Virus, virus, everywhere

As sixth-form biology students, we learnt that viruses lie on the outskirts of life.

They need a host to replicate, which they do by “hijacking” the host’s cellular machinery, raising the philosophical question: why on earth does something on the outskirts of Life want to replicate? Why do all living (or quasi-living) beings want to replicate? What will be discussed at the End-of-Times General Meeting that makes all beings strive for their descendants to attend?

These philosophical questions lead to others, such as what possessed the Maltese to allow themselves to be infected with the Muscatvirus, allying themselves with the virus only then to see it destroy itself just to indulge its appetite for corruption?

But let’s leave Muscatvirus to its postprandial stupor, and turn our attention to the virus that in many senses is rocking us to the core.

Corona

Do you remember some time ago, a couple of pro-animalrights activists called Animal Liberation Malta staged a weird protest in which they apologised to pigs on their way to the slaughterhouse? It was given prominence mostly by Malta Today which, then, on February 14 each year for some time now, also publishes pro-abortion propaganda.

This is all in line with the mad ideas of Australian philosopher Peter Singer – so there is a sort of logic in these people’s bizarre ways.

But there’s no question: mad they are.

I was recently watching an Australian documentary on wet markets in Asia – where two things happen that should scare us to death.

One, wild animals from different continents (Africa, South America, different parts of Asia) are brought to these markets and kept together in tiny cages in small, warm places with no air flow.

Two, some of these wild animals are unprofessionally slaughtered, their meat sold for human consumption.

Why should these two things scare us?, asks the documentary.

First, because animals captured in the wild in completely different environments are kept in close proximity to each other – they might carry viruses for which they don’t all have immunity. An African animal might be carrying a virus that the body of an Asian animal has never encountered and against which it therefore has no defence. The possible consequences are selfevident.

Recall that four hundred years ago, millions of Amerindians were wiped out by the viruses the conquistadores carried with them. The historical precedent is clear.

Second reason to be scared: the human consumption of wild animals (such as bats and snakes).

Think about it: there are a myriad species of animals in the world, and yet we consume only a handful. We raise and then slaughter them, because over the centuries our bodily defences have got used to sharing our living space with them, we have bred them to produce more meat, and so on. More importantly, we make sure they are healthy. There is an entire government structure geared for this function: to ensure that no disease passes from slaughtered animal to humans. And yet, we’ve had the mad cow disease, swine flu, and other diseases, every now and then – it’s still a learning process.

But the point is that we have significantly reduced the risk of viral infection from the animals we eat, through facility management, herd management, and vaccination. Eating wild animals – that are, obviously, outside all human supervision – is highly irresponsible; it facilitates the transmission of viruses from one species to another. This is what probably happened in the case of the coronavirus. It would seem that Chinese selfstyled gourmets created the demand for bat meat (!) and the virus leapt from the slaughtered bats to the “batmen” around them in wet markets.

This is the kind of slaughter that Animal Liberation should be campaigning against. Not the controlled and humane slaughter of pigs and poultry, but the barbaric slaughter of bats, snakes, and a thousand other wild animals that should be left in the wild, away from human plates.

But Animal Liberation, keeping in tune with Peter Singer, want us to stop consuming pork! Singer also wants us to allow the slaughter of unborn babies. He explicitly argues that there are times when it’s better to save a pig’s life rather than a human embryo’s.

Pro-animal, pro-abortion lobbyists should divert their energies and attention toward the unhealthy, irresponsible consumption of bats and other wild beasts in the world’s remotest parts. Because thanks to the worldwide networks created by globalisation (Virus, virus, everywhere/And all the world did shrink), viruses travel quickly and widely, even from remote places, and we pay the price for other people’s plates and palates.

Trade wars

The opinion seems to be gaining traction that science only partly justifies the reaction to the coronavirus. In the sense that there might be the intent to inflate the fire of mass hysteria as part of the ongoing trade war with China – some quarters even claim that the coronavirus is the swansong of China as manufacturing hub.

Let’s avoid misunderstandings. I’m not subscribing to any conspiracy theory that the virus itself is part of some trade war. What I’m saying is that it seems reasonable to ask whether the management of the public reaction is part of some trade war.

So I’m referring to the psychology of the issue, not the biology.

The biology is clear: a virus seems to have crossed the border between species because silly people decided to consume wild animal meat.

The psychology is a different matter. A scientist interviewed in the Australian documentary I mentioned above, argued that this is “Nature’s” revenge for obnoxious human behaviour. Even though a scientist’s saying it, this is but pure fiction: there’s no entity called “Nature”. On the other hand, there are natural processes, which science studies. Claiming that those processes are an entity that can even will a revenge, is projecting a human quality (vengefulness) unto “something”.

But my point is the psychology of the issue. Apart from “Nature is avenging itself for human abuse”, there’s the “religious” reaction: God is punishing us for our sins through this virus.

I find both views difficult to digest. The former because there is no such thing as “Nature”. The latter because, among other reasons, I would expect God to punish the wicked, not random individuals.

However, it’s ironic that the country which has espoused some highly irreligious laws, now turns to the most pagan superstitions in its hour of need. Possibly the same electorate that put the wind in Muscat’s sails to enact laws that violate a hundred Catholic tenets, is now lighting up candles and putting flowers at the feet of statues of saints, like that of St Sebastian in Ħal Qormi. The irony’s telling! It says a lot about democracy: did the people mindfully vote for Muscat’s radical progressive programme or was it all about “Bendu’s sheep”?

Then there’s the market-oriented reaction: the virus could be a godsend in ongoing trade wars, and it goes viral in the mass media that, wittingly or unwittingly or a bit of both, orchestrate a mass panic that might usher in a world-wide recession later this year.

Prime Minister Robert Abela has been (wisely, I think) telling the Maltese to be careful but not to panic. I agree with him on this. Not because everything’s under control (which we will discover only in time, as events unfold), but because panic is in itself not good. If people panic they will offer the most exquisite excuse to the powerful not to divulge sensitive information – we already have experienced a Government (Muscat’s) that was reticent about divulging information; we don’t need to strengthen this proclivity.

But what I haven’t heard PM Abela say so far is what his administration’s thinking of doing to prepare for the recession.

Now this will be tricky. Already Muscat’s legacy was bound to have its repercussions, with or without the virus. But now, with this virus wrecking havoc all over the world, Muscat’s legacy will be compounded by the virus-induced recession.

Will PM Abela react by blaming his predecessor? Or has he got a plan in mind? And if he has got such a plan, what will it entail?