-3

Why won't China allow an independent investigation on the origin of COVID-19?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-statement/u-s-13-countries-concerned-who-covid-19-origin-study-was-delayed-lacked-access-statement-idUSKBN2BM2JG?il=0&utm_source=reddit.com

Although most scientists claim that it's almost impossible that the virus was man-made, U.S. allies claim that China is controlling the WHO to do its biding and therefore the WHO report was flawed. Is there a reason China won't let an independent investigation be carried out on the origin of the COVID-19 virus?

James K
  • 120,320
  • 22
  • 366
  • 478
Sayaman
  • 40,192
  • 9
  • 139
  • 290
  • 1
    Who claims China controls the WHO? Your article doesn’t say anything about that, it says they withheld data from the WHO, which is a very different thing. And is someone suggesting an independent investigation? What would that even mean? Usually the UN is the closest thing you can get to “independent” in international politics. Who could be independent? – divibisan Mar 31 '21 at 02:34
  • 1
    @divibisan I think there may be some miscommunication. There are claims that China has only allowed scientists (who went there on behalf of the WHO) limited access to investigate. According to the Washington Post: "The head of the World Health Organization, the U.S. government and 13 other countries on Tuesday voiced frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan — a striking and unusually public rebuke." – JJJ Mar 31 '21 at 03:19
  • The fact that there is no evidence of an artificial origin is not reason enough? – Obie 2.0 Mar 31 '21 at 03:21
  • 3
    @Obie2.0 no, the absence of evidence is only useful if you have been able to investigate the possibility. As the WP reports on the WHO director general: "He said there is a particular need for a “full analysis” of the role of animal markets in Wuhan and that the report did not conduct an “extensive enough” assessment of the possibility the virus was introduced to humans through a laboratory incident." Unfortunately, without new insights we can only speculate too. – JJJ Mar 31 '21 at 03:32
  • 9
    I would think that a new strain of an existing virus that is nearly genetically identical to a previous version, emerging from the same region where that virus has existed since forever, would be simple enough for people to understand to understand. But no, it could have been a secret weapon that escaped from a laboratory. Apparently a lethality rate around 1% overall, and notably lower in working-age populations, is the hallmark of an effective bioweapon these days! – Obie 2.0 Mar 31 '21 at 03:42
  • 2
    Those sneaky scientists even managed to reduce its lethality from the estimated 9.7% case fatality rate of the original SARS. Cunning! – Obie 2.0 Mar 31 '21 at 03:48
  • 2
    @Obie2.0 I'm not saying it was. Playing devil's advocate though, in conventional warfare weapons have been known to be optimized for wounding rather than killing. You'll find that the current pandemic has had far greater economic impact than previous ones, even with the reduced lethality. But yeah I guess this is getting a bit off-topic, probably a nice subject for the chat room rather than the comments here. ;) – JJJ Mar 31 '21 at 03:54
  • @Obie2.0: yeah, it's called the "make your economy more efficient = great again bioweapon!" As China is autocratic to a substantial extent, a more plausible thing would be think they wanted to get rid of [some of] their old people... but apparently that wasn't on the radar of the conspiracy theorists. In any case, the hypothesis of an accidental release from a lab doesn't really have something to do with the bioweapon one... except in the minds of the Q-anon folks. – the gods from engineering Mar 31 '21 at 08:28
  • 4
    There's a distinction between being man-made and being natural but having made the jump from bat to human in the confines of that biosafety level 4 lab in Wuhan. The former would imply something sinister by China (Q-anon folks love that). Human tampering would make its presence known in the virus's genome; there are no signs of that. The latter would imply incompetence that might downgrade that lab's BSL 4 status and that would make China look incompetent in general. From my reading, the former is universally rejected amongst virologists while a minority think the latter remains a possibility. – David Hammen Mar 31 '21 at 08:47
  • 1
    I have DV this because it presents the position of the former US administration (Trump's) as the present one's (Biden's). While Trump surely touted the "China is controlling the WHO bit" and withdrew from the WHO, Biden has reversed that and surely isn't outright claiming that China is controlling the WHO. I mean the article you link to says "China refused to provide raw data on early COVID-19 cases to the WHO-led team." So that's a weird definition of "control". – the gods from engineering Mar 31 '21 at 09:00
  • @DavidHammen - A possibility, sure. But which is more likely? That the virus was transmitted in open-air markets or one of the many other situations where a human might come into contact with wild animals with no protection, or in a heavily protected lab with a number of safety measures? – Obie 2.0 Mar 31 '21 at 13:42
  • @Obie2.0 That's why even that minority only sees this as a possibility. Regarding open air markets that sell multiple species, the presence of the virus in humans back to October 2019 pretty much shoots down the hypothesis that the virus jumped from animal to human in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market sometime between late November to mid December of 2019. That was a scapegoat hypothesis intended to absolve the Chinese government of responsibility. It remains worthwhile looking into practices condoned by the Chinese government that might have led to the outbreak of the disease. – David Hammen Mar 31 '21 at 14:00
  • 1
    @Obie2.0 Putting on my tinfoil hat, if I was an evil autocratic who wanted to create a terrible disease, I would engineer one that was highly communicable and slightly deadly. As an evil autocratic, I could easily lock infected people into their apartments and shut down travel into and out of one of my infected cities. (China did just that.) I would look with glee on stupid democratic countries that deemed any forms of mitigation to be evil. Taking off my tinfoil hat, there are no signs at all that COV-SARS-2 was engineered. That said, COVID-19 is exactly what I would create if I was evil. – David Hammen Mar 31 '21 at 14:07
  • 4
    @DavidHammen - Which just means it might have first jumped from animal to human at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, or some other market, or some completely different setting where humans interact with wild animals without protection, in October. Unless one is engaging in baseless conspiracy theories, I do not see why one would talk about the Chinese government having any responsibility for the actual emergence of the pandemic. If people are trying to make the Chinese government responsible, I would suggest they look at how it handled information from December through January. – Obie 2.0 Mar 31 '21 at 14:36
  • 2
    @Obie Baseless? All on the menu: From 'artificial' (complete synthetic?), over gain-of-function creation/breeding, over to release-on-purpose, leak-by-accident, plus info-war from Dec–March (at least, with an enormous torrent of misinfo, bad data, bad journal articles, some of them clearly intentional), to now withholding further info (locking genome data, destroying samples/evidence); anyone can choose how bad it was & is. There is some dirt to hide, no question about that, we just don't know how much. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html – LаngLаngС Mar 31 '21 at 19:59

