China Built A Lab To Study SARS And Ebola In Wuhan

China built a lab to study SARS and Ebola in Wuhan - and US biosafety experts warned in 2017 that a virus could 'escape' the facility that's become key in fighting the outbreak

The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is the only lab in China designated for studying dangerous pathogens like SARS and Ebola

Ahead of its January 2018 opening, biosafety experts and scientists from the US expressed concerns that a virus could escape the lab

In 2004, a SARS virus 'leaked' from a lab in Beijing 

Experts say the coronavirus that's infected more than 800 people mutated in animals and became capable of infecting humans at the Wuhan seafood market

But a 2017 article warned of the unpredictability of lab animals that scientists at the Wuhan lab intended to inject with viruses 

Scientists warned in 2017 that a SARS-like virus could escape a lab set up that year in Wuhan, China, to study some of the most dangerous pathogens in the world. 

Now, a SARS-like coronavirus has infected more than 800 there, spread to at least 10 other countries and killed 25 in Wuhan and nearby provinces. 

China installed the first of a planned five to seven biolabs designed for maximum safety in Wuhan in 2017, for the purpose of studying the most high-risk pathogens, including the Ebola and the SARS viruses. 

Tim Trevan, a Maryland biosafety consultant, told Nature that year, when the lab was on the cusp of opening, that he worried that China's culture could make the institute unsafe because 'structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important.'  

In fact, the SARS virus had 'escaped' multiple times from a lab in Beijing, according to the Nature article. 

The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is located about 20 miles away from the Huanan Seafood Market and some have wondered if the outbreak's epicentre is coincidental, but the scientific community currently believes that the virus mutated through and jumped to people through animal-human contact at the market. 

But, 'at this point there's no reason to harbour suspicions' that the facility had anything to do with the outbreak, besides being responsible for the crucial genome sequencing that lets doctors diagnose it, Rutgers University microbiologist Dr Richard Ebright told DailyMail.com.

The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, housed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was set up in the hopes of helping China contribute research on the world's most dangerous viruses. 

Constructed in 2015, the lab was still undergoing safety testing, but near ready to open in 2017. 

It was the first ever lab in the country designed to meet biosafety-level-4 (BSL-4) standards - the highest biohazard level, meaning that it would be qualified to handle the most dangerous pathogens. 

BSL-4 labs have to be equipped with airtight hazmat suits or special 'cabinet' work spaces that confine viruses and bacteria that can be transmitted through the air to sealed boxes that scientists reach into using attached high-grade gloves. 

There are about 54 BSL-4 labs worldwide. 

China's first, in Wuhan, received federal accreditation in January 2017. 

Upon opening, it planned to first take up a project that required only BSL-3 precautions to be in place: a tick-borne virus that causes Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever. 

It's as highly fatal disease, killing 10 to 40 percent of those it infects.  

SARS, too, is a BSL-3 virus. According to Nature's interview with the lab's director, Yuan Zhimin, the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory planned to study the SARS virus.

In January 2018, the lab was operational 'for global experiments on BSL-4 pathogens,' wrote Guizhen Wu in the journal Biosafety and Health. 

After a SARS virus escaped in a 'leak' from another lab in 2004, Chinese officials worked to improve safety, but also to expand the country's capacity to continue to study the very viruses its lab had let out. 

After a laboratory leak incident of SARS in 2004, the former Ministry of Health of China initiated the construction of preservation laboratories for high-level pathogens such as SARS, coronavirus, and pandemic influenza virus,' wrote Guizhen Wu.  

It's not clear what or where those labs were. 

The Wuhan lab is also equipped for animal research. 

In 2017, the scientists who spoke to Nature acknowledge the opportunity this presents for the development of vaccines and treatments. 

Regulations for animal research - especially that conducted on primates - are much looser in China than in the US and other Western countries, meaning these studies are less costly and face fewer barriers that could limit or slow them.  

But that was also cause for concern for Trevan. 

Studying the behaviour of a virus like 209-nCoV and developing treatments or vaccines for it requires infecting these research monkeys, an important step before human testing. 

