- There is a virtual consensus among international researchers that China’s draconian measures of lockdowns and isolation had worked, though they are by no means the only or even the best containment methods for other countries
Here's an excellent summary of China's response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
"China's response was typically Chinese: suppression of information about the prevalence of the virus, a high degree of social control, and a massive mobilisation of resources once the threat became clear," wrote Professor Dani Rodrik of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Actually, suppressing information and imposing social control during a national crisis are typical of authoritarian governments or dictatorial regimes, not just China. But, mobilising the-whole-of-government resources to contain and eliminate the threat requires bureaucratic focus, competence and resourcefulness. That's what makes the official response distinctly Chinese.
Unsurprisingly, anti-China critics and politicians seize on information suppression and social control, and conclude from their confirmation bias that China caused the global pandemic for which it is now trying to deny responsibility.
Covid-19 could be under control by end of April, Chinese expert says
However, scientific and medical researchers, because they need to work out what happened " and what worked and what didn't " must focus on how effective China's containment efforts were, that is, by examining the response itself and its effectiveness.
In this respect, there is a virtual scientific consensus that China's draconian measures of lockdowns and isolation, carried out ruthlessly and at significant human costs, delayed the spread of the virus to the outside world by a significant amount of time. Whether foreign governments took advantage of that or failed to do so, is a different question.
Someone tried to refute my column yesterday by quoting this study, published online in medRxiv last month and titled "Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions for containing the Covid-19 outbreak in China". It found that if intervened "one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier in China, cases could have been reduced by 66 per cent, 86 per cent, and 95 per cent, respectively".
Predictably, the reader read into the report his own presuppositions about social control and information suppression. In fact, the study used computer modelling to simulate the effects of early and delayed interventions on the spread of the virus in China.
In the quote above, the authors referenced the reported 114,325 Covid-19 cases as of February 29 to work backwards to come up with the 66 per cent, 86 per cent, and 95 per cent estimates.
They also worked forwards and found: If intervened "one week, two weeks, or three weeks later, the number of cases could have shown a threefold, sevenfold, and eighteenfold increase across China, respectively. "Conclusion: The NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) deployed in China appear to be effectively containing the Covid-19 outbreak."
It's always a good idea to read a study before quoting it.
Copyright (c) 2020. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
