[1]: https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-pra...
And yes, such manipulation and corruption of debate is the general problem with liars being awarded leadership positions.
Why do you think the latter is more "to the point" than the former?
It's the WAY Trump et al said it + their political motivations & bias. Context is very important.
"ChiNe A", almost the verbal version of slanting your eyes with your fingers.
And the more obvious 'kung flu.'
For what it's worth I've read that there has been attempts to reframe virus names from using state names as to not cast blame (though 'blame' is muddled in this case if it was leaked or worse GOF->leak).
"Spanish Flu" for instance likely didn't even originate in Spain
Fair point on the media, since variants do have actual scientific names. But I don't think the context there is the same. But they should be using consistent scientific names imho we knew H1N1 we can do that again.
Why is this amusing? In N.A. there is currently (and pre-dating Covid-19) substantive differences in xenophobic response to China/Russia vs. the other countries mentioned. The former are the go to political boogiemen whereas the latter are either allies or patronizingly viewed.