Monkeys are unpredictable though, warned Ebright. 

'They can run, they can scratch they can bite,' he said, and the viruses they carry would go where their feet, nails and teeth do.        

THE NEW CORONAVIRUS IN CHINA TIMELINE

December 31 2019: Total of 27 suspected cases

The WHO China Country Office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. Around 27 suspected cases were reported in the month of December.

January 1 2020: Total of 27 suspected cases

A seafood market was closed for environmental sanitation and disinfection after being closely linked with the patients.

January 5 2020: Total of 59 suspected cases

Doctors ruled out severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) as being the cause of the virus, as well as bird flu, Middle East respiratory syndrome and adenovirus. Meanwhile, Hong Kong reported suspected cases.

January 9 2020: Total of 59 confirmed cases, one death

 A preliminary investigation identified the respiratory disease as a new type of coronavirus, Chinese state media reported.

Officials at Wuhan Municipal Health Commission reported the outbreak's first death on January 9, a 61-year-old man.  

January 13 2020: Total of 42 confirmed cases, one death

A Chinese woman in Thailand was the first confirmed case of the mystery virus outside of China. The 61-year-old was quarantined on January 8, but has since returned home in a stable condition after having treatment, the Thai Health Ministry said. 

January 14 2020: Total of 42 confirmed cases, one death

 The WHO told hospitals around the globe to prepare, in the 'possible' event of the infection spreading.

It said there is some 'limited' human-to-human transmission of the virus. Two days previously, the UN agency said there was 'no clear evidence of human to human transmission'.

January 16 2020: Total of 43 cases, two deaths

 A man in Tokyo is confirmed to have tested positive for the disease after travelling to the Chinese city of Wuhan.

A second death, a 69-year-old man, was reported by officials at Wuhan Municipal Health Commission. He died in the early hours of January 15 at Jinyintan Hospital in Wuhan city having first been admitted to hospital on December 31.

January 17 2020: Total of 44 cases, two deaths

Thailand announces it has detected a second case. The 74-year-old woman had been quarantined since her arrival on Monday. She lived in Wuhan.

Scientists at Imperial College London fear up to 4,500 patients in Wuhan may have caught the virus. A report said if cases are this high, substantial human to human transmission can't be ruled out.

John F Kennedy International Airport (JFK), San Francisco International Airport and Los Angles International Airport (LAX) will start screening passengers arriving from Wuhan, US officials said. 

January 18 2020: Total of 48 cases, two deaths 

Thailand steps up monitoring at four airports receiving daily flights from Wuhan. Airports in Japan, Malaysia and Singapore are also screening passengers from Wuhan, authorities said.

Four more cases have been identified in a viral pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan, bringing the total to 45 in the city alone. 

January 19 2020: Total of 65 cases, two deaths

China reported 17 more cases of pneumonia caused by a new coronavirus strain had been found in Wuhan. It takes the city's total to 62, including two deaths, and the global total to 65.

All of the cases to this point involved people either living in Wuhan or who have travelled to the city. 

Public Health England and Britain's chief medical officer said they would not be introducing screenings at UK airports at this point. 

January 20 2020: Total of 222 cases, three deaths.

China reported a sharp rise in the number of people infected with a new coronavirus over the weekend, including 136 more cases in Wuhan city, taking its total to 198.

The outbreak spread across China; five cases in Beijing, 14 in Guangdong, and one in Shanghai.

South Korea confirmed its first case - a 35-year-old woman arriving at Seoul’s Incheon airport tested positive for the virus. She had been in Wuhan the week prior. This took the total cases outside China to four.

Details were not revealed about the third death. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping said saving lives was a top priority, adding that information about the disease was being released in a 'timely manner'. 

China's National Health Commission team confirmd the virus can spread between humans.

Two patients in southern China also caught the virus from infected family members, according to local media. 

The WHO announced it would hold an emergency meeting to debate whether the outbreak should be declared an international public health emergency. 

January 21 2020: Total of 308 confirmed cases, six deaths

On this day, the death toll rose to six.

