Connect with us

Featured

Reality Check of Australian Allegations Against China On COVID-19

Published

on

Recently, some Australian politicians and media outlets have been fabricating lies on COVID-19 of one kind or another. They have played a trick of a thief crying “stop thief” to blame China for spreading fake information.

Those preposterous allegations some U.S. politicians and media outlets fabricated to shift the blame on China for their inadequate response to COVID-19 have been proved false by media and experts.

  1. Allegation:COVID-19 virus originated in China. On April 3, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in an interview with Radio 2GB that the virus started in China and went around the world.

Reality Check: Being the first to report the virus does not mean that China is its origin. In fact, the origin is still not identified. Source tracing is a serious scientific matter, which should be based on science and should be studied by scientists and medical experts.

Historically, places that first reported a virus were often not its origin.

Viruses are the common enemy of mankind, which may appear at any time and in any place. Epidemics are natural in origin, not man-made. The origin of a virus or epidemic is a victim, not a culprit. It is unfair and unacceptable to blame it or hold it accountable.

More and more countries found cases with earlier onset and no history of exposure to China.

According to an article published by International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, the absence of a link with China and the lack of recent foreign travel suggest that the disease was already spreading among the French population at the end of December 2019. Researchers at the Sacco University Hospital in Milan, Italy, found that the strain of the virus from an Italian patient showed genetic differences compared with the original strain isolated in China.

Two residents in California’s Santa Clara County died of novel coronavirus in early and mid-February. They had no “significant travel history” that would have exposed them to the virus. If they did not contract coronavirus through travel abroad, “that means there was community spread happening in California as early as mid-January, if not earlier than that,” according to Dr. Ashish K. Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.

Dr. Peter Forster of University of Cambridge said that the earliest genome which has been placed into the database is not necessarily the origin of the disease. A study conducted by a research team of the University of Barcelona detected the presence of the novel coronavirus in waste water samples collected in Barcelona, Spain, in March 2019.

On May 19, the 73rd World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted the resolution on COVID-19 response by consensus. China co-sponsored the WHA resolution and has always been open to joint efforts by the international science community to identify the source of the virus. The resolution strictly restricts the relevant research to identifying the zoonotic source of the virus, intermediate hosts and the route of introduction to the human population, to enhance preparedness of the international community in the future.

China supports research on a global scale led by the World Health Organization (WHO) and made by scientists and medical experts based on the principle of professionalism, integrity and constructiveness.

  1. Allegation:COVID-19 may arise from the “wet markets” in China’s central city of Wuhan. Australia’s Prime Minister Morrison and Health Minister Greg Hunt had on several occasions alleged there was likelihood that “wet markets” in Wuhan were the places where COVID-19 was thought to have originated.

Reality Check: There are no so-called “wildlife wet markets” in China. What we have in China are farmers’ markets and live poultry and seafood markets. They sell fresh fish, meat, vegetables, seafood and other farm produce. A few of them sell live poultry. Basically, they are not different from the fish markets or fruit and vegetables markets in Western countries. Such markets exist not only in China, but also in many other countries. They form an important part of the supply chain for people’s everyday life. No international law restricts the opening or operation of such markets.

  1. Allegation:China did not suspend outbound international flights from Wuhan when the city was put under lockdown, thus causing the spread of the virus to the world. Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton on April 16 alleged that reports relating to Chinese flights out of Wuhan during the coronavirus outbreak demonstrated the need for “a level of transparency” on the part of the Communist Party of China. Former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said in his article on Financial Review that China tried to stop the spread of the virus to other parts of the country but “didn’t care that it could spread to other parts of the world.”

Reality Check: China took the most stringent measures within the shortest possible time, which has largely kept the virus within Wuhan. Statistics show that very few cases were exported from China.

China put Wuhan under a temporary lockdown starting January 23, meaning that there were no outbound commercial flights or train services from January 24 through April 8, including those from Wuhan to other Chinese cities and to foreign countries.

