> But, do you think that people who attack or racially abuse Asians because of the virus will care that it's not in the top 200. Xi is a pretty well known name because he's China's leader, and it will most definitely be used against them.
So the fact that a very small number of people may act in undesirable ways means that we all need to walk on eggshells and treat China specially even as the country’s leadership acted in irresponsible ways throughout the pandemic? In short you’re arguing that neutrality (in naming) and accountability (due to origin) are less of a priority because of a small number of bad people? Where does that end? It feels to me a bit like caving into the terrorists’ demands and its logical conclusion seems to be “don’t say anything negative about anyone because someone may do something bad with that sentiment”.
I don’t quite understand how you associate accountability with not naming the virus Nu or Xi. There needs to be accountability for sure, and I do feel like the WHO is trying to please China in other instances.
But in this case, I feel it’s sensible. I don’t think there was any other case where the naming could’ve been easily associated with a certain group of people.
So the fact that a very small number of people may act in undesirable ways means that we all need to walk on eggshells and treat China specially even as the country’s leadership acted in irresponsible ways throughout the pandemic? In short you’re arguing that neutrality (in naming) and accountability (due to origin) are less of a priority because of a small number of bad people? Where does that end? It feels to me a bit like caving into the terrorists’ demands and its logical conclusion seems to be “don’t say anything negative about anyone because someone may do something bad with that sentiment”.