The fourth person had died on January 19, an 89-year-old man who developed symptoms, including severe breathing difficulties, on January 13.

The mayor of Wuhan announced two more victims of the lethal infection - a 66-year-old man, known only as Li, and a 48-year-old woman, known only as Yin. Both died from multiple organ failure.

Authorities also said 15 medical workers in the city were included in the confirmed cases. There is also one other suspected case. Of the infected staff, one was in critical condition.

The first American - a man in his 30s - was confirmed to have the new coronavirus outside Seattle in Washington state. 

Washington officials said he was in 'good' condition but was in isolation and being closely monitored at Providence Regional Medical Center - Everett, near his home in Snahomish County. 

The CDC announced that all passengers arriving to Wuhan from direct or connecting flights would be re-ticketed and rerouted through the three airports with screening already set up and two additional airports, Chicago O'Hare and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta. 

A Brisbane man is being held in isolation over fears he may have contracted the deadly coronavirus while in Wuhan.

Queensland's chief medical officer Dr Jeannette Young confirmed the man has been tested for the illness when he presented with flu-like symptoms after returning home. The results are still unknown.  

Australia began screening passengers arriving from a Chinese city in a bid to stop the spread, Brendan Murphy, the chief medical officer for the Australian government, said.

The Philippines also announced that it was investigating its first potential case of the coronavirus. A five-year-old child arrived in the country on January 12 from Wuhan and has since been hospitalised with flu symptoms. 

Taiwan reported its first confirmed case. Health officials announced the woman, thought to be around 50 years old, worked in Wuhan. She is currently in hospital receiving treatment, according to local media.

Stock markets in China and Hong Kong dipped today amid fears tourists will refrain from travelling. But shares in firms which make surgical face masks have surged. 

The New World Order Is Ruled By Global Corporations And Megacities—Not Countries

As cities and companies gain in influence and the power of nation-states decreases, the world is undergoing a seismic transformation.
 

Ask yourself, honestly: If Uruguay or Guinea-Bissau disappeared off the face of the Earth, would you really notice? Now what about if Google disappeared from your Internet browser or Coca-Cola from your grocery store shelves?

We all know that quite a few corporations or terrorist groups have more influence in the world than many states do, but have yet to place them all in a single framework that measures them according to their reach and relevance. And yet such a “Mindshare Matrix” is precisely what we need to properly understand the 21st century landscape of power. Rather than comparing only apples to apples (countries to countries, companies to companies) in silos–as all existing rankings of power, wealth, brand recognition, or other assets do–this matrix would place countries, cities, companies, cyber-communities, and other contenders on the same playing field.

Consider how an American or French citizen can kill in the name ISIS, a non-state terrorist regime in Syria where the civil war it stokes has caused a refugee wave of more than one million migrants into Europe alone, shaking the world’s wealthiest nations’ domestic and foreign policies. Or how Argentines have been using the cryptocurrency Bitcoin to evade their government’s capital controls, undermining a once hot emerging market’s credibility in global financial markets. Whether acting as a state or serving as the conduit to evade one, ISIS and Bitcoin—or Anonymous and Telegram—blur the traditional boundaries between domestic and international, physical and virtual. They are perfectly at home though in the Mindshare Matrix, where loyalty is up for grabs.

THE 5 “CS” OF A COMPLEX WORLD

A simple typology helps us to understand the range of players competing in the Mindshare Matrix. These are roughly the 5 “Cs”: countries, cities, commonwealths, companies, and communities. What matters more than their latent power—nuclear weapons or cash piles—is their ability to deploy resources to build leverage within the system. Power, then, is a function of connectivity—only the most connected powers can win.

Let’s start with countries. There are only a handful of “systemically relevant” countries on the global stage, to borrow a phrase from the global financial regulatory lexicon. The U.S. and China stand out as superpowers, with the U.S. leading in military and monetary terms and China edging ahead in trade and outbound infrastructure investment. China is now the largest trade partner of 124 countries, more than twice as many as the U.S. (52).

