Naming it right — COVID-19 and its variants
Giving something a different, less well-thought-out name might lead to disastrous outcomes
When the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus began to spread worldwide last year, many scrambled to break news every day about the impending pandemic. Those who broke the news referred to it as the Wuhan virus. The first use of this term began in January 2020. News outlets, politicians and experts — many of these professionals repeatedly used this term, or variations which included Wuhan, to talk about the situation in early 2020.
On 11 February 2020, Dr Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the official name for the disease will be COVID-19 during a media briefing. He listed a number of guidelines the organization had to follow in accordance with agreements made with the World Organisation for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations before naming the disease as such. This included not naming it after any geographical location or people, and ensuring that the name can be easily pronounced. He added:
“Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatizing. It also gives us a standard format to use for any future coronavirus outbreaks. “— Dr Tedros Adhanom
While most adopted the official name immediately, some, including former US President Donald Trump and politicians in Italy, Germany, France and Brazil, remained defiant and continued to perpetuate racist and xenophobic rhetorics. Some demonised the Chinese with theories that the virus had spread like wildfire in China due to their supposed barbaric lifestyle and lack of sanitation. Others spread conspiracies that the virus was created by China to “dominate the world”. While none of these claims is true, the effect had already been felt.
In a report by Human Rights Watch in May 2020, it was found that many countries had begun to witness a dangerous rise in racist and xenophobic sentiment against Asians, especially Chinese. This included countries like the US, countries in Europe, Japan and South Korea. Verbal abuses were hurled, businesses owned by ethnic Asians were vandalised and people were assaulted brutally.
Singaporeans were not spared from the attacks — A 23-year-old Singaporean man studying in the UK was attacked in London while an 18-year-old Singaporean woman and her Malaysian friend studying in Australia were attacked in Melbourne. Perpetrators for both assaults had also uttered xenophobic and racist remarks, blaming the victims for the pandemic and demanding, with threats, that they leave their countries.
It was evident that the rhetoric of the virus being Chinese-made or that the Chinese were responsible for the plight of the world made them easy targets for people to vent their anger on.
The ugly impact of anti-Chinese rhetoric has clearly not left us, instead, this sentiment has grown in reach. Anti-Asian sentiment is on the rise as attacks continue to occur in the US, Europe and Australia. However, this sentiment might just receive yet another push.
This time, the problem might just be at home — Singapore.
As Singapore heads into Phase 2 (Heightened Alert), many Singaporeans will have noticed that one of the major reasons for the sudden increase in the number of community cases is the presence of COVID-19 variants. On 3 May, Singapore’s Ministry of Health (MOH) reported the following:
…eight local cases with the B.1.351 (S. African) variant, seven local cases with the B.1.1.7 (UK) variant, seven local cases with B.1.617.2 (Indian) variant, three local cases with P1 (Brazilian) variant, three local cases with B.1.617.1 (Indian) variant, and one local case with B.1.525 (UK2) variant. In addition, there were four re-infection cases RI16, RI17, RI18 and RI20 with the B.1.351 (S. African) variant. — MOH’s updates on local situation, border measures and shift to heightened alert to minimise transmission, 4 May 2021
Viruses mutate all the time. Sometimes they die off as a result, while other times, they become more easily transmissible or lethal. In this case, the variants detected in Singapore have been found to be more easily transmissible — which contributed to the rise in the number of cases.
As the COVID-19 restrictions took effect, some people took to social media platforms to rant about the sudden spike and attributed it to certain groups of people — specifically those arriving from South Asia. While it is understandable that people have qualms against letting people arrive in Singapore from high-risk countries, the ensuing xenophobic and racist remarks are far from justifiable. Sure, one can definitely question why the government continues to keep our borders relatively open (Stricter restrictions have been put in place since May 2021). While I am convinced by the government’s explanation, some may not and it is their right to disagree. However, no one should have to bear insults or attacks on their ethnicity or nationality just because their country is in a dire situation.
Furthermore, unfortunately, these rants have also been directed towards our Indian-Singaporean community.