1 Answers1

4

China is a sovereign nation. For good historical reasons, it is sensitive to any suggestion that it isn't, or that other nations can ignore Chinese sovereignty. Read up on the Opium Wars, the unequal treaties, the Boxer Rebellion.

So it is one thing for Chinese officials to invite foreign researchers and to share data, and quite another thing to give in to demands by a geopolitical rival that the rival's researchers should be allowed to roam at will.

Especially if, as it appears, Chinese domestic politics slowed the effective response against the pandemic. With that I mean an unwillingness of local officials to report a possible problem to their superiors for fear of looking bad.

But that's easy to say in hindsight. I remember the reports in Western media which blasted the first Chinese quarantine measures as authoritarian, excessive, and even barbaric. Can you imagine what they would have said if Wuhan had been quarantined at the first hint of trouble?

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • "...give into the demands of a geopolitical rival..." Are you referring to the WHO? Or just to the entire rest of the world? – ouflak Mar 31 '21 at 08:27
  • 1
    @ouflak: obviously he means the US. That the "five eyes", e.g. Australia often tag along isn't a big surprise here. – the gods from engineering Mar 31 '21 at 08:31
  • 1
    I'm not so sure it's that obvious. The WHO receives more funding from China than the US. And the WHO's final report had to be approved by China. So I think the OP's question is a valid one (despite the downvotes). Why not allow an independent investigation, one that is not beholden to the United States, China, Russia or anybody else for that matter? Completely independent. What difference would it make to their 'sovereignty' now? – ouflak Mar 31 '21 at 08:35
  • 1
    @ouflak: and who would be completely independent? The ET? Penguins? That's the problem here; China doesn't see anyone as independent enough. And even if they did see someone like that, simply agreeing is perceived slight to them. Why doesn't the US allow the ICJ to investigate anything on its land? (You could say this is whatabboutism, but it's actually a valid analogy here.) – the gods from engineering Mar 31 '21 at 08:38
  • @Fizz, I'm sure you meant "Why doesn't the US fully recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC?" But that's also a fair question. If they are independent, and frankly, if you can just ignore their conclusions anyway * shrug *, well... why not? Agreed that it would be disputed on how independent they would be. But there are international bodies that atleast claim such independence. And if the answer is that they would feel slighted and that their sovereignty. Fair enough. I still think it's fair question. – ouflak Mar 31 '21 at 08:51
  • @ouflak: I meant ICC; it's easy to confuse them. See also https://www.france24.com/en/20180910-usa-trump-threatens-arrest-icc-judges-american-soldiers-afghan-war-crimes ; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527 – the gods from engineering Mar 31 '21 at 08:52
  • @Fizz, No problem. Updated my comment. I actually did a Google search on 'ICJ investigations' wondering to myself, "Do they do that?". – ouflak Mar 31 '21 at 08:54
  • @ouflak, demands for an outside investigation were made by the previous US administration. That complicates any thought of allowing more WHO access. China could do it if they can manage the perception game. It feels it doesn't have to and makes a point of it. – o.m. Mar 31 '21 at 09:57
  • @o.m., I think this questioned is going to get closed as an attempt to descredit blah, blah, anyway. Still I wonder they 'feel' they don't have to. That's just inviting the rest of the world to make up its own mind, and on almost no evidence to top it off. Oh well. – ouflak Mar 31 '21 at 10:14
  • What's the worst that can happen for letting scientists roam at will? Isn't there a precedent other nations set for letting other countries in for an investigation? – Sayaman Mar 31 '21 at 11:47
  • @viral, those scientists would want access to patient information. Anonymized or not? Can they take samples on private property? And who gets to decide on the team setup? Does the host nation retain the right to deny visas or would even the threat of doing that be seen as influencing the outcome? – o.m. Mar 31 '21 at 15:34
  • I don't think the notion of private data or private property are valid reasons for anything in China. – acpilot Apr 02 '21 at 01:30
  • 1
    @acpilot, depends on who does the asking. The own government officials are one thing, foreign busybodies quite another. One could argue that the NSA is quite intrusive, too, but that does not mean I can demand to see the phone records of some random American ... Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Chinese government is nice, but some people hold them to standards few other governments would meet. (Compare foreign agent registration acts in the US and Russia. It would be so much easier to blame Russia if the US would just drop theirs.) – o.m. Apr 02 '21 at 06:02