The whole world is by now aware of the novel coronavirus causing the disease known as COVID-19, that allegedly originated from Wuhan City in Hubei Province, China. The said respiratory disease is a species of coronavirus in the same family of infections as SARS (2003) and MERS (2012). The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, following the exportation to other states. On March 12, WHO assessed the global situation and characterized it as a pandemic. These two levels of global health crisis have resurfaced Sinophobia and have exposed the variegated behaviors of nations amid threats to local economy.

In times like this, people virtually rely on the media for information. The problem is, we easily fall for empty rhetoric. When short of careful scrutiny, the media can serve as instruments of disinformation and can mislead the public. What is currently dominant in the discourse surrounding the health crisis is the claim that COVID-19 is a form of bio-warfare planned by the US against China. While many dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, many others buy the claim. Albeit an interesting topic to look at, the claim is beyond the scope of this essay. Nonetheless, here is a significant swath of incisive articles, carefully researched with evidence-based findings, authored by independent analysts.

Cognizant of contesting opinions and public outcry following stringent government measures, or the lack thereof, this essay aims to guide readers toward responsible understanding and judgment of the implications of the global health emergency (or pandemic, if you will) by a) dissecting the WHO semantics and identifying the parameters that define them, b) assessing the dynamics of global Sinophobia and its connotations, and c) contextualizing the pandemic in highly infected nations, particularly using the Philippines as a case in point.

Consulting the WHO Lexicon

To put our fear at the right place and time, we will shortly consult the WHO lexicon for proper understanding of the levels alerted by the organization. First is “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)”, colloquially known as “global public health emergency”. It is defined in the International Health Regulations (IHR) of 2005 merely as an extraordinary event that constitutes 1) a public health risk to other states through the international spread of disease and 2) one that may require immediate international action. By January 30 (day of the declaration), 23 states and 2 territories had confirmed cases (~9,500 cases in China, ~150 across the world, 213 deaths all in China) which account for 12% of the total states in the world.

Next is “pandemic”. The WHO has abandoned its old definition of “pandemic” as “sustained human-to-human transmission of a novel pathogen in two or more WHO regions” and instead subscribes to a more general, contentious definition of the term as “the worldwide spread of a new disease” saying “There’s no cut-and-dry criteria for what reaches the level of pandemic and what does not, and there is no threshold of cases or deaths that triggers the definition.” On March 12 (day of the declaration), there have been 125,048 reported cases and 4,603 deaths in 114 states around the world. In just 42 days, a surge of 46% of affected states has alarmed the WHO thereby declaring the outbreak a pandemic despite reluctance over “concerns that it would cause unnecessary panic“.

🚨 BREAKING 🚨 "We have therefore made the assessment that #COVID19 can be characterized as a pandemic"-@DrTedros #coronavirus pic.twitter.com/JqdsM2051A — World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) March 11, 2020

The shift in levels (PHEIC to Pandemic) connotes global action from containment to mitigation which basically implies the severity and uncontrollability of the outbreak. Nonetheless, the WHO Director-General is optimistic that the existing pandemic is one that can be controlled but at the same time “acknowledged that many countries are struggling to do so because of either a lack of resources or resolve.” Could this be the underlying cause of the alarm? Or is it primarily a result of an intersubjective dialogue between knowledge elites?

Both declarations are determined by the WHO Director-General with advice from the IHR Emergency Committee where “at least one member of the Emergency Committee should be an expert nominated by a State Party within whose territory the event arises“. Practically, this entails consent among all states with COVID-19 infections. However, the lack of public information on the parameters (i.e. required number of affected states, confirmed cases, deaths, etc.) guiding the determination of “PHEIC” and “pandemic” obstructs our analysis of the legitimacy of the declarations.



Click the image for an enlarged view (Source: WHO)

Sinophobia and Stigma

The rapid spread of COVID-19 to other states is compounded by waves of Sinophobia and stigmatization. People outside China attack its culture, people and government. The prima facie finding of the root of the virus caused aversions among outsiders who subsequently denigrated certain aspects of the Chinese culture and the Chinese government in general.

Just because the outbreak first occurred in Wuhan doesn’t make it the virus’s origin. The WHO’s research on the source of the virus is still underway. A biomedical professor and head of the infectious diseases section at L. Sacco Hospital in Milan, Italy beautifully said, “I think we have to move beyond the temptation to give nationality to diseases.” More than just breaching the WHO’s guidelines on disease nomenclatures, stigmatization can ensue from the act of “nationalizing”.

A key player in the blame game is the US. President Donald Trump received condemnation after he labeled the virus as “Chinese virus” in a tweet. Adding insult to the injury, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo intimated that the virus, which he referred to as “Wuhan coronavirus”, is China’s mess and thus is liable to cleaning it up. This is a striking example when viewed against a backdrop of hostile US-China relations. Rather than confronting the local outbreak, the US is apparently busy using the health crisis against their competition.