Let us step backwards — in the report by MOH, the variants are labelled with their official names with the country where they were first detected added in brackets. The report was written as such to notify people of where the variants were first detected, not to label the variants as a country’s variant. Basically, the B.1.617.1 variant was labelled as the “B.1.617.1 (Indian) variant” to denote its first appearance in India. This does not mean that the variant is India’s nor the Indian people’s.
Strictly speaking, the WHO had stated specifically that the terms “Indian variant”, “South African variant’ or “UK variant” are unofficial and inappropriate. Referring back to the guidelines WHO had to follow while deciding the name for COVID-19, one of the guidelines was to refrain from naming the virus after any geographical location. However, the names of the variants are certainly confusing for the average joe.
In short, the current naming system we see commonly used traces its roots to the initial outbreak in China in 2019. Named as the PANGO (Phylogenetic Assignment of Named Global Outbreak) Lineage, viruses detected were grouped under the A or B lineage. Following that, the next significant lineage comes from the outbreak in Northern Italy. The mutation of the virus there forms the first descendant of the B lineage — B.1. Hence, all variants starting with B.1 are linked to the variant that struck northern Italy. For example, B.1.617, which was first detected in India, is the 617th descendant of the variant that struck northern Italy.
Lineages can accommodate up to 3 decimal points when mutations are observed from a lineage — thus variants in India labelled B.1.617.1, B.1.617.2, B.1.617.3. If the mutation of the variant is too significant or the labelling becomes too confusing, a different alphabet can be used to label the variant. Hence, the B.1.1.28 variant, first detected in Brazil, is also known as the P.2 variant.
Interestingly (or perhaps not), this is only one of the many naming systems used by scientists and researchers. Yet, that is the point here — these nomenclatures are meant for scientists to trace the mutations more easily and to communicate with their peers more effectively. These labels are not tailor-made for the average joe and hence, many have sought to use geographical locations to refer to the variants.
However, as pointed out by epidemiologist Salim Abdool Karim, doing so will mislead people and stigmatise the country that the variants are named after. While the B.1.351 variant was first detected in South Africa, scientists cannot ascertain who patient zero is which means that the source might not be from South Africa. Likewise, despite the fact that the 1918 flu pandemic was first reported in the US, many have wrongly assumed that the Spanish flu originated from Spain (due to a lack of data, the origins cannot be ascertained accurately) or that Spain was the worst hit.
But why are we not coming up with different names for the variants? People are looking to the WHO for a new nomenclature that will be easily pronounced and remembered, and will not stigmatise any country or community. However, despite their initial discussion of a new nomenclature in January 2021, as of now, there has not been any standards provided and we are left with a terribly confusing nomenclature for people who just want to be updated with the news. Suggestions by the public have popped up but without the WHO or a majority of scientists on board, the status quo remains.
As the WHO continues to ponder over how variants should be called, one thing we can do is to avoid improperly attributing the variants to any countries or communities. When we are sharing information online, avoid labelling the variants as <country’s variant> or attributing a variant to a community. Understandably, during our daily conversations with our friends and family, it may be difficult to use the Pango Lineage or other scientific labels to refer to the variants. It certainly seems ridiculous having a conversation while having to refer to our phones repeatedly to know which variant someone is referring to.
Hence, without an official label that is easily pronounced and remembered, many people will still go on with their lives calling the variants however they want to. While politicians, news outlet and other official sources of information should keep to the scientific labels, it seems unreasonable to fault the average joe for using geographic locations to refer to them — after all, that is how most of us remember them.
Yet, we have to understand that the geographic locations we are using are nothing but the locations where the variants were first detected. It does not signify where it was first developed. Singaporeans, especially people who have been putting the blame on Indians or Indian-Singaporeans, have to understand that.
“We felt indignant when Asians were attacked merely because of their race in other countries. Let us not allow such behaviour to take root here. As we battle this unprecedented pandemic, it is more important than ever for our communities to band together and foster stronger cohesion.” — Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu
