CHINESE VIRUS AND WUHAN VIRUS: WHY SO MANY NAMES?

In times of evolving definitions of racism, COVID-19 has been surrounded in controversy in the arena of politics with the naming conventions of the coronavirus. With people debating about calling the sickness a “Chinese virus” and some calling it a “Wuhan virus,” it has struck a chord, both among those who declare the names racist and those who defend it.

While there are cases made for both of these being deemed inappropriate names, there is a precedent of calling diseases names based on geography.

In regards to the Chinese virus label, I believe that the name is ultimately inappropriate. This is NOT because the name is possibly racist, but rather that it is too broad of a name and sets a precedent that is somewhat questionable. China has a population of about 1.5 billion, and that is not including those citizens elsewhere who also have Chinese as an official language, including people in Singapore, Taiwan, Macau, etc.

This is inefficient naming, and should not be used, as it could lead to wrongful blame placed on the Chinese people. As for precedent that would support calling coronavirus a Chinese virus, past history is, honestly, questionable. Some would argue that there is a history of calling diseases after the country in which were primarily noticed by the public, notably the Spanish Flu (1918-19 global influenza outbreak). However, it should be noted that the first diagnosis of the Spanish Flu epidemic was not made in Spain; it was because journalists in Spain were very aggressive in their coverage in the spreading flu, unlike the media elsewhere as the U.S. and Europe were waging World War I.

I do, however, believe that naming the novel coronavirus after Wuhan is appropriate. There is a strong enough precedent to support naming an illness after the city or precise location where the disease was first diagnosed. This is much more specific and is less likely to stigmatize the country where the disease emerged.

There are specific examples in history where this was done. Lyme disease was named after the city of Old Lyme, in Connecticut. It would be inappropriate instead to refer to it as the “American disease,” as the U.S. is a diverse country, just like China. Most famously, the Ebola virus was named after the Ebola River within the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Ebola virus is specific enough to not be confused with, and stigmatize, the entire DRC.

Overall, naming a new disease after the entire country of origin is a poor choice, as it’s inefficient. The whole medical community should start making the effort to consistently name diseases after the city, or other specific location, where it was first found. Even better, giving the disease its own name – such as “novel coronavirus” or “COVID-19” does an even better job of being efficient, while causing no stigmatization.