Photo: Untitled (Baiguo), by Jason

Untitled (Baiguo), by Jason (CC BY 2.0)

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/08/photo-untitled-baiguo-by-jason/

Hangzhou Party Boss Investigated For Corruption, Officials Warned About Business Relationships

An investigation into Hangzhou’s Party chief by the CCP’s powerful internal anti-corruption watchdog may be tied to Alibaba’s ongoing political woes. Over the weekend, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) announced it was looking into Zhou Jiangyong for “serious violations of discipline,” often a euphemism for corruption. Soon after, the CCDI said that 25,000 current and former Party officials in Zhejiang’s provincial capital are performing “self-examinations” to straighten out “conflicts of interest” they might have with local businesses. None of the statements has been confirmed to directly implicate the Hangzhou-headquartered Alibaba, but speculation is rife due to Zhou’s tight-knit relationship with the company. Xi’s anti-corruption drive, now in its ninth year, is still in full swing—netting cadres present, past, and passed. At Bloomberg News, Shiyin Chen and Coco Liu reported on the rumors swirling about Zhou’s stake in Jack Ma-controlled Ant Financial’s abruptly cancelled IPO:

Social media accounts wrote over the weekend that Zhou’s family bought up shares in a fintech company ahead of its initial public offering in November, before the listing plans were scrapped, according to an article from Chnfund that was published in the Paper, part of the state-backed Shanghai United Media Group. The postings, which didn’t name the company, have since been deleted, according to the article.

Ant Group on Sunday denied that certain individuals purchased shares of the company ahead of its planned IPO last year, as “recent online rumors” had suggested. The firm didn’t elaborate on who it was referring to, adding that it had strictly adhered to all relevant laws and regulations through the listing process. Regulators called an abrupt halt to Ant’s record $35 billion IPO days before its debut last year, after its founder publicly criticized financial regulators.

[…] That outsized influence in Hangzhou has fostered a strong relationship with the local government. In 2019, Ma was presented with a “Meritorious Hangzhou citizen” award by none other than Zhou, the local party boss, who feted the billionaire tycoon for his contributions to the city’s economic and social development, according to government statements at the time. Local media have also published photos of Zhou attending Alibaba’s annual Singles’ Day shopping festival in 2019. [Source]

Jack Ma has fallen out of favor with Chinese authorities, as have others among China’s fast-rising tech billionaires. A recent Wall Street Journal profile of Ma reported that Xi Jinping’s displeasure with the Alibaba founder was evident by 2015, when the latter spoke for much longer than the three minutes allotted to him during a Seattle meeting with the Chinese president, who was in the United States for a state visit. In 2020, Xi Jinping personally stopped Ant Group’s IPO. Alibaba has also become a focus of China’s #MeToo movement after a senior manager sexually assaulted his subordinate after binge drinking during a client dinner. In a statement issued in relation to the case, the CCDI said “under-the-table rules” like forced drinking should be replaced with “correct values.”

It seems that all Hangzhou officials are under scrutiny for their ties to local businesses such as Alibaba. At The Financial Times, Tom Mitchell and Sun Yu noted a report, republished by the CCDI, that 25,000 local officials are examining their relationships with unnamed local businesses:

The watchdog said 25,000 local officials and their family members were the focus of “self-examination and self-correction” reviews focused on their relationships with local businesses, including “illegal borrowing”. This will include probing those who have retired within the past three years.

[…] The CCDI added that Hangzhou officials would be held accountable for the business activities of their relatives, even if they were not personally involved.

Under a recent revamp of party and government rules, senior officials are not allowed to regulate industries in which companies managed by their spouses or children also operate. But they can do so if their immediate family members serve in lower level positions or act as corporate “advisers”. [Source]

At The South China Morning Post, Cissy Zhou reported that another Zhejiang official, once deputy Party secretary of Hangzhou, has “surrendered” for likely corruption:

The investigation into Zhou came two days after another official in the province came under a cloud.

On Thursday, Ma Xiaohui, former party secretary of Huzhou “voluntarily surrendered” for suspected “serious violations of discipline and law”, according to state media.