Meanwhile, second-tier states such as Russia, India, and Brazil are as fragile as they are ambitious. Emerging powers from Nigeria to Iran to Indonesia are, at most, regionally influential. As for the remaining mostly postcolonial states created since World War II, more than one hundred of them together represent less than 3% of global GDP and an even lower share of world trade—they lack both economic mass and international connectivity. What Adam Smith mused about 18th century China applies to them in spades: If it were “swallowed up by an earthquake,” even civilized observers would make little more than “melancholy reflections” and express “humane sentiments,” but ultimately would return to their business or pleasure “with the same ease and tranquility, as if no such accident had happened.” In other words, they just don’t occupy much mindshare. For better or worse, if half the countries in the world sunk into the sea, as is happening to the Maldives and Kiribati, it’s not likely it would be covered on the evening news in America (and certainly not during an election year)—unless Madonna or Angelina Jolie were on holiday or adopting a child there.

There are quite a few more systemically relevant companies than there are countries. More than 30 financial institutions have consolidated assets greater than $50 billion each—meaning each has more assets than two-thirds of the world’s countries produce in annual GDP. For hundreds of millions of customers around the world today, bank accounts are a lifeline as or more important than citizenship. Looking beyond banks, there are fewer than five countries in the world whose GDP is larger than the more than $200 billion of liquid cash Apple holds in securities worldwide, meaning Apple could buy many countries’ combined output (minus their debt). Having sold almost 2 billion products to more than one billion people, Apple not only has more money but also occupies greater mindshare than most nations as well.

Importantly, many of the world’s largest and most powerful private companies are no longer (if they ever were) agents of their “home” countries; they are becoming stateless superpowers in their own right. America’s consistent soft power appeal is rooted to some degree in the appeal of it brands: From Microsoft to McDonald’s, American companies dominate the advertising giant WPP’s brand index in visibility and reputation. But many of these companies are not so much American as “American.” Their brands transcend their national origin—as do their commercial ambitions. Whereas countries need companies as ambassadors, the reverse is far less true. It is no surprise then that Facebook or Coca-Cola can enjoy such success worldwide irrespective of foreign publics’ sentiment toward the U.S. The high-profile cases of American corporations using transfer pricing and inversions to create conglomerates domiciled in low-tax jurisdictions to evade U.S. corporate taxes are further evidence that companies increasingly view countries not as sovereign masters to be obeyed but jurisdictions to be negotiated. Just ask Halliburton—but make sure you call during daylight hours in Dubai, to which it has shifted its global headquarters.

Because foreign investment dwarfs official aid flows, and brings with it jobs, skills, and technology, companies hold growing leverage over where to locate their operations. Governments have become what early political economist Susan Strange called “supplicants” engaged in a “triangular diplomacy” with firms to attract their catalytic benefits. The first thing new Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta said (as do so many other leaders desperate to reassure markets) upon taking office in 2013 was that his country is “open for business.”

Small and weak countries in Africa and Southeast Asia are learning that the only way to have influence in a Matrix that cares more about connectivity than sovereignty is to lash together into currency and customs unions, free trade areas, or infrastructure-sharing agglomerations—anything to make them appear a larger market to invest in or to increase their bargaining power in negotiations. The Caribbean CARICOM, East African Community (EAC), and Southeast Asian ASEAN group all strive to be low-grade versions of the European Union, the archetype of the third “C”: commonwealths. The world is becoming a collection of these internally borderless mega-regional groupings–including even the South American Union and eventually, as the successor to NAFTA, a North American Union.

These commonwealths are far more relevant players than the civilizations hypothesized by the late Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. Neither Christianity nor Islam (nor any other religion) has the coherence that these regional groupings are acquiring. The European Union, for example, remains the largest economic block in the world, and the 600 million citizens of ASEAN represent a larger GDP than India and attract more FDI than China. These regional confederations are much more the building blocks of the future world order than countries.

All cities belong to some state or the other, but in the Matrix, many cities matter as much to the world as to their home country.

