Coronavirus as a Political Factor: Western and Chinese Versions of SARS-CoV-2 Origin and the Ways of Its Treatment

The special SARS-CoV-2 commission of the World Health Organisation has lately formulated several hypotheses on potential sources of the coronavirus that need additional verification. The only concept that the commission members considered very unlikely was an artificial origin of the virus, allegedly “escaped” from the laboratory in Wuhan. But there were several scientists who did not agree with the conclusion of the commission, among them was the Russian virologist Pavel Volchkov. He did not participate in the work of the commission, nor visited Wuhan, but nevertheless he stated that the virus was most probably escaped from the Wuhan’s laboratory, because “obviously, safety measures were not followed.” This expert has been working for several years in the USA and therefore he expressed the most widespread Western version of SARS-CoV-2 origin, deliberately or unintentionally.

It is up to the specialists to decide as to the origin of the novel coronavirus, to be sure. Our intention is just to remind that, according to a similar scenario, the acquaintance of mankind with all epidemics of the last few decades took place. Many conspiracy theories about the spread of AIDS appeared lately. The major suspect was USA then. These accusations ended, as they should, with nothing, since they had not scientific, but purely opportunistic and populist origin. The same applies to the current situation.

Similar opinions of scientists backed by politicians initiated SARS-CoV-2-related political struggle between PRC and the collective West. The first steps were made by the former US President Donald Trump who directly accused the Chinese government of intentional spread of the virus across the globe. Several European officials have publicly made alike claims. In turn, the Chinese government prefers not to waste time in non-constructive discussions, but successfully solve the real problems in ensuring the health of the nation. And they were able to unify the people to fight the pandemic.

The Chinese ideology of national unity is based to some extent upon the principles of Confucianism. The imperatives of this ideology, such as humaneness, righteousness, trustworthiness, ritual propriety, wisdom, dutifulness, courage, and some others, could undoubtedly play an important role in effective mobilizing society to overcome the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. However, it should be recognised that the greatest importance in the fight against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was not only Confucian values and centuries-old traditions themselves, but the modern institutions formed on their basis and socio-economic activity in the previous period, including taking into account the experience of combating several recent epidemics (SARS-CoV 2002–2004, “bird” flu, “swine” flu, etc.). And as a result Chinese authorities managed to stop coronavirus death counter. Likewise, the rate of vaccination in China is currently one of the highest in the world.

Those Western politicians who accuse the Chinese government that it was too remiss in providing initial information about the pandemic in early 2020, thereby causing enormous damage to the whole world, are mainly focussed on demands of PRC’s paying financial fines (“contributions”) to the world community. Instead, the Chinese government proposed to supplement the Belt and Road Initiative with a new project: the Silk Road of Health for the free exchange of information and products to treat and prevent serious emerging infectious diseases, including the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Cooperation instead of confrontation in the realities of COVID-19 pandemic – this policy looks quite attractive and may give China significant advantages in Eurasia and Africa.