Why is China smeared for its dynamic zero-COVID policy?

On April 12, Reuters reported that according to the Japanese investment bank Nomura, “as many as 45 cities in China are now implementing either full or partial lockdowns, making up 26.4% of the country’s population”.61 The original source of this data from Nomura could not be found. Then the Financial Times did a simple multiplication and claimed that “45 cities and 373mn people in China were under … lockdown”.62 First of all, this is an absurd number, not only because it has no source, but because, even if you add up the 45 most populous cities in China (the vast majority of which have not had any outbreaks so far this year), the total population is only 293 million.63 The Western media just made up the number of “373 million” based on unknown sources.

Moreover, the method of adding up the total population of cities that had some form of lockdown and claiming that all of them were under total lockdown is a clever and sinister manipulation of data. In most cities where outbreaks have occurred, the number of people actually under lockdown has been a small fraction of the total population and the duration of the lockdown has been relatively short. In Sichuan Province’s Guang’an City, which suffered an Omicron spillover from the outbreaks in Shanghai, for example, a lockdown took place in Linshui County, which only accounts for 21.7% of the city’s population, and lasted just 14 days. Data purportedly released by Nomura imply that the entire populations of these cities were under lockdown in the second quarter of 2022, clearly a huge deviation from the facts.

In fact, the Chinese government continues to learn and adjust its approaches when carrying out the zero-COVID policy. Even when a mega-city, like Beijing, was subjected to another round of strict control because of some pub’s non-compliance with the regulations, the outbreak was contained in less than 10 days, with only about 170 locations (most of which were single buildings) actually locked down. It was estimated that the total number of people under lockdown was no more than 200,000 (less than 1% of Beijing’s resident population). Most people throughout Beijing were still able to carry on with their work and life as normal. For a few weeks, gyms and restaurants were closed in some areas, but supermarkets and takeaway restaurants still secured food supplies. People are able to walk outdoors wearing masks. The Western media misrepresented all of this as “authoritarian lockdowns”.

Despite the obvious falsification and exaggeration of such figures, the Western media have accepted them with great satisfaction. Bloomberg,64 CNN,65 and Kyodo 66 all scrambled to quote the “373 million” figure, and it became “nearly 400 million” in the New York Times.67 When Quartz commented on China’s economy in May, their statement that “nearly 400 million people are under COVID lockdown in China” was used as if it was a fact that required no discussion.68 What followed was “People’s freedom of movement is being restricted in China” (even though American schoolchildren have lost almost three times as many class hours as in China); “China’s economy will be destroyed by lockdowns” (even though China’s economy has grown four times faster than the U.S. economy since 2020, and several U.S. investment banks predict that China’s economy will still grow faster than the U.S. economy), and a host of other lies.

This is a premeditated propaganda war against China’s dynamic zero-COVID policy, designed to discredit China’s socialist achievements in public health. These lies have been widely disseminated in the English-language media and social networks to make billions of people forget that America is so bad at controlling COVID-19 and think that the dynamic zero-COVID policy is wrong. This is cultural hegemony in Antonio Gramsci’s sense: through the manipulation of perceptions and interpretations, the U.S. ruling elite intends to perpetuate its dominance over the world.

Socialist alternatives for public health

The SARS pandemic of 2003 revealed a new trend in public health: as globalization deepens, the global pandemics of infectious diseases are bound to occur more and more frequently. The U.S. performance in the COVID pandemic has proven that a capitalist system that only cares about short-term economic interests and disregards people’s lives and health cannot cope with such a disaster as the outbreak of a pandemic. It sacrifices lives and loses economic development, and only a small group of the bourgeois elite benefit from it. The socialist system represented by China, on the other hand, points to a viable path for how humanity can respond to public health disasters in the future. Nearly-free, normalized universal testing, combined with the dynamic zero-COVID policy of early detection, reporting, isolation, and treatment, is not only effective for the prevention and control of COVID-19, but also provides a solution for the prevention and control of any new dangerous viruses that could emerge in the future.

Both the effective control of new pandemics at home and the rapid delivery of low-cost vaccines to the world’s poorest countries, has proven that Chinese socialism is advancing humanity’s ability to protect itself from future disasters. Over one million more lives lost in the United States thus far from COVID than in China, despite a U.S. population only a quarter the size of China’s, and a mortality rate hundreds-of-times greater in the former as compared with the latter, provide a graphic and sharp contrast, directly challenging the big lie of the “superiority of the capitalist system”. For Washington, which relies on the capitalist system to reap monstrous global rewards, this is a challenge that shakes its very foundations. Therefore, it launched a public opinion war against China’s anti-COVID policy, hiding the reality of its domestic failure to fight the virus, hoping to deceive the Chinese about the global anti-COVID situation, and even spark a “color revolution” in China against the government’s policy.

Although not all countries are able to implement an effective dynamic zero-COVID policy like China due to various objective constraints, China’s experience has shown the world that, in the face of a pandemic, especially when the virus is not fully understood in early stages, “herd immunity” or “coexistence with the virus” can neither be the best nor the only option. Developing countries can also do better than Western developed countries, such as the United States, as long as the people’s basic rights are prioritized over the short-term interests of capital.

Notes:

1.? www.worldometers.info

2.? ourworldindata.org

3.? www.forbes.com

4.? www.thelancet.com

5.? www.bloomberg.com

6.? statisticstimes.com

7.? www.china.org.cn

8.? www.medrxiv.org

9.? www.healthcaredive.com

10.? ourworldindata.org

11.? www.cdc.gov

12.? Lassa fever:  https://www.who.int. Mumps encephalitis: Heymann DL, ed. (2008). Control of Communicable Diseases Manual (19th ed.). p431. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association. ISBN 978-0-87553-189-2. Smallpox, Variola minor: USAMRIID (2011). USAMRIID’s Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook (7th ed.). p87-88. U.S. Government Printing Office. ISBN 9780160900150. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-02-09. Retrieved 2012-08-01.

13.? www.npr.org

14.? www.smithsonianmag.com

15.? www.webmd.com

16.? www.spiegel.de

17.? www.ft.com

18.? www.washingtonpost.com

19.? abcnews.go.com

20.? www.nejm.org

21.? www.thelancet.com

22.? www.nature.com

23.? www.bbc.com

24.? www.cdc.gov

25.? www.youtube.com

26.? people.com

27.? www.nature.com

28.? www.nytimes.com

29.? www.poorpeoplescampaign.org

30.? inequality.org

31.? equitablegrowth.org

32.? www.advisorperspectives.com

33.? hwww.seattletimes.com

34.? www.census.gov

35.? jamanetwork.com

36.? en.unesco.org

37.? ?www.ed.gov

38.? www.forbes.com

39.? www.unicef.org

40.? www.mckinsey.com

41.? edition.cnn.com

42.? edition.cnn.com

43.? www.imf.org

44.? www.census.gov

45.? www.theguardian.com

46.? www.consumerreports.org

47.? www.commondreams.org

48.? www.fiercepharma.com

49.? finance.yahoo.com

50.? covidtracking.com

51.? edition.cnn.com

52.? www.washingtonpost.com

53.? www.worldometers.info

54.? www.marxists.org

55.? news.harvard.edu

56.? www.edelman.com

57.? www.theguardian.com

58.? www.tucsonsentinel.com

59.? www.cnbc.com

60.? www.chinadaily.com.cn

61.? www.reuters.com

62.? www.ft.com

63.?worldpopulationreview.com

64.? www.bloomberg.com

65.? edition.cnn.com

66.? english.kyodonews.net

67.? www.nytimes.com

68.? qz.com

附：中文版