top of page

Chasing the Holy Grail: A Look at China


Image Credit: Aly Song / REUTERS


With the virus’ initial outbreak in 2019, everyone expected China to do something about the spreading pandemic, especially due to the disease’s origins in Wuhan. What people were not expecting, however, was how firm their approach would be. The entire city of Wuhan was quarantined, trapping eleven million residents. No one was getting in or out without the government’s permission. Each subsequent outbreak was met with similar responses, starting with immediate lockdowns as soon as a couple Covid-19 cases were detected, with said lockdowns impacting neighborhoods to entire cities. Contact tracing apps (such as WeChat mini-programs) were then implemented to monitor everyone’s movements and track the spread of the virus. Mass testing comes next, always soon to follow any reports of Covid-19 cases, and anyone who was unfortunate enough to be in contact with an infected person is ordered to quarantine themselves or be thrown into government quarantine facilities. This “zero-Covid” policy was carried out strictly, turning China into what was essentially a government-mandated prison, with citizens living their days under the watchful eyes of the government, desperately hoping that they would not be dragged off and locked up.


Of course, the fact that the “zero-Covid” policy has managed to last the past couple Covid years means that the government is doing something right. Probably. In the midst of the pandemic, where the virus ran rampant and racked up its death toll around the world, such harsh quarantines may have looked overly stringent or outright cruel, but from a logical point of view, it works. Yes, people were unable to travel and were constantly under government supervision, but it worked, keeping cases and the number of deaths low. As of the time of this writing, the current total deaths is at a minuscule five thousand or so, an almost insignificant number compared to the 1 million deaths in the United States after the complete catastrophe that was the USA’s early response system. With such efficacy, it is not particularly surprising that there was nothing more than minor public discontent over the strict rules to be followed. For the sake of saving lives, everything else came second, a principle clearly defined by Chairman Xi, “the supremacy of the people and of life”. Compared to other famous world leaders who had scoffed at Covid (Trump) or completely disregarded their own regulations (Boris Johnson), he presented a harsh stance, but one that held tightly onto the idea of saving as many people as possible.


However, despite initial successes, as the world moved past the days of isolation and fear, public discontent began to rise. The Covid-19 virus has undergone several mutations (as with all other viruses that naturally mutate) with plenty of variants floating around even now. These variants have followed a similar strategy to other viruses that have succeeded in surviving in a world so desperate to eradicate everything and anything that might pose a threat to humanity. Reduce lethality. Increase infectivity. As such, with the virus becoming easier to transmit, the “zero-Covid” policy eventually lost its luster, resulting in fear and anger rising alongside the number of cases. Lockdowns of major cities like Shanghai for months on end marked the start of widespread dissent due to the difficulty of procuring food with delivery services flooded by far too many orders to keep up with. Outrageous acts such as overzealous healthcare workers (dabai in Mandarin) beating pet dogs to death after their owners were sent to government quarantine facilities have flooded social media, seemingly defying censors who race to catch up. Young children were left alone at home without a caregiver, after their parents tested positive or were close contacts (and sent off to government quarantine facilities as a result). What was originally a point of pride for both the Chinese government and its citizens had become a shackle, a Damocles’ Sword hanging over the populace. A threat, rather than a promise of safety.



Deadly Xinjiang Fire raises questions on China's relentless zero-Covid approach. Image credit: UGC, Associated Press


Furthermore, recent events have sparked further discontent. One such example was the deaths of ten individuals due to an apartment building catching fire in the Xinjiang region, which took about three hours to extinguish. Such a tragedy in a region that has been subjected to the “zero-Covid” procedure for over three months has resulted in countless individuals pointing fingers at those they believe responsible for setting up the scene for such an accident to occur; the government. While Urumqi authorities claim that fire escape doors were accessible and residents were allowed to go out of their homes due to the community’s designation as a “low Covid-19 risk area”, social media tells a different story. Graphic imagery of individuals locked in their homes due to the government-enforced quarantines, claims of firefighters unable to get close enough to the building to put out the blaze, desperately scrambling to remove barriers curbing the flow of traffic - these were curtly dismissed by the authorities as “rumors”, who promptly offered a counternarrative and blamed numerous private vehicles and street bollards for the delays instead. Under unprecedented pressure from waves of subsequent mass protests that erupted, Urumqi mayor Memtimin Qadir offered a rare public apology. Regardless of what actually transpired, one thing is clear. Once more, the people are out for blood.


With protests spreading across major Chinese metropolises, even the Communist Party knew that byzantine anti-pandemic restrictions had to end, or at the very least scaled down significantly in order to placate the masses. Change was afoot and indeed change came fast. While widely expected that China was finally reopening to the rest of the world, few could have guessed that changes would quite literally take place overnight.


Touted by some as the biggest event of the New Year, China’s reopening will indeed have profound implications for the rest of the world. Xi’s address in end-2022 cited “tough challenges” ahead - perhaps hinting at the domestic turmoil led by the unchecked spread of the coronavirus amongst 1.4billion people. Various covid-19 models may widely differ in their estimates for the coronavirus’s new victims, but all suggest that China’s unvaccinated elderly would account for the bulk of the death toll. Already, chaos has unfolded even beyond China’s borders. Since December 2022, a shortage of painkillers and common fever medicine has resulted in a sprawling black market with prices surging tens of times as demand far outstrips supply, much of which is strictly rationed by provincial governments. Public officials in Singapore and Taiwan have warned against stockpiling Panadol and similar medications by Chinese nationals who have swept shelves clean to send these products back to their family and friends in China. Purchase restrictions are also being considered by the relevant health authorities. Ironically, Pfizer’s Paxlovid has reportedly emerged as the preferred gift of choice by the well-heeled elites who stocked up in anticipation of the new covid wave.


Amidst the mayhem, numerous questions over the perceived botched handling of the entire reopening process have surfaced. If the Chinese government was able to build sprawling quarantine facilities to house positive contacts in a short span of time, why were these facilities not converted to hospitals in anticipation of the reopening? With anecdotal evidence suggesting that unvaccinated elderly form the bulk of patients clogging the frail public healthcare system, could vaccination campaigns have done more to change their mindset before the inevitable? With more questions than answers thus far, only time will tell as the world watches on Jan 8, the official reopening of Chinese international borders to air travelers.


References


Bình luận

bottom of page