The Chinese government took the most comprehensive, rigorous and thorough measures in a timely fashion, and effectively broke the chain of transmission. According to a Science report, thanks to these measures, the number of infections in China was reduced by more than 700,000.

Australian Prime Minister Morrison claimed on March 20 that, around 80 percent of Australian coronavirus cases have been imported, and that the United States is the country of origin for most of the coronavirus cases in Australia.

The Australian Department of Health noted that only a very small portion of imported cases came from Northeast Asia. Data from Canada’s major provinces show that the virus was brought into the country by U.S. visitors. The French research institute Institut Pasteur found that the virus strain circulating locally in France is of unknown origin. None of the imported cases in Russia was from China. In Singapore, cases imported from China were less than one-tenth of those from other countries. The Japanese National Institute of Infectious Diseases believed that the strain confirmed in Japan since early March was not from China.

  1. Allegation:Australian media claimed to have secret information that the coronavirus originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. On May 2, the Australian Daily Telegraph published an article by reporter Sharri Markson that disclosed a so-called 15-page intelligence document by the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance, saying that the COVID-19 virus may have originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Reality Check: All available evidence shows that COVID-19 is natural in origin, not man-made.

On February 19, The Lancet published a joint statement by 27 leading medical experts from eight countries, indicating that scientists from multiple countries have published and analyzed genomes of coronavirus, and they overwhelmingly concluded that this virus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens.

On March 17, five prominent scholars from the United States, Britain and Australia pointed out on Nature Medicine that the evidence shows that coronavirus is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.

On April 21, WHO spokesperson Fadela Chaib said at a news briefing that all available evidence suggests the virus has an animal origin and is not manipulated or constructed in a lab or somewhere else.

On May 1, Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Program Michael Ryan said that numerous scientists have looked at the genome sequence of this virus and they were assured that this virus is natural in origin.

The deputy director of German federal intelligence agency doubted the so-called report by the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance and asked the alliance for evidence to support the allegations that the coronavirus originated from a Chinese laboratory. However, none of the five countries’ intelligence agencies said they had released relevant reports.

The Australian government and officials also questioned the document, arguing that the so-called intelligence was only a patchwork based on media reports. An Australian source believes that the so-called secret document might be leaked to the Australian Daily Telegraph by the U.S. Embassy in Australia.

  1. Allegation:The draft resolution of the WHA is the result of Australia’s promotion. Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said in a signed article published on The Australian on April 22, that Australia will work with countries that share the same values to set aside the WHO and initiate an independent international review into COVID-19 response. However, Payne told press later that relevant content of the WHA draft resolution drafted by the European Union was first proposed by Australia and her government had been focused to ensure the review “comprehensive, impartial, independent.” Some media outlets, such as The Australian, also worked with the Australian government, saying that Australia’s claims have been widely supported by the international community.

Reality Check: The WHA resolution is one thing, while the so-called “independent international review” previously proposed by Australia is a different kettle of fish.

The 73rd WHA adopted by consensus a resolution on COVID-19 response on May 19. On the evaluation of WHO response, the resolution decides that the evaluation should be initiated by the Director-General in consultation with member states to review experience gained and make recommendations for future work.

The relevant resolution proposes to initiate at the appropriate moment an evaluation rather than to launch an “independent international review” instantly, confirms WHO’s leading role instead of adopting another mechanism, and calls for an evaluation of experience gained and lessons learnt from the WHO-coordinated international health response, rather than an inquiry based on the presumption of guilt targeting any country.

The so-called “independent international review” proposed by Australia is purely political maneuvering under the pretext of COVID-19. Australian politicians took an exclusive attitude towards WHO when proposing the so-called “independent international review,” and the intention of conducting investigations based on the presumption of guilt against China is very obvious.

. Allegation: Chinese companies have snapped up medical protection materials in Australia.

Australian media such as the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian and 2GB Radio described the humanitarian action of Chinese companies and businessmen in purchasing medical supplies as a “scandal” supported by the Chinese government, saying the purchase in February by Chinese companies may have contributed to shortages of products in Australia in March when the epidemic became severe.