Between 2015 to 2018, Ma was the vice mayor and the deputy party secretary of Hangzhou. Before that, he was the deputy party secretary of Wenzhou. [Source]

University of Michigan scholar Yuen Yuen Ang has argued that endemic corruption is a by-product of China’s “Gilded Age,” borrowing a term from America’s late 19th century history, in an essay for Foreign Affairs. Ang argued that Xi, like the American Progressives of yesteryear, hopes to end crony capitalism in China but, unlike said reformers, has destroyed grassroots efforts at taming graft in favor of ever more centralization of personal power. She concluded her assessment with a quote from an anonymous Chinese official, “It’s like riding a bike. The tighter you grip the handles, the harder it is to balance.” An analyst at Germany’s Mercator Institute for China Studies told The Washington Post that Xi’s new push for wealth redistribution in the name of “common prosperity,” which is being piloted in Hangzhou, may also be a factor in the campaign. Xi has used the term 65 times this year to date, already doubling his total use of the phrase in 2020, a rhetorical indication of the importance Xi places on the reforms he hopes to push through. One such reform just passed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress is the introduction of new guidelines for inspectors at the National Supervisory Commission, an anti-corruption super-agency designed to work in parallel with the CCDI. From Jack Lau at The South China Morning Post:

[…] The law that inspectors must have a clean record and their spouses must not be based outside mainland China – a provision that has previously been applied to state prosecutors, judges, police and senior civil servants.

“We already knew that there would be tighter scrutiny and demands for officials to report on family members overseas,” said Zhu Jiangnan, an associate professor at the University of Hong Kong’s politics and public administration department .

[…] Inspectors attached to government ministries used to be sent by the party’s central discipline and inspection committee, [Zhu] said, but now the preference is for officials with experience of the ministry’s portfolio.

“This is a way that the government hopes to enhance the professional supervision [of] those different policy domains. They probably realise that only those who understand the professional domains can supervise corruption and disciplinary violations in the relevant field,” [Zhu] said. [Source]

Second, while there are parallels, there are also obvious differences between 21st century China's Gilded Age and 19th century US Gilded Age

America in the 19th century fought graft and inequality by expanding democracy & empowering civil society

Xi's is through commands pic.twitter.com/3Dy3GqWKEz

— Yuen Yuen Ang (@yuenyuenang) August 21, 2021

Recently wrote a bit about China's above-the-law supervision organs here, and the new law concerns the rights, duties, obligations, and administration of the supervisors themselves. https://t.co/imNP25NS8A

— China Law Translate (@ChinaLawTransl8) August 20, 2021

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/08/hangzhou-party-boss-investigated-for-corruption-officials-warned-about-business-relationships/

Photo: Untitled (Beijing), by Albanian Magic Records

Untitled (Beijing), by Albanian Magic Records (CC BY 2.0)

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/08/photo-untitled-beijing-by-albanian-magic-records/

WHO Probe Leader Says Chinese Pressure Blocked Research Into Lab Accident Theory

The leader of the World Health Organization’s investigation into the origins of COVID-19 told a Danish documentary crew that Chinese researchers blocked in-depth study of highly contentious “lab leak” scenarios. The accidental release of a natural virus sample is not implausible, but the possibility is both unsubstantiated and deeply politicized. While on one hand such theories have often been promoted well beyond the strength of any available evidence, Chinese authorities have done their utmost to ensure that any evidence remains unavailable.

Ben Embarek led the World Health Organization’s on-the-ground investigation into the virus’ origins. The report was criticized even by the Director-General of the WHO and Embarek himself had previously admitted that “politics was always in the room with us,” casting doubt on the scientific rigor of the team’s conclusions. At The Washington Post, Adam Taylor, Emily Rauhala and Martin Selsoe Sorensen reported on the remarkably candid interview Embarek gave to the Danish documentarians, parts of which contradicted the WHO’s own report:

“In the beginning, [Chinese researchers] didn’t want anything about the lab [in the report], because it was impossible, so there was no need to waste time on that,” Ben Embarek said during the interview. “We insisted on including it, because it was part of the whole issue about where the virus originated.”

[…] A discussion of whether to include the lab-leak theory at all lasted until 48 hours before the conclusion of the mission, Ben Embarek told the Danish reporters. In the end, Ben Embarek’s Chinese counterpart eventually agreed to discuss the lab-leak theory in the report “on the condition we didn’t recommend any specific studies to further that hypothesis.”

