As virus cases surge, can China's zero-COVID strategy hold?

Measures can be justified to control the spreading, but there is a point where the costs associated with those measures no longer outweigh the reduction of risk, specially after effective vaccines have been produced to protect the most vulnerable. Accepting a manageable degree of infections would be much more cost effective, controlling outbreaks and pre-emptively acting on more local levels may just be better but apparently China is too fixed in a very inefficient way to deal with the pandemic.

virusrexToday  11:18 am JST

 Accepting a manageable degree of infections would be much more cost effective, controlling outbreaks and pre-emptively acting on more local levels may just be better but apparently China is too fixed in a very inefficient way to deal with the pandemic.

Any links from scientific (hard science) institutions to support this theory?

As Korea, Hong Kong, NZ see their infected cases growing out of control, and with a resurgence of cases in the UK, China seems to have the right idea.

Why should China take a different action than the one that has resulted in such a low death rate?

Who determines the costs for China to control the outbreaks? Shouldn't it be China?

As Korea, Hong Kong, NZ see their infected cases growing out of control,

Hong Kong proves the opposite of what you are saying, their strategy is the same as in mainland china, zero COVID, and this has been so resource intensive that it proved to be impossible in any realistic way. Precisely because Hong Kong proves that this can end up spiraling out of control is why China may be better with a stragety closer to what has given a better results elsewhere.

virusrexToday  11:59 am JST

Hong Kong proves the opposite of what you are saying,

Any links to sources to support your theory?

And what was do you think I saying that Hong Kong proves is the opposite?

And what was do you think I saying that Hong Kong proves is the opposite?

Eh?

@virusrex

Keep up the very clear, well-written and rational posts on this topic. A pleasure to read.

They really are a cut above

Any links to sources to support your theory?

Antbody not living under a rock knows about it, it is a well known failure of the zero COVID policy and has been for more than a month already.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/Hong-Kong-outbreak-tests-limits-of-China-s-zero-COVID-policy

And what was do you think I saying that Hong Kong proves is the opposite?

No, what I am saying is that you are using Hong Kong as an example of a failure, and since it is based on the policy you are trying to defend, it actually proves the opposite of what you believe.

With your example you have proved yourself wrong.

China had about 2000 new cases yesterday.

HK had about 20,000. We can all do the math to calculate positivity rates.

As I originally stated, Why should China take a different action than the one that has resulted in such a low death rate?

So, without statistics showing zero policy failing in China, why should China take a different approach now just because HK's approach is failing? Instead of looking at what is not working in HK, the focus is on what is working in China.

If 2 people are driving cars in a highway at the same speed and one car's tire blows out, the other car's driver doesn't need to change his tire too.

Elvis is hereToday  01:28 pm JST

Can you provide the sources? And share your method for formulating positivity rates.

Sure I can provide sources, but it is simple to find that info--didn't you already look it up to see if my numbers are accurate?

Regardless, what is your thought about my statement:

Why should China take a different action than the one that has resulted in such a low death rate?

And what is your method for formulating positivity rates? Maybe I'll use it.

A very clever and thought evoking analogy.

Not bad, huh?

There might be a recall so the car manufacturer can determine if the blow out was a manufacturing problem or not.

Exactly; so would the other driver need to change his tire? But to be more precise, if a tire blows out, the recall would be made by the tire manufacturer for the tires, not by the car manufacturer.

Elvis is hereToday  02:01 pm JST

Why shouldn't China take a different action than the one that has resulted in such a low death rate?

Come on Elvis--back to my car anecdote. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for your CDC formula, that is fine for the US--I checked the same site and also found:

Methods used by jurisdictions to calculate percent positivity can differ, including the following:

Differences in the inclusion or exclusion of antigen test results, which are inconsistently reported. CDC recommends reporting positive results for SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests as a separate metric.

So, if China uses a different formula, that might be ok.

As for the Yellow Hat---funniest thing I've seen posted here.

So, without statistics showing zero policy failing in China, why should China take a different approach now just because HK's approach is failing?