Reality Check: When Chinese companies purchased supplies in Australia in February, the epidemic had not yet spread and there was no shortage of medical supplies in the country.

China was at a critical stage in the fight against COVID-19 in late January and early February, and Chinese companies’ purchase of medical supplies in Australia was to help China tide over the difficulties. There is no difference from Australian companies’ purchase of medical supplies from China later, in April.

In fact, Chinese companies have stopped purchasing medical supplies in Australia since March.

  1. Allegation: The Chinese eat bats. On some Australian media and social media platforms, there are pictures and videos of wild animal markets selling bats and pythons, vilifying the Chinese for eating bats.

Reality Check: The shooting location of the content is not China. Bats have never been part of Chinese menu. And, Wuhan’s Huanan seafood market, where cluster cases were identified in the early days of the epidemic, did not and does not sell bats.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Featured

How Ogundiya Folarin Oladapo Crossed The Border For Safety

Published

on

Ogundiya Folarin Oladapo. Is a Nigerian citizen from Ijebu North Local Government Area of Ogun State. Ago Iwoye, a relative, spoke to our reporter extensively about the whereabouts of Ogundiya and the circumstances that compelled him to flee the country and why he may be scared to return.

According to Mr Iwoye, Ogundiya was faced with persecution and threats to his life owing to his sexual orientation. He was born and raised in Ogun State, Nigeria. He grew up in an environment where family, community, culture and religious beliefs played important roles in everyday life. Ogundiya had always considered his hometown a place of belonging. His family, childhood experiences, friendships and memories were all connected to that environment.

Ogundiya is a quiet, simple and easy-going person. He had never been someone who enjoys conflict or confrontation. His greatest desire was to live an ordinary life, maintain meaningful relationships and build a future for himself.

However, there is a deeply personal aspect of his identity that has made living in Nigeria extremely difficult for him. He is a bisexual. Yes! I don’t think he chose to be so. And it is not something he can simply change because of the expectations of society. His sexual orientation is part of who he is.

Growing up in Nigeria, he understood that same-sex relationships were strongly condemned by many people. He knew that being identified as a gay or a bisexual could result in discrimination, rejection, humiliation, violence and serious legal consequences.

For these reasons, Ogundiya, I presumed, kept his sexuality private. He did not feel safe openly discussing his feelings or relationships. He was constantly conscious of the possible consequences if people discover this aspect of his life.

He was not hiding because he was ashamed of being human. He was hiding because he was afraid of what people might do if they found out.

On 21st September 2026, his life took a frightening turn. His mobile phone was faulty and he needed to make some important calls, so he took his younger brother’s phone, to make a call to his work place, but unfortunately the first message that popped in was that of his partner who had been worried for not reaching him for some days and wanted to pass an important message to him, his brother saw the message first and all the doubt about his sexually orientation was cleared as he has been so suspicious of Ogundiya for some time because of his closeness to his partner whom they always disguised as friends. He immediately reported to other members of his family. Part of the message read:

“Guy, we are in big trouble. Our romantic secret is now public. Someone was monitoring us. Please, stay in the dark for now.”

When he received and understood the seriousness of that message, he became extremely worried. It suggested that someone had been monitoring their private relationship and that information about them had reached other people.

What he had spent a long time keeping private was suddenly exposed.
The discovery also came as a shock to his family because they had not previously known about his bisexuality. He was frightened about their reaction and, more importantly, about the possibility that other people in the community would find out.

The situation quickly escalated, because his brother told one of his friends who also told other people in their small community. Surprisingly, a group of people gathered around his family residence, demanding to see Ogundiya, they were angry about his sexuality and were making threatening statements.

He could hear people saying he is gay and calling for his punishment. Some were demanding that he should be killed through mob justice, while others were threatening to hand him over to the police for prosecution.