[…] “A lab employee infected in the field while collecting samples in a bat cave — such a scenario belongs both as a lab-leak hypothesis and as our first hypothesis of direct infection from bat to human. We’ve seen that hypothesis as a likely hypothesis,” Ben Embarek said. [Source]

At The Wall Street Journal, Drew Hinshaw, Jeremy Page, and Sune Engel Rasmussen reported that Embarek was particularly interested in the Wuhan lab’s 2019 move, which roughly coincided with the beginning of the pandemic:

“It’s interesting that the lab relocated on the 2nd of December 2019: That’s the period where it all started,” Dr. Ben Embarek said in the TV interview. “We know that when you move a lab, it disturbs everything…That entire procedure is always a disruptive element in the daily work routine of a lab.”

The Wuhan CDC couldn’t be immediately reached for comment. In February, lab workers told the WHO-led team that there were no incidents or mishaps that could have unleashed a virus.

[…] He said he was intrigued by the fact that the lab relocated just as the pandemic was beginning, and said he only learned about the move after it came up in conversation with Chinese researchers. [Source]

In July, WHO Director-General Tedros said ruling out a laboratory accident was “premature,” and asked that China, “be transparent,” while reiterating a request for “raw data that we asked for at the early days of the pandemic.” At The Washington Post, Adam Taylor reported on a new book that alleges Tedros and others at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva were “shocked” by the investigation team’s decision to classify lab leak as “extremely unlikely”:

“Aftershocks: Pandemic Politics and the End of the Old International Order,” written by Thomas Wright and Colin Kahl and due to be published Tuesday, reveals how Tedros lost patience with China: When a WHO scientist on a coronavirus origins probe announced in February that the idea that the virus leaked from a lab was “extremely unlikely” and unworthy of further investigation, senior WHO staff in Geneva were shocked. “We fell off our chairs,” one member told the authors.

[…] Wright and Kahl report that WHO leadership in Geneva were “stunned” by their colleague’s statement. They did not believe the team that went to Wuhan had the access or data to rule out the lab-leak theory. Tedros told the investigative team this, the book reports, but the team was “defensive,” describing pressure from Chinese officials that led to a compromise.[Source]

The Chinese government has rejected the WHO’s overtures about conducting a second leg of the investigation into the virus’ origin. At The Associated Press, Ken Moritsugu wrote that China’s top health officials have flat-out rejected calls for further study within China:

Zeng Yixin, the vice minister of the National Health Commission, said he was “rather taken aback” that the plan includes further investigation of the theory that the virus might have leaked from a Chinese lab.

[…] “It is impossible for us to accept such an origin-tracing plan,” he said at a news conference called to address the COVID-19 origins issue.

[…] Zeng said China has always supported “scientific virus tracing” and wants to see the study extended to other countries and regions. “However, we are opposed to politicizing the tracing work,” he said. [Source]

U.S. President Joe Biden—who led the U.S.’s return to the WHO, reversing his predecessor’s decision to withdraw—ordered American intelligence agencies to conduct their own investigation into the possibility of a lab accident. According to CNN, the agencies’ report is due to be published soon. The investigators are reportedly split between two theories: zoonotic infection in the wild or a lab accident in Wuhan. In an “exclusive” report, Global Times said the un-published report is based on “so-called evidence that has been fabricated so far is mostly circumstantial evidence that is completely unreliable.” Zhao Lijian, a bombastic spokesperson at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said “The world will no long be deceived by the old US ploy of set-up with a vial of washing powder,” an apparent reference to the United States’ claim—later shown to be false—that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Zhao instead called for an investigation into Fort Detrick. He, and a number of other prominent figures in Chinese media and government, have embraced theories that coronavirus originated outside of China’s borders, possibly in a United States military base.

Nevertheless, China’s intransigence on investigations into the virus’ origin does not necessarily lend weight to the lab leak theory, The Economist wrote:

The Chinese government has reacted angrily to the idea of further studies on its territory. Zeng Yixin, the vice-minister of China’s National Health Commission, said he was “shocked” by the plan to investigate a lab leak, saying it was “impossible” to accept. According to the Global Times, a tub-thumping tabloid run by the Communist Party, 55 countries have sent written complaints about the proposal for further investigations to the who. Dr Tedros, elected director-general with China’s support in 2017 and derided by President Donald Trump as China’s puppet, may now face a Chinese-backed candidate when he looks for reappointment later this year.

