Why is it socially acceptable to say “British variant” but not “Chinese coronavirus”? Just saying, seems like a bit of a double standard
@trinsec Oi! 🙄😒 But, that’s a fair point about the racist fallout for Asian people living in the West — I’m not advocating for calling it the “China virus” I’m just saying we should be consistent. Seems like the “British variant” is falling for the same problem as “Spanish flu”: the NHS is testing and reporting on variants whereas other places aren’t… *grumble grumble grumble*
@rlamacraft Well, we check for the UK and South-African variants here. And I think we check for mutations as well. Maybe it just so happens that the UK and SA areas have a real mutation going on that actually made a difference (easier to spread in this case)?
🇳🇱
The truth is it is the chinese governments fault. While that doesnt excuse any violence taken against asians, it is valid all the same. While I'm sure there was some violence it seems quite rare, I've heard of no such examples personally but I'm sure there are some isolated cases. But focusing the plame on china as a nation for its policies and handling is entierly valid and quite common when we name viruses anyway.
The real reason people are so opposed to the term, of course, is because trump used it and people love to make everything trump does 1000x worse than it is (I saw this as someone who thinks trump is pretty bad even without the exagerating). So the moment he uttered that phrase it because a cause of the left to make it seem as evil as possible just as a matter of course.
Even the chinese refer to it as the "wuhan flu"
@freemo @trinsec @rlamacraft no you can't criticize it for originating the virus. Only if somehow china was producing more new viruses per whatever than any other place, will you be able to do it and even then calling yet another one they produced again THE chinese virus would be meaningless. You can criticize for handling regardless of origin.
Asking why british variant or spanish flu, you would go "well. first outbreak was there, it just something to refer to it, just a name". Asking why chinese virus when it already has a name, you would go on a rant of how "those filthy chinese with their meat markets eat raw bat all they by the nation wide decree of their evil government", revealing not only a bias, but a whole freaking agenda.
The sample size of new viruses is far too small to be able to determine statistically if they produce new viruses more. However they have produced two new viruses in just a short number of decades which is certainly unusually high.
That said, we do not need to assert that they produce more viruses than average to blame them for **this** virus, we would only need to know that if we blamed them for being a contributor to the overall number of total viruses, which we are not.
We know quite confidently that the same thing that produced the old varient of SARS is the same thing that produced this varient, that is wet markets that do not operate with safetfy standards that is effectively condoned by the government (nothing is done to stop them). we have known for some time that this practice, and the policy for handling it, tends to produce cross-species viruses and has a high likelihood of transmitting that onto the general public.
Furthermore their handling of the outbreak once it occured, particularly in the early stages was substandard and involved more disinformation and hiding the facts than dealing with it.
So yes we very much can blame their government and their policies for the virus, particularly when they had a scare just a decade earlier and the causes were well known and no one did anything to prevent it happening again, and it did.
As for the "it already had a name" argument. Its first name was "The Wuhan flu" coined by the people on the ground. While that isnt the same as "the chinese virus" (which is more vague) it does counter your point, if the preference were truly for the first established name we would have called it the Wuhan Flu but do not. Further showing there is a great tendency to want to avoid associating it with China than with other countries.
@freemo That's beside the point. If the justification was to restore the original name or change it whatever else you wish, cause, say, you have hard time pronouncing the current trending one or something, that would be ok, it just names still, but you just can't resist going "china bad, we should call it china flu to punish china, I'm not attacking asians, who's attacking asians?".
@trinsec @rlamacraft
Its not besides the point at all, it is literally the point of the discussion. It was asked why a name that referenced the location, used early on before the virus had a common name was unacceptable in reference to china but was acceptable in reference to the UK. So the fact that we can establish that the first common wide spread name was, in fact "Wuhan virus" is very much relevant to demonstrating that the reason is because there is aversion to associating it with the chinese more so than with other nations.
No one even once suggested we need to name it chinese virus to punish china because they were bad... they were bad, they screwed up and knew this was the consequence for a decade and never fixed the problem, so yes they did bad, but that is NOT why people used the term "chinese virus", it was used because that is commonly how we give viruses common names, its simply a typical pattern, particularly when a term like "coronavirus" is non descriptive and means something different than how it is now being used, so there is an actual practical reason to avoid that as a common name.
@freemo No, the op was why not call covid chinese coronavirus, not why wuhan flu was called covid/coronavirus, nice diversion.
I'm glad that you are just arguing for the sake of a good name, and only that, and that it's exactly what you meant, when saying that random idiots attacking asian people all over the world is chinese government's fault, and that focusing all the blame on china by calling it chinese virus is valid. I must have misunderstood every single word initially.
No, the op was why not call covid chinese coronavirus, not why wuhan flu was called covid/coronavirus, nice diversion.
I did not say he was arguing to call it the Wuhan virus. Here is exactly what I said:
It was asked why a name that referenced the location, used early on before the virus had a common name was unacceptable in reference to china but was acceptable in reference to the UK.
The OP asked about “chinese virus” and specifically wondered why that was unacceptable and names referencing other locations are, as my statement made clear. Likewise you had asserted among your reasons that precedence was one reason why.
I quote you here where yo assert that:
Asking why chinese virus when it already has a name…
The “Wuhan Virus” term has earlier precedence, and thus arguing, as you did that precedence is among the reasons why an argument to change the name holds less weight is therefore also an argument why we should not have the current common name either.
It also shows that there is a preference to change the name to avoid pointing out the location of origin of the virus when that location is china, as we violated precedence to do so, but we seem to have no compulsion to do the same when other countries are likewise reference with similar precedence.
As such it is an entirely valid counterargument, you just happened to summarize my statements and argument in that regard incorrectly.
@freemo yes, yes, keep diverting. It was not about any imaginable location name, it was about specific name, and the thread went into an even more specific context of current events. And it is beside my specific point, as I did not mean tht the the first name is king, that was just an insignificant part of my argument, just remove the “when it already has a name” part, and there you go, your entire diversion thwarted.
Whatever argument you want to make about superiority of one name over the other as just names, I will not object to, I don’t care. My point is that the name is often not acceptable because of the intent of people who commonly use, who when asked why, as a knee jerk reaction demonstrate that it is out of some irrational sense spite. You first comment serves as a nice example of that IMO, but again I entirely misunderstood it, of course.
Whatever argument you want to make about superiority of one name over the other as just names, I will not object to, I don’t care. My point is that the name is often not acceptable because of the intent of people who commonly use, who when asked why, as a knee jerk reaction demonstrate that it is out of some irrational sense spite.
I have yet to witness that. Everyone I have asked why they use the term “Chinese virus” all answer the same “Because it came from china”, a portion of those go so far as to say its also because it is a more descriptive term, and follows the normal way we name viruses.
Not one such person have I met has ever claimed it was out of spite or suggested as much.
@rlamacraft That is a good question. I think it is mostly that people tend to blame the Chinese for this by calling it the Chinavirus or Chinese coronavirus. Asians or Asian-looking people have been assaulted at the start of the pandemic for this. Not sure if that's still the case, probably is. There's still a squabble about the origin of the virus.
The British variant is a variation of an existing virus, so that would seem to be a subtle difference there.
I still blame the Brits, of course. 😋