At that moment, Ogundiya realised that his life was in danger.
He was terrified when he realised that the people gathering outside were looking for him.
He could not confidently rely on anyone to protect him and he knew that remaining inside the house could expose him to serious harm.

In the confusion, Ogundiya managed to escape through a latrine window and made his way into the nearby alleyways.

He left without shoes and sustained bruises during his escape; no opportunity to collect his belongings or make any proper arrangements. The only important things he managed to take with him were his passport and a small envelope containing some emergency money.

As he moved away from the house, people were shouting accusations and threatening to deal with him because of his sexuality, some of their allegations were that if he is allowed to stay alive that he will influence younger people in the community. “As for me, as his relative, I can’t contribute to harming him because I didn’t create him.” Owoye said.

Ogundiya was deeply frightened. He could not believe that the place where he had grown up and lived with his family had suddenly become somewhere he could no longer feel safe.

He had not committed any act of violence against anybody. He was being threatened because of his sexual orientation and a private relationship. But to be honest, both our tradition and the government law forbid such practices among men. Even women are forbidden to indulge in same sex relations, it is a grievous taboo and it could attract serious consequences such as death, Iwoye said.

“The possibility of being attacked by a mob was particularly frightening because he knew how such situations could become uncontrollable. He was also afraid of being arrested and prosecuted under Nigeria’s laws concerning same-sex relationships.”

But the public may want to know how he fled the country? I can only attribute it to divine powers. Because all of us are sinners. Maybe the Almighty God has not finished with him.

However, Ogundiya told me that initially, he considered relocating to another state in Nigeria. He thought that perhaps moving far away from Ogun State would allow him to start again without the people who had threatened him knowing where he was.

However, the more he considered this option, the more afraid he became.His concern was that the hostility towards people with his sexual orientation was not limited to his hometown. He feared that he could face similar treatment elsewhere if his sexuality became known.
He was also worried about the legal consequences of being identified as bisexual and the possibility of being reported to the authorities.

He did not believe that simply moving to another state would provide lasting protection. He could potentially spend the rest of his life hiding his identity, avoiding relationships and constantly worrying about being discovered.
He, therefore, began looking for a way to leave Nigeria.

His decision was not motivated by a desire to abandon his family, culture or country. He left because he was afraid for his life and believed that remaining in Nigeria would expose him to further persecution.

Because he had limited resources and did not know how to arrange a safe journey out of Nigeria, he began looking for assistance.

During this period, he came into contact with a man named Chinedu, who was from the eastern part of Nigeria.

He told him that he could facilitate his movement across the border into a neighbouring country. He demanded a substantial amount of money for the journey and assured Ogundiya that he could help him get across.

He was desperate to leave Nigeria. He was frightened, vulnerable and had very few alternatives. He eventually paid the amount he requested because he believed that Chinedu would help him reach safely.

Unfortunately, the journey did not turn out as he had expected.
At some point during the journey, he was taken to a rural transit camp. The location was unfamiliar to him and he had limited access to money, communication and independent means of travelling.

Ogundiya became increasingly dependent on Chinedu because he did not know the area or how to continue the journey alone.

It was during this period that Chinedu allegedly began taking advantage of his vulnerability.
He experienced sexual molestation, physical coercion and intimidation. Ogundiya was subjected to unwanted advances and pressure, accompanied by threats that he could be abandoned or handed over to local police or hostile individuals.

He felt completely helpless. The person he had trusted to help him escape danger had become another source of danger.

He was particularly frightened because he had already experienced threats in Nigeria and did not want to find himself in another situation where his sexuality could be used against him.

The experience affected Ogundiya deeply. He felt violated, humiliated and emotionally overwhelmed. He found it difficult to speak about what had happened because of the shame and fear associated with the experience.

He had left his home in search of safety, but he found himself being exploited by someone who knew how desperate he was.

Eventually, he found an opportunity to escape from the transit camp.
He left during the night and began walking along isolated dirt roads. He did not have a reliable means of transportation, and he was uncertain about where the roads would lead.