[…] China clearly does not want lab-leaks investigated; but that does not mean it knows one happened. It is also being misleading about Huanan market, denying access to early-case data and obfuscating in various other non-lab-leak-specific ways. The most obvious explanation is that it does not really want any definitive answer to the question. An unsanitary market, a reckless bat-catcher or a hapless spelunker would not be as bad in terms of blame as a source in a government laboratory. But any definite answer to the origin question probably leaves China looking bad, unless it can find a way to blame someone else. To that end China has called for an investigation of Fort Detrick in Maryland, historically the home of American bioweapons research; state media regularly publish speculations about its involvement. [Source]

For the ruling elites' in Washington, scapegoating China has for long been an expedient ploy to deflect the blame from their disastrous response to the pandemic. Read Xinhua Commentary: Shifting blame cannot hide U.S. "Waterloo" in fighting pandemic https://t.co/JhXlUrStMa pic.twitter.com/QOeraP891E

— China Xinhua News (@XHNews) August 14, 2021

One state media cartoon connected the COVID-19 origins investigation to AIDS, a disease once scapegoated in China as an affliction of capitalism:

Groundless accusations #ChinaDailyCartoon #US #coronavirus pic.twitter.com/yM0LozZ6mC

— China Daily (@ChinaDaily) August 13, 2021

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/08/world-health-organization-leaders-say-chinese-pressure-blocked-research-into-lab-accident-theory/

Translation: LGBTQ Site’s WeChat Account Shuttered After Report on Homophobic Backlash Against Hostel

A Chinese queer media platform had its WeChat account shut down after it reported on the closure of an LGBTQ-friendly hostel in Wuhan, China. GS, short for GaySpot (乐点 Lè Diǎn), became the latest victim of the clampdown on LGBT-related content on Chinese social media. Founded in 2007, GS is known for its feature stories and longform reporting that details milestone events for the Chinese queer community. It has featured the first Chinese gay couple to sue their local government in a bid to get married, and the first employment discrimination lawsuit brought by a transgender man. In addition to posting online, GS also issues paper-based periodicals for free, and is likely the last remaining print queer publication in China.

Last week, GS wrote about how an LGBTQ-friendly hostel in Wuhan was forced to close down after enduring homophobic harassment from neighboring residents. The story gained some traction on social media. On August 19, WeChat shut down GS’s account, leaving a generic message that read: “Following relevant complaints, [we have deemed] this account to be in violation of the Online Public Accounts Information Services Management Provisions.”

The story that got GS into trouble detailed the verbal threats and abuse the hostel staff received from some residents of the neighboring community. The story has been archived at CDT Chinese, and selected paragraphs are translated below:

“I received the messages from our landlord around 7 p.m. on August 10,” says the manager of the hostel, Mr. H. The landlord told Mr. H that he and his mother had received calls from residents, scolding them in abusive terms. Fortunately, the landlord and his family do not live in this neighborhood, otherwise it is hard to say what might have happened. Mr. H joined the residents’ WeChat group at 12:59 p.m. The first thing he posted was: “That old post you dug up may have troubled some of you. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask me!”

The eviction was triggered by a post about the hostel by Wuhan LGBT Center in 2020. In addition to photos of and prices at the hostel, the post included the following text: “We respect the LGBT+ community and HIV carriers; we welcome LGBT+ and allies.” But Mr. H says he has operated the hostel for a year without any trouble. He finds it perplexing why a posting made more than 700 days ago was suddenly dug up by a resident and sent to the community’s chat group.

[…] “Respect HIV carriers?” “How can they enter our community?” “What if they infect the elderly, children, and other residents…” After a member in the group chat sent these words, other residents seemingly “got” the gist of the discussion. “We respect other people’s lifestyles, as long as they stay away from our neighborhood,” one resident jumped in. The first member posted a sharp reply: “Now this has become a threat to the safety of our community.”

[…] He added: “This is perverted.” “I hate it when people pretend as if they are progressive and open-minded, and respect these so-called ‘special groups.’” “Special groups should show some sense of decorum, too!” “Has our society really become that open?”

