The Observer view on the coronavirus outbreak
The world’s most populous country yesterday celebrated the lunar new year, usually a time of family reunion and joyful celebration. For many Chinese people who have moved away from their place of birth, it is the one time of year they get to visit their familiesThis year the coronavirus outbreak has profoundly muted the celebrations in China, with several cities in lockdown, the imposition of quarantine measures unprecedented in their scale, and many citizens anxious about their own health and that of their families.
The Chinese have borne the brunt of the outbreak so far: coronavirus is known to have killed more than 40 people, and infected another 1,300. But the first cases have already been recorded in the US, Australia, and – on Friday – in Europe.
Like Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome, also a coronavirus), bird flu and Ebola, this coronavirus is a zoonotic virus, transferred from animals to humans. In this case, scientists think it is likely to have come from bats or snakes in a live food market in the Chinese city of Wuhan. It is not yet known how infectious it is, and there are fears that it could yet lead to a global pandemic. Although its symptoms currently appear to be less severe than Sars, it may mutate.
China’s response stands in stark contrast to the Sars outbreak in 2002-2003, and has won it international plaudits. In 2002, China tried to cover up the spread of Sars: newspapers were forbidden from reporting it, public health officials told citizens there was nothing to worry about, and little was done to stop the deadly virus spreading across China.
This time the authorities have been more open: they promptly informed the World Health Organization, shared the virus’s genetic sequence with the rest of the world and imposed strict travel restrictions and quarantine conditions affecting more than 50 million people. There are, however, concerns that the unprecedented scale of this quarantine – only possible because of the authoritarianism of the Chinese government – could risk counterproductive levels of anxiety and panic. Outside China, the global response has also been reassuring in the main. There is no cure for this particular virus, but work is under way to develop a vaccine.
What this outbreak does reveal, however, is a global failure to take action to minimise the risk of zoonotic viruses jumping species from animals to humans. We are relatively fortunate that, so far, this virus is not as deadly as Sars or Ebola. But there is a very real risk of this happening again.
Eating or transporting and trading wildlife is associated with a heightened risk of these viruses transferring to humans. In some areas, abject poverty pushes people to consume bush meat; Ebola is thought to have originated in wild bats that were killed for food, and in China and other parts of south-east Asia, eating wildlife is considered to be a symbol of wealth and social status, and beneficial to human health. The risk here lies in “wet markets” where live and dead animals are in close proximity. The markets continue to exist because of consumer preference: some older people in China, who grew up without refrigerators, are more comfortable buying meat from animals that are freshly slaughtered.
But they provide ideal conditions for new and dangerous viruses to emerge. The Chinese authorities did try to clamp down in the immediate wake of the Sars outbreak, but many markets continue to flourish.
From the spread of zoonotic viruses to the growing threat of antibiotic resistance and the climate crisis, the most existential challenges we face are truly global. They make a mockery of outdated notions of national sovereignty; the idea that so long as we exert control within our tiny corner of the world, everything will be fine. Global challenges like these will test to destruction the ability of transnational institutions such as the WHO, the EU and the World Trade Organization to chivvy along global coordination. They serve as a grave warning to those who would bury their heads in isolationism.
