Wuhan lab theory dark cloud on China
Holman Jenkins
WSJ
March 10, 2021
A lab accident in Wuhan is unlikely only in the sense that a pandemic virus’s emergence is always the culmination of a series of unlikely events. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here as a species.
This trillion-to-one collision of circumstances can be simplified in one obvious way. Say, if a human agent collected the most dangerous viruses to study them in the middle of one of the densest population centres on earth. These experimenters would at least have been alert, if all other precautions failed, to a co-worker developing unexplained symptoms. Except that the Sars-Cov-2 virus, once it was loose in a human crowd, showed that it can be spread by people who never develop symptoms.
Preventing future pandemics, being better prepared next time — these are the reasons given for trying to understand how the new coronavirus emerged. But one instance of a virus bridging the species gap the natural way might be an anecdote that doesn’t tell us much about the next risk. The lab theory is the big fork in the road. We might have to reset our risk perceptions dramatically — worry less about humans messing around in animal habitats, worry more about scientists messing around in labs.
On that basis alone, the lab theory is the most important informational chokepoint as we move ahead. But there’s another reason. If the lab theory remains unresolved, especially if China’s refusal to co-operate makes it unresolvable, it will hang over global politics for decades to come even without conspiracy theorists and demagogues taking a hand.
Alas, the World Health Organisation mission is turning into a case of disaster foretold. A credible inquiry requires China’s full co-operation, not just co-operation with those lines of inquiry that are consistent with its own propaganda. And couldn’t somebody have put Peter Daszak, team member from New York City’s EcoHealth Alliance, under permanent mouth quarantine?
To insist that human encroachment on nature is the great risk tells us nothing about what happened in this particular case. To insist, as he did on NPR, that China’s manhandling of the delegation with greeters in full hazmat garb, its forcing of the delegation into quarantine for 14 days, was merely testament to China’s Covid rigour overlooks another possibility: China was seeking to intimidate and dominate the investigators because of the colossal importance it places on controlling the virus narrative.
The WHO’s report, expected next week, need not be a failure if seasoned with proper scepticism. China would have been hard-pressed not to let some new information out of the bag, adding to our store of knowledge. That Beijing emphasised the theory that the virus entered the country in imported frozen food at least tells us about China’s propaganda strategy. This is worth knowing but the WHO’s own gratuitous nods to the frozen-food theory raise anew the question of who really controls the World Health Organisation and to what end.
Mr Daszak tweeted that the group’s meeting with the Wuhan virus lab staff went swimmingly, “key questions asked & answered.” He might have expected a warm welcome since his organisation channelled US research dollars to the lab at one time. Assurances mean nothing without access to the lab’s records. Deleted web pages have been recovered referring to experiments with rabbits and ferret badgers, animals seen as likely vectors for human infection. The lab is reputed to have engaged in “gain-of-function” experiments with bat viruses to which the new coronavirus is closely related.
China could have other reasons, of course, for keeping lab data secret. Its most implausible stonewalling is its unwillingness to supply “highly confidential” patient samples that might show where and when the virus was present prior to the Wuhan outbreak. And it’s obvious why: China has latched onto the good work done in other countries to identify early unrecognised cases of COVID-19 to suggest the virus originated elsewhere and was brought to Wuhan by foreign devils, never mind the virus’s close similarity to bat viruses found in China’s Yunnan province.
It’s time to be realistic. Mr. Daszak and most others long ago figured out there won’t be an unimpeachable answer to the origin question, only a battle of narratives. Politics was destined always to swamp the hunt for COVID-19’s beginnings. The global scourge has become too politically explosive. There was zero chance of China letting the chips fall where they may. There is little chance of the US sacrificing its other dealings with Beijing to get to the bottom of the mystery. In that sense the big “kick me” sign the WHO has placed on itself may be convenient for all who want to get back to relations as usual. Yet I would not bet on the lab theory going gently into that good night. This would be another highly unlikely event given the longstanding fears voiced by so many scientists over the years that such an accident might be the world’s biggest pandemic risk.