[…] According to Mr. H, the police did not take on the case after residents reported it to them. Residents obtained the contact info of the landlord from the community management company, and started threatening the landlord and his mother in abusive terms.

[…] “Hello, things have escalated now. I have received lots of abuse and complaints from the residents, many of which are hard to listen to …. Gossip is a fearful thing. In order to protect myself and my family, and for the sake of your reputation, let’s end the contract at the end of September! Please refrain from operations in the meantime …. I will list the space with a real estate agency. If someone rents it, I will return your deposit and the remaining rent, minus some regular fees.” The landlord issued his final notice to Yangyang and Momo [hostel staff members] via Mr. H. [Source]

GS is still active on Weibo, where they have nearly half a million followers. It has since started a new WeChat account but has yet to post anything on it.

In recent years, GS has been tip-toeing a fine line between influence and survival in China’s tightly controlled media landscape. Its print publication is unlicensed, a violation that could carry a multiple-year prison term. In November 2020, a popular danmei author Yuan Yimei, who goes by her pen name Mo Xiang Tong Xiu, was sentenced for selling her books without a license. The length of her sentence was not made public. Publishing gay-themed content is vulnerable to targeted enforcement. In October 2018, an author of homoerotic fiction was sentenced to 10 years in prison, a case that shocked many in China’s online literary community, and was keenly felt by staff members at GS, as Dave Yin wrote for SupChina in 2019:

[…] “Whereas before you could get away with being underground, now there were consequences,” [GS’s editor-in-chief Samuel Su] says.

[…] To survive, GS has kept its head down. For one, the team is content with its mediocre traffic. The writing style is also deliberate: Hard news is too bellicose; a soft, narrative tone is less likely to trip the censors, according to Su. The staff gives the magazine away for free to eliminate any profit, and is tight-lipped when it comes to circulation numbers (for fear of appearing influential and drawing attention from the authorities), beyond a vague claim of being in more than 60 cities across China. [Source]

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/08/lgbtq-sites-wechat-account-shuttered-after-report-on-homophobic-backlash-against-hostel/

Photo: Untitled (Chongqing), by Jason

Untitled (Chongqing), by Jason (CC BY 2.0)

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/08/photo-untitled-chongqing-by-jason/

Translation: Eradicate COVID-19, or Live With It?

The arrival of the Delta variant of COVID-19 in mainland China has led some to reassess the country’s strategy of lockdowns and mass testing. Rather than endlessly cycle through such disruptive, costly measures, why not vaccinate, mask up, and learn to live with the virus? This was the suggestion made on social media by Zhang Wenhong, Director of the Department of Infectious Diseases at Huashan Hospital in Shanghai. The Chinese government and nationalist keyboard warriors pounced, complete with a People’s Daily editorial by former health minister Gao Qiang calling for a “fight to the death” with COVID-19. Bill Birtles reports for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:

China’s former health minister, most likely with the top leadership’s blessing, used an official People’s Daily editorial this month to firmly reject Dr Zhang’s suggestion.

Without naming him, former minister Gao Qiang wrote: “Some experts [in China] think that Britain, the US and other countries’ approaches of ‘coexisting with the virus’ promotes ‘openness’, while China’s approach with quarantine control is restrictive.”

He said Western nations “blindly lifted or relaxed” containment measures to “demonstrate their dominance and influence”.

[…] “The history of human survival and reproduction is also a history of fighting viruses to the death,” he wrote. [Source]

The day after Gao’s editorial appeared, news media outfit Mr. Middle (中产先生) mounted a direct challenge to Gao and the zero-sum strategy, arguing for a “middle-of-the road approach” to managing COVID-19. The day after that, Mr. Middle’s post was censored, and their WeChat public account was suspended until September 9. The article is archived at CDT Chinese, and translated below:

1

In recent days, amid the sexual harassment scandal at Alibaba, there’s something that many people may have overlooked, which is that two factions have arisen in the discussion of COVID-prevention measures.

One faction advocates total eradication of the virus; the other advocates coexistence with it.

The internet has already erupted into arguments about these two different approaches.

The divide was made especially clear in a statement issued yesterday [August 9] by Gao Qiang, the former health minister:

“Coexistence” is completely unacceptable. Humankind and the virus are locked in a life-and-death struggle. Ultimately, victory will rely on medicines that can kill the virus. At this stage, we cannot relax, and in fact must increase our efforts. We must “cast the virus from our borders” and drown it in the vast ocean of the People’s War.

