You basically state that they're not perfect but they got this right. As Yorkie pointed out, China forcefully quarantined people who had symptoms in large government run buildings, people weren't even allowed out of their house to go to the shops or exercise, a case of the "cure" being significantly worse than the disease.
You my friend have just won the Internet lol
I have just had to re-read all my posts in case I gave the wrong impression. No, I did not say they got this right. There were plenty of things they got wrong, but evidently they got something right (which is very different to saying they got this right), and enjoyed relative success compared to the west as the figures speak for themselves. Even for argument's sake we dismiss the figures as complete poppycock, they largely managed to contain the pandemic in the space of 3 months, with only local outbreaks since then, and an economy although bruised still expected to grow this year. We are 9 months into the pandemic with no sign of the turning point, and an economy which is forecast to feel the pinch for many years to come, yet some people are showing a readily dismissive attitude about their achievement and attempting to justify the attitude with reasons either wholly unrelated to the pandemic or selected cases of wrongdoing during the pandemic. I respect people's right to hold different views, but I find that attitude very disappointing. No one is beyond criticism, especially the CCP, but to refuse to acknowledge what others did well because of such criticism is somewhat unwise and narrow-minded in my opinion. As I alluded to in another thread, whatever China did is not something the west can readily copy, but there may be things in their experience we may find useful, or lessons we can learn.
No, communist party officials are not unknown for forcing their measures on people. For the first month following the outbreak (late January but obviously cases were circulating before then), it was pretty chaotic. Incorrect advice from local officials in the early days resulted in people flocking to hospitals causing cross-contamination and overwhelming the health system. Quarantine centres and field hospitals had to be set up in haste (which didn't offer the best conditions, then again neither were the ones set up in European countries). There were lots of confusion in terms of who should be subject to quarantine. That was all against a backdrop of a little unknown about disease feared to be massively deadly, with no knowledge on how it should be treated and how many were already infected in a province of circa 60 million people. If not dealt with quickly and firmly amongst all that confusion, the potential damage was simply unimaginable, and the public mood was one of panic. In that situation, I challenge anyone to think of a better solution than strict lockdown in order to cut transmission channels and buy time, and not leaving anything to chance if in doubt (hence running the risk of some people being incorrectly detained). Again remember that was back in the days when the mortality rate of the disease was unknown but lots of people were dying each day. Even the Chinese government could never have envisaged before then that it would be possible to lock down an entire province. It was unheard of. The decision may have been inhumane in some respects, but again, what else could you do in those circumstances? That decision required leadership and determination, even courage if I may, as unlike what some people think, there is every chance an order from the central government may not be obeyed by the local officials. There are plenty of previous examples where instructions from Beijing were roundly ignored, for all sorts of reasons.
People were not allowed out of their residence except for a very limited list of reasons, grocery shopping being one but on a strict household rota in each neighbourhood. In selected neighbourhoods where people were not allowed out at all (due to high infection rates, known cases of infections self-isolating due to lack of hospital beds, etc), grocery deliveries were mostly arranged as most housing estates were closed off to random delivery personnel, although you had the option of ordering online and fetching it from the security office at estate gates. On central government orders fresh produce were preferentially supplied to the province to minimise any effect of panic buying. Some households were inevitably missed, but nothing a quick phone call to the neighbourhood committee did not resolve. Shop owners taking advantage of the situation and charging high prices are fined to the tune of £300k+ for each offence. Exercising wasn't a valid reason for leaving home, but when you didn't know how deadly the virus were, would you like to take the chance? Given the housing density in many Chinese cities, would your neighbour be happy for you to take the chance? Would society in general be willing to take the chance? Again this goes back to the point I mentioned in the other thread, the prevailing public mentality is very different between Asian culture and western culture, and at the height of the pandemic a siege mentality probably also helped generate a sense of "we must pull together to defeat the (seemingly deadly) virus at all costs" in China. That was not on government orders. That was the actual mentality amongst the general public, so not being able to exercise outdoors was readily accepted as a measure to reduce transmission, and people complied with the strict restrictions willingly out of their sense of social responsibility. Of course a small minority of society were moaning, but they still complied under a combination of social pressure and fearing the threat of prosecution otherwise. I know this is seen by many on this forum as a bad thing, but remember the backdrop then and it left no uncertainty in people's minds.