Screenshot from The Guardian

Screenshot from Washington Examiner

On the other hand, even before its enforcement, “social” distancing has been highly practiced by unreasonable Filipinos towards Chinese citizens (and Chinese-looking people) in the Philippines since the outbreak in Wuhan. While it has been dismissed as a “rational” response to avoid transmission — a point that is indeed hard to argue —, the unjust behavior continues in other aspects. Repulsion has become the norm as if everything about China is a disease.

Now, the stigma is afforded to all people — irrespective of race, nationality, etc. — infected with the virus. Many people under investigation (PUI) who either show symptoms, have travel history to infected places, or are exposed to infected people dodge laboratory examinations for the fear of being dehumanized. See this and this. This health insecurity creates a ripple effect on other dimensions of human security, of which personal security is mostly threatened. Stigma is so strong a word that PUIs would prefer possible infection to treatment.

In response to Sinophobia and stigma, I would borrow what one analyst calls “human rights methodology” or the methodology of promoting change by reporting facts. Choosing a reliable news source amid this crisis is a crisis in itself. One cannot even fully rely on state reporting. However, we need to note that examining the complexities of the current crisis requires massive juxtaposition of reported facts from various news outlets. To counter Sinophobia and stigma, we must take heed of the warnings and guidelines of medical practitioners, health institutions and organizations. Instead of bashing China for an allegation that is yet to be proven, many medical experts praised the nation for their exceptional efforts in finding antidotes to the disease, and in “sharing the results of research and strategies with complete openness“. The WHO also commended the state for their active measures in containing the outbreak.

The Pandemic in Context

As mentioned, the WHO has alerted the world for a “controllable” pandemic, shifting measures from containment to mitigation. This label, however, is purely semantic. There is no directive that enforces all states to take uniform action. It is still the prerogative of each state to follow the technical guidance provided by the WHO.

China, Italy, Iran and South Korea are among the most infected states whose confirmed cases amount to 88% of the world total. Highly infected areas in these states are either on lockdown, banned from large gatherings, undergoing class suspensions, or others as outlined by the WHO. China and South Korea are touted as examples of success stories (if I may) for their approaches and strategies in dealing with the crisis. A combination of technology, skilled personnel, transparency and government-citizens cooperation tells us that the contagion can be controlled. Yet is this the case with other states?

In the Philippines, the scenario is different. The attempt to save the economy from a nosedive placed the country in a lenient position amid serious outbreak in neighboring states. Despite confirmed cases in the first two months since the outbreak in Wuhan, no containment measures have been put in place. This tells a lot about state priorities. However, following the pandemic alarm from the WHO, the government has aggressively enforced the technical guidelines set by the organization in order to mitigate further outbreak in the country. Military personnel are dispatched in city/municipal borders for checkpoints while majority of the cities and municipalities are on enhanced community quarantine (a euphemism for lockdown).

In Metro Manila, the epicenter of the outbreak, city/municipal governments coordinated with civil society groups to address the needs of the frontliners (e.g. personnel in food and health services, security guards, etc.) and the indigents. Subsequently, majority are putting their respective cities/municipalities in a state of calamity in order to acquire more funds for reinforcement. FYI, RA 10121 mandates that 5% of the city/municipality’s budget should be allocated for disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM), wherein 70% of which is for DRRM activities, 30% for state of calamity. Before declaring a state of calamity just for the purpose of the acquisition of funds, transparency is key in releasing data about the whereabouts of the 70%.

On top of government efforts and civil society coordination, some private companies are likewise doing their part in these crucial times. What is undesirable is the delinquency of some citizens in taking heed of the government’s warning and their selfishness in some sort. Panic buying and hoarding are given in moments of crisis but re-selling staples tenfold borders on ridicule. This behavior emphatically puts South Koreans, among others, on a pedestal. Joseph Chung, a professor in Montreal, wrote that “many landlords of apartments, office buildings and restaurants cut rent or exempt rent for the small and marginal businesses and low-income tenants”. Many others might have already followed suit or arranged a different approach; whatever it is that they do, their nobility will resonate across borders, even after the pandemic has died down.

China, among others, has extended help to Italy, amid local efforts in confronting the virus. The US too. Many able nations will soon — if they haven’t yet — follow suit until this chain of events will change the course of the pandemic. As Gian Franco Gallo, a political risk analyst from Italy, said, “Ebola started in Africa, the Spanish flu was first found in the United States. The next one could start in Europe. The world has to work together to solve these global problems.” What a powerful statement for a rational world!

In these trying times, may we set aside all our differences and treat everyone with respect and compassion. As the WHO Director-General said, “We are not at the mercy of this virus.” The blame game will not solve the crisis. We will put an end to this pandemic through the power of international cooperation and solidarity.

Featured image: MANILA: Police began closing off access to the Philippines’ sprawling and densely populated capital Manila on Sunday, imposing a quarantine that officials hope will curb the nation’s rising number of coronavirus cases. Image Credit: Bloomberg