This statement has emboldened the “eradication faction.” The original proponent of “coexistence,” Zhang Wenhong (a top infectious disease expert), was savaged and tarred with accusations by a bunch of Weibo users with little more than a middle school education.

I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry.

But rather than rant about it, let’s analyze the positions of the two factions.

2

Let’s talk about the “eradication faction” first.

I seem to recall that Gao Qiang, who was appointed to the Ministry of Health at the height of the SARS epidemic in 2003, once said, “It is better to sacrifice economic prosperity in order to protect the health of the people.”

He actually made this statement ten years after SARS. During that epidemic, cases were sporadic and regional, not global, and the economic impact was quite small. If it were today, I’m not at all certain he would say the same thing.

Also, when he referred to “sacrificing the economy,” Gao Qiang was speaking from his background as a graduate of the economics department of Renmin University, rather than from a background in public health or medicine.

When he made yesterday’s statement, I expect a lot of experts were left scratching their heads:

1. “Humankind and the virus are locked in a life-and-death struggle.”

In reality, humans coexist with a number of viruses, whether we like it or not. For example, we live with the flu virus, which we cannot eradicate.

2. “Victory will rely on medicines that can kill the virus.”

Humans have never been able to kill a virus using any type of medicine. Not even once. There are no truly effective drugs for the vast majority of viruses, nor was SARS eliminated by the use of some powerful drug. In contrast to medical treatment, prevention and the administration of effective vaccines are much more important.

It’s easy to see that former minister Gao is not a public health expert.

Despite this, his words have resonated with many people.

I don’t think this arises from any scientific basis, but rather, from the desire to be protected.

Basically, everyone on the internet who supports eradication has the same argument:

Are you OK with someone in your family dying of COVID? Are you OK with an older relative contracting COVID? If you want to coexist with the virus, we should kick you out of the country and let you get a taste of the virus yourself.

It’s very hard to engage these eradication-faction types in a discussion based on science and disease prevention, because every discussion ends with them repeating some version of what I have paraphrased above.

If you keep pressing them, all you’ll get is “NMSL.”

From their perspective, it’s simply unacceptable to entertain the notion of coexisting with COVID.

Put somewhat indelicately, the majority of the eradication faction are from the lower tier of society. On the one hand, they are frightened and unable to accept the risk or pay the price of contracting COVID. On the other hand, they admire strength and hope that some powerful force can forever protect them from harm. If anyone dares disabuse them of this fantasy, then that person is their sworn enemy.

They don’t take science, methodology, or cost into account. Their calculations are based solely on what they personally stand to gain or lose.

We’ve discussed before why China has, so far, taken the “eradication” approach. Even though this approach is costly, there is a rationale behind it:

Medical resources are insufficient. If there are too many infections, there will be a shortage of hospital beds.

A shortage of hospital beds will cause mild cases to become severe cases, and severe cases to become deaths. This will lead to widespread panic.

Wuhan is the classic example of what happens when there is a shortage of hospital beds. The situation there was the most severe, but other cities were essentially able to avoid this.

With respect to eradication, there are two main points: cost and effectiveness.

More specifically, the questions are: Can we afford the cost of eradicating the virus? And in the end, will we be able to achieve eradication and end the pandemic?

Costs

Obvious costs:

The reagent used in COVID tests costs 80 yuan, and in some places, 65 yuan. If you add the processing costs at testing sites and labor costs for medical workers, then it comes to around 100 yuan per test.

Take Nanjing, for example: its 10 million residents went through five rounds of nucleic-acid COVID testing in 20 days, at a cost of five billion yuan.

COVID testing is free [for the individual], but who pays for it? Social security? If everyone has equal access to testing, do you really think it’s free?

Hidden costs:

Hidden costs include lockdowns of hot spots and business closures in key industries, such as retail, dining, tourism and air travel. On top of this, there has been a recent crackdown on card-playing and mahjong halls.

What’s the sum of all these economic losses? I’m afraid it’s impossible to calculate accurately.

The eradication faction needs to think about these questions and consider how many rounds of this back-and-forth can be sustained.