So too are cities (the fourth “C”). Germany may be a more important country in the world than the U.K., but London is a far more connected and influential city than any other in Europe. All cities belong to some state or the other, but in the Matrix, many cities matter as much to the world as to their home country–which is often a mere hinterland to the city. That is certainly the case in London, whose financial industry and real estate market are global centers of gravity while the city sucks all the talent from the rest of the U.K. In emerging markets, Sao Paulo, Lagos, Moscow, Johannesburg, and many other cities represent one-third to one-half of their national GDP. Developing-world megacities from Cairo to Mumbai to Manila have populations so large, and expanding geography so vast, that they have become urban archipelagos unto themselves whose orbit most “city-zens” will never actually leave. Not surprisingly, the popularity of mayors from Buenos Aires to Istanbul to Jakarta has propelled them to become heads of state in record numbers.

The 5th “C”—communities—is the ultimate expression of a Matrix world in which mindshare constitutes a discreet form of authority on par with national sovereignty. Diasporas and religious groups, to the extent they can congeal into meaningful associations, belong in this trans-territorial category. The Chinese, Indian, and Jewish diasporas, for example, are rich cultural and financial zones spanning every continent contributing to the $540 billion in remittances logged in 2014.

These are the largest of the “cloud communities” whose overall number and size are growing thanks to the Internet, which Wikileaks founder Julian Assange credits with enabling connected groups to anneal into empowered collectives. Nearly universal digital utilities such as Facebook are expected to run themselves as pro-member communities with greater, almost Constitution-like transparency within as they pursue their state-like agendas to expand connectivity worldwide to increase their user base (or membership). But social networks don’t hold sovereign territory and neither do citizens in any traditional or legal sense–rather they provide the tools for people to shape their welfare in an era where ever more of our personal, professional, and commercial life is mediated online. These ties can be used to motivate and crowd-finance virtual and real-world activities using cryptocurrencies.

Hacker groups such as Anonymous, the digital recruiting militants of ISIS, the recently terminated online drug bazaar Silk Road, the Facebook groups that helped self-organize the young revolutionaries of the Arab Spring, and many other cyber networks don’t exist just to challenge states but to serve their own agendas—often against each other. North Korean hackers steal data from Hollywood studios, Al Qaeda and ISIS compete for turf in Africa, Anonymous declares war on ISIS. If nations are merely “imagined communities” as the late Benedict Anderson famously termed it, then Facebook groups and other cloud communities can seem just as real.

FROM FOLLOWERS TO BELIEVERS

Assessing the wide spectrum of the 5 Cs together rather than separately helps us to appreciate today’s bewildering complexity. Indeed, the most fundamental attribute of our emergent global system isn’t the shift from unipolarity to multipolarity (structural change), but rather the shift from a state-centric order to a multi-actor arena (systems change). Structural change happens every few decades; systems change only every few centuries. Structural change makes the world complicated; systems change makes it complex. The forces of capital and technology, which are accelerating the rise of non-state authorities, cannot be put back in the bottle by any hegemon, whether America or China.

Have we reached the tipping point where loyalty to horizontal or digital tribes truly supersedes the sense of belonging to vertical nation-states?

The forces of capital and technology, which are accelerating the rise of non-state authorities, cannot be put back in the bottle by any hegemon, whether America or China.

The recently published Global Trends 2030 report of the National Intelligence Council titled “Alternative Worlds” includes a very plausible scenario in which urbanization, technological advance, and capital accumulation accelerate the rise of private entities who effectively govern far-flung populations through supply chains and special economic zones (SEZs). “It is as if the central government acknowledges its own inability to forge reforms and then subcontracts out responsibility to a second party. In these enclaves, the very laws, including taxation, are set by somebody from the outside. Many believe that outside parties have a better chance of getting the economies in these designated areas up and going, eventually setting an example for the rest of the country.” My only quibble with this fine analysis is that it describes the world of 2013, not 2030.

The scenario is illustrative of how supply chain operators have already begun to command loyalty. As Western governments cut public payrolls, millions of citizens have been left to fend for themselves amidst fewer benefits and higher taxes. Especially among youth, the future will be one of self-sufficiency rather than entitlement. National welfare, then, increasingly depends on the provision of employment by companies, and the economic activity and tax revenue they generate. In countries such as Greece, the lucky employed ask themselves: How much time does one spend as an engaged citizen in the public sphere, versus just getting by however one can?