When it soon became apparent that infection levels were nowhere near as bad elsewhere as the epicentre, the government organised qualified medical professionals from all over the country in support teams to strengthen Hubei province's efforts (party members first in case anyone is wondering). That allowed sufficient additional medical facilities to be established quickly, so anyone showing symptoms and close contacts could get tested and treated, and the same applied elsewhere which still had sufficient provision due to less demand. The facilities were available so people used them willingly, knowing they would be treated, and that again helped massively reduce the risks of transmission in the community. Due to lack of medical supplies, doctors and nurses mostly worked in protective gear for whole shifts, some wearing nappies to work so that they did not have to waste valuable resources and/or time.
When things levelled out towards the beginning of March, restrictions gradually started loosening, but the danger of a rebound was always high in people's minds, so there was no sudden relaxation, and it had broad public support. After that cases around the world started shooting up so imported cases then became the main focus, which gradually resulted in strict controls on movements across borders with resources being poured into various ports and border crossings, continuing to this day. Being able to keep a handle on case numbers meant any local outbreak could be quickly homed in on, but China had the resources to carry out tests on whole cities in a matter of days if needed, something which is not really possible here. (Bear in mind many Chinese cities have populations well into 8 figures.)
I am no fan of the CCP in general. Yes, they are absolutely evil in many respects, too numerous to name, and should be robustly challenged on those issues, but that isn't what my posts were about. I am also not obsessed with getting hysterical over a few examples of people being mistreated. No, it isn't right that people are mistreated, however context is important. The articles yorkie quoted were back in January and February, with the interviews probably done a few days before then, when things were quite chaotic. I hardly think it is representative of how things worked once they started getting on top of it. No doubt individual cases of mistreatment still crop up from time to time, and shouldn't happen in an ideal world, but it is also not unique to the country alone.
They didn't get all of the handling of this pandemic right. Plenty of mistakes were made in the earlier days of the outbreak. If they didn't attempt to silence the whistle-blowers things may have panned out differently, but that is all conjecture now. There are also plenty of losers in China as a result of these measures. Unlike Britain or the US there was no government support for people who lost their business or jobs. From our perspective they could have perhaps been kinder especially to lower-income families, especially those in rural areas, many of whom rely on income sent home from migrant family members working in the big cities. Hindsight is a wonderful double-edged sword sometimes. Perhaps that in a weird way strengthened the resolve of the people to do their best to cut transmission and defeat (for want of a better word) the virus, so that economic activity can restart quickly.
There is no simple right or wrong in how the pandemic should be handled because every country is different hence you won't see me simply advocating a lockdown as a simple solution. It cannot just be copied and expected to be effective. There are many ingredients which make a lockdown work, and not all of them are present in our current setting. The circumstances Europe have faced from March onwards is very much different to the one China found itself in back in January. I don't know what the CCP would have done if, like Britain, after 9 months the lockdown still hadn't worked, and public opinion had turned against them. (Actually contrary to popular belief here, real public opinion is not as easy to manipulate since the arrival of smart technology, and the CCP know it.) What is true however, is that we are still deeply mired in the midst of the outbreak, and China did not need to find out what else they needed to do after 3 months, and I am again dismayed at some people's point blank refusal to even consider they may have something we could potentially learn from. On that note, I will also conclude that I disagree their "cure" is worse than the disease, on account of circumstances and the need to achieve the "greater good".
I do apologise if I dragged the thread off-topic. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, far from it, but I find the existing narrative on this forum far too single-visioned, if not anything else. Peace out.
Live animal markets and the wildlife trade were implicated in the previous two outbreaks that I mentioned, so it would have seemed reasonable for the Government in Beijing to have acted on them then, rather than waiting for a global pandemic. If they had have done, it would have avoided this conversation.
The likes of Vietnam and South Korea didn't "escape lightly", they've learnt from bitter experience.
It'll be a long time before I join the Xi Xing Ping congratulation committee, I'm afraid.
They should have, and they didn't. They deserve criticism on that. That doesn't mean we should be so readily pointing the finger with regard to this pandemic.
Like it or not, it is a massive country with far more sub-cultures than anyone here in Britain can even imagine, and some of them approve of cooking and eating wildlife, a practice even revered by a few. The government had the option of outlawing such practice and making these people change their ways, but that is by no means a quick or easy job. If this were done by brutal force because people refused to comply no doubt there would be plenty of commentators pointing out how inhumane they are. That doesn't however excuse the lack of action in my opinion I must add.
As for Vietnam and South Korea, I am not prepared to play word games. They escaped lightly in the grand scheme of things. It does not mean they did not suffer tragic losses.
I am no fan of Xi, and neither do I expect others to be.
sebastianrushworth.com