He continued walking because he was afraid of being discovered and taken back.
After walking for several miles, he eventually reached a major humanitarian post near the border. By then, he was physically exhausted and visibly distressed.

He stopped to rest because he was struggling to continue walking.
He was pale, tired and emotionally drained. He had experienced more than he could easily explain, and he desperately needed assistance.

While he was resting near the humanitarian post, a Nigerian man travelling by car towards the neighbouring country noticed him.
He stopped his vehicle and approached Ogundiya. He introduced himself as Olamide, a Yoruba man from Osun State.

Initially, Ogundiya was afraid to speak to him. After his last experience with Chinedu, he found it difficult to trust another stranger.
However, when he discovered that Olamide was also Yoruba, he became a little more comfortable.

Eventually, he explained what had happened to him to Olamide. He told him about the threats against him in Ogun State, the circumstances surrounding his escape from home, his journey with Chinedu and the exploitation he had experienced at the transit camp.

Ogundiya became emotional while explaining everything because the experience had been extremely traumatic.
Olamide listened to him and appeared deeply affected by his account.

Olamide told Ogundiya that his circumstances reminded him of his younger biological brother, who had reportedly experienced a similar situation after his bisexuality became known.

He explained that his brother had narrowly escaped mob violence and had subsequently been assisted in travelling to Europe because of fears of persecution and prosecution in Nigeria.

Olamide introduced himself as a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and said he would try to assist Ogundiya in finding safety abroad.

He promised to help arrange his journey to Europe, where he could seek protection and have an opportunity to rebuild his life.

At that point, he was emotionally exhausted and uncertain about what would happen next. However, his offer gave Ogundiya some hope that he might finally escape the circumstances that had placed his life in danger.

A few weeks after meeting Olamide, he fulfilled his promise and arranged for Ogundiya to travel to Dublin, Ireland.

His arrival in Ireland was a significant moment in his life. He had gone through fear, uncertainty, threats, exploitation and a difficult journey before eventually reaching a place where he could seek protection.

He was relieved to have reached Ireland, although the experiences he had gone through continued to affect him emotionally.

He is afraid to return to Nigeria because the circumstances that forced him to leave have not been resolved.
His sexuality was exposed in his community, and he was threatened by people who wanted to punish him because of it.

He fears that if he returns, he could be recognised, exposed again or subjected to further threats and violence.

Ogundiya is also afraid of the possibility of being reported to the police and facing prosecution under the laws criminalising same-sex relationships and conduct.

The experience of escaping from his family home remains deeply distressing. He remembered having to leave through the window, without shoes or belongings, because he feared what the people outside might do to him

He also cannot forget the exploitation he experienced during his journey. He had trusted someone because he was desperate to escape persecution, only to find himself in another frightening situation.

These experiences have made him fearful of returning to the circumstances from which he escaped.

He did not believe that moving to another part of Nigeria would necessarily resolve his difficulties. His concern is that the underlying hostility and legal risks associated with his sexual orientation would remain.

He wanted to live in a place where he could exist without constantly fearing that his identity would become a reason for violence, humiliation or imprisonment.

He did not leave Nigeria because he wanted to abandon his country or because he was looking for an easier life elsewhere.

He left because he was frightened for his safety and believed that he had no realistic way of protecting himself in the circumstances he faced.

He lost the security of his home, became separated from the people and surroundings he had known throughout his life, and experienced further exploitation while trying to escape.

The journey to Ireland was difficult, but it offered him an opportunity to seek protection and live with dignity.

He respectfully asks the Irish authorities to consider his circumstances, the threats he experienced, his sexual orientation, the circumstances of his departure from Nigeria and his genuine fear of returning.

He wanted an opportunity to rebuild his life without having to hide who he is or live under the constant threat of violence and persecution.

What can one do? Here in Nigeria, same sex relationships are prohibited and myself and others of his relatives wish that he lives his life as his God created him. Ogundiya had wanted a simple life without fear or threat of prosecution.

Continue Reading

Trending

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)