Let’s Go Back to Effectiveness

If we are just looking at China, there’s nothing wrong with the eradication approach.

Chinese exports drove global economic growth last year because this approach worked. Within a few months, industry had returned to normal.

However, outside of China the pandemic has exploded, and it is impossible to prevent the virus from [re-]entering our borders.

Outbreaks have been caused by a flight from Russia that landed in Nanjing, a flight from Myanmar that landed in Zhengzhou, and international flights into Shanghai. COVID can also be introduced via illegal border crossings and imported frozen food.

You cannot completely sever international contact. With the Winter Olympics coming to Beijing next February and the Asian Games to Hangzhou next September, it is inevitable that the nation will open its doors to the world.

What the eradication faction needs to consider is this: when, and under what conditions, will the doors to the nation be opened?

If we are waiting on foreign countries to eradicate the virus, who knows how long that will be. If the virus mutates again, will we be able to shoulder the cost? Can the unemployed survive this? What about shop owners?

The nation has been pouring capital into small and medium enterprises, but the economy still hasn’t gotten off the ground, and people have been unable to return to the normal routines of life and economic production. How long can this situation persist?

These are the issues that the eradication faction must consider. It’s not as simple as asking whether you are willing to let someone in your family die from COVID.

3

Let’s talk some more about the coexistence faction.

A lot of people oppose the idea of living with the virus, but they don’t understand that achieving coexistence is itself no simple task.

Coexistence requires two conditions:

1. Adequate distribution of medical resources: Not treating young people with mild symptoms so that the elderly and those with underlying health conditions who develop serious cases can receive adequate medical care.
2. Effective vaccine coverage: In order to achieve herd immunity, at least 80% of the population must receive two injections. If the virus mutates, booster shots may be required.

Based on data from Singapore, breakthrough cases in people who received one of the mRNA vaccines were almost all asymptomatic or had mild symptoms, with the majority of cases occurring among the elderly. There were no serious cases or deaths.

This illustrates that with effective vaccine coverage, even the Delta variant is about as frightening as the flu. Decreased virulence is the hoped-for outcome.

Although the WHO and mainstream academics are in consensus on the issue of coexistence, few countries, besides the UK and Singapore, explicitly acknowledge a strategy of coexistence.

Living with COVID seems like lying down, when in fact it requires an even greater exercise of state power.

Coexistence can come in different forms.

One form is a proactive coexistence, like that adopted in the U.K. and Singapore. I think that in the future, other developed countries will follow suit.

Another form is a passive coexistence, seen earlier this year in India, Africa and Southeast Asia.

Coexistence, of course, carries risks:

Proactive coexistence might lead to a loss of immunity due to antibody-dependent enhancement (whereby the virus bonds to suboptimal antibodies, allowing it to enter host cells). Passive coexistence can simulate a petri dish, where the disease can mutate into new variants.

Here is what some of the experts are saying:

Wang Chen: “It is quite possible that COVID will be with us for a long time.”

Zhang Wenhong: “The Nanjing outbreak has shown that we must learn to live with the virus.”

Zhong Nanshan: “COVID and humankind may enter into a long-term coexistence, requiring regular immunizations.”

Gao Fu: “Vaccination is the ultimate weapon in defeating infectious disease. Humankind may well coexist with COVID.”

Gao Qiang: “Coexistence is completely unacceptable. Humankind and the virus are locked in a life-and-death struggle. We must cast the virus from our borders.”

4

In conclusion, allow me to share my opinion.

First, let me say that I’m just discussing the possibilities, not making concrete recommendations.

One option is a middle-of-the road approach.

Focus on targeted eradication, but adopt a general strategy of coexistence. Relax some controls, but maintain vigilance. Restore order.

Of course, this is premised on the widespread administration of an effective vaccine.

The country should maintain stringent standards for international flights, border controls, imports and exports, while adopting an eradication approach for key industries and key personnel.

We should go back to the basic pre-pandemic order of things. All businesses should be open, and we should implement coexistence strategies such as semi-annual immunizations, mandatory prevention measures, masks, QR codes that display health status, and immunization passports. COVID shouldn’t be allowed to govern our lives.

What do you think? You can leave a message to share your thoughts.

That’s all. [Chinese]

Translation by Anonymous.

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/08/translation-eradicate-covid-19-or-live-with-it/