For those in the developing world not fortunate to leave home, de facto loyalty shifted from state to firm long ago. From the city of Jamshedpur in India, whose company-run services make it effectively a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Steel, to FoxConn’s assembly plants across China, major corporations are not only a source of employment, but also skills training and thus relevance in the global economy. Whereas a half-century ago, there were only a half-dozen such SEZs. Today there are more than four thousand, making these new-age factory towns the world’s most rapidly spreading urban form.

The rise of thousands of pop-up cities is a major indication of the shift toward a hybrid public-private Matrix world. So too is the movement of people to them, both within and across borders. Migration provides very tangible evidence of the unmooring of nationality as the sole anchor of actionable loyalty. There are now more migrants than ever in history, nearly 300 million, with a sizeable proportion potentially never returning “home.” These hundreds of millions of expats occupy every rung of the value chain from corporate executives in Asia to third-world guest workers in the Middle East. The highest number of Americans ever recorded, more than 9 million, now live abroad, with a record number—more than 4,000—giving up their U.S. citizenship each year. Despite the high-profile efforts of Facebook to lobby for larger visa quotas to recruit programmers to the U.S., most Silicon Valley technology companies are devoting their efforts in the opposite direction: Building their presence in fast-growing emerging markets. Will America experience brain drain as the quality of life in high-growth markets improves even more?

Furthermore, the more spending power Brazilians, Nigerians, Emiratis, Russians, Indians, and Chinese accrue, the more their passports are welcome visa-free in the West. At the same time, the automatic privileges of Western passports may erode given security concerns that Canadians, Americans, Swedes, British, and French citizens could also be ISIS members. The likely solution: A blockchain-based passport system linked to individual credentials rather than national identity. Your human right to mobility will be linked more to who you are today than the incidental fact of where you were born. This is not only a wonderful potential evolution on centuries of institutional prejudice, it also implies a world full of individuals for whom geographical roots are secondary to connectedness and access. Talk of “global citizens” won’t just be reserved for idealistic Model UN conferences.

One place is already becoming a stateless melting pot: Dubai. The world’s fastest-growing city, Dubai is already populated more than 90% by foreigners and allowing in on average more than 1 million people each decade with ambitious plans to colonize the desert. The millions of foreigners in Dubai will likely never become citizens of the United Arab Emirates, yet they are increasingly loyal to the place that allows them tax-free living and nonstop global connectivity. You can measure mindshare by seeing how people vote—with their feet.

The more mobility people have—physical and virtual—the more their loyalty will pass to whomever provides them with security and skills. This is how companies excel where governments have failed.

The more mobility people have—physical and virtual—the more their loyalty will pass to whomever provides them with security and skills. This is how companies excel where governments have failed. Some companies spend more on upgrading employee skills than than entire countries do on education. WPP, whose annual profits hover around $16 billion, invests nearly $100 million per year on the training and well-being of its staff of 158,000, with greater numbers in the BRIC countries than the U.S. and U.K. combined. PWC conducts constant “re-skilling” of workers to transition to higher growth client sectors. DHL and Unilever, the world’s most extensive supply chain operators who can reach geographies that the Internet still hasn’t, sponsor frequent staff relocations to experience life with clients and counterparts in diverse markets.

Virtual connectivity is also building new and more stable loyalties. In a world that is more geodesic than geographic, the “where” becomes much less important than the “what.” Facebook’s 1 billion members therefore don’t compete with nations, they transcend them. Facebook is not a country but a conduit for generating flash mobs of allegiance. China and other countries may seek to impose an oxymoronic “network sovereignty” on free access to information within their geographic borders, but this ultimately won’t stop the flows of data that make the Internet as a whole a universe of association and competition for mindshare.

Countries run by supply chains, cities that run themselves, communities that know no borders, and companies with more power than governments—all are evidence of the shift toward a new kind of pluralistic world system. The ranks of such global authorities that belong in a holistic Mindshare Matrix are rapidly growing.