Who brought HK as an example here? you. That means you recognize that this approach is a failure there, and it can easily become a failure in mainland China as well, it may not, but the costs are rising and other countries have dealt much better with the pandemic without neeing a zero cases approach. Blindly saying the strategy you like is the best, even when mounting costs and other ways also being successful are evident is not productive nor rational. Rational arguments based on evidence of approaches that may be better are being dismissed just because, nobody is asking about taking unnecessary risks, just to have better control and management of resources that would benefit the population better in the short and long term.

But of course, if the CCP wants to deal with the problem by throwing resources at it until it becomes better, that is obviously an option, a terribly inefficient one that is going to cost them but is their choice to make.

virusrexToday  02:19 pm JST

Who brought HK as an example here? you.

Well, since HK was mentioned in the article. But why answer your own question?

That means you recognize that this approach is a failure there,

The approach in Hong Kong has been a failure. The approach in China has been a success.

and it can easily become a failure in mainland China as well, it may not, 

I agree! It might, and it might not.

As I noted with my car example, just because the method isn't working in HK, doesn't mean it won't work in China--and it has been working in China. So why should they change now? And if they change, what method should they use instead?

Elvis is hereToday  02:33 pm JST

Now you're talking. Glad you came round. Well done.

Oh Elvis, you forgot to read the sentence preceding that:

So why should they change now?

Interesting to hear your opinion! I don't think the Yellow Hat has the answer though.

Can you come up with a reason?

Well, since HK was mentioned in the article. But why answer your own question?

You literally wrote that HK "see their infected cases growing out of control" that still means you proved that zero covid policy can be a failure.

The approach in Hong Kong has been a failure. The approach in China has been a success.

Both depend on the zero covid strategy, and counting from the amount of resources invested into preventing every single death it can be argued that China has also been a failure. Countries have done the same (preventing deaths and other negative outcomes) without investing as much resources as the CCP.

I agree! It might, and it might not.

Since there are examples that have proved it is not necessary that is what makes the stance of rejecting any other equlibirum wrong.

As I noted with my car example, just because the method isn't working in HK, doesn't mean it won't work in China

That would also mean that since the measures have worked with less transmissible variants it does not mean that it would work with Omicron, specially in a indefinite way (which is the only way with a zero covid policy). That is why it is valuable to consider a change, because there are rational examples of how a much lesser investment of resources would give equivalent results.

But again, for every other country in competition with China it is much more advantageous for it not to change course. This would mean a China would waste much more resources (and become less competitive) without reducing the risk of thing going out of control

virusrexMar. 19  09:38 pm JST

You literally wrote that HK "see their infected cases growing out of control" that still means you proved that zero covid policy can be a failure.

I literally did! And I agree--zero covid policy can be--and is--a failure in HK.

Both depend on the zero covid strategy, and counting from the amount of resources invested into preventing every single death it can be argued that China has also been a failure. Countries have done the same (preventing deaths and other negative outcomes) without investing as much resources as the CCP.

Sure--it can be argued it has also been a failure. Anything can be argued. There are countries with the same success as China? I would like to know which countries those are. Nauru? Fiji?

That would also mean that since the measures have worked with less transmissible variants it does not mean that it would work with Omicron,

But it is working in China. So no need to change now just because it is not working in Hong Kong.

I literally did! And I agree--zero covid policy can be--and is--a failure in HK.

This is the reason why China should consider changing their approach, because it is faulty and risk failing according to the experts (including chinese ones) you produced the reason you are searching for.

Sure--it can be argued it has also been a failure. Anything can be argued. There are countries with the same success as China? I would like to know which countries those are. Nauru? Fiji?

If by sucess you mean losing a huge amount of resources for a much reduced benefit then many other countries do, cutting your hand is also a very effective way to prevent finger injuries, but it can hardly be called a successful strategy if equivalent results are possible with much less drastic measures.

But it is working in China. So no need to change now just because it is not working in Hong Kong.

Again, according to the experts (including Chinese ones) is not. At least not without sacrificing so much that the cost/benefit of the measures put the country in disadvantage. And since the possibility of everything going down in flames as in HK is there pretending the data predicting this is not worth considering is irrational and irresponsible.

The whole point of making public health decisions is to prevent disasters from happening in the first place, not just reacting once things get complicated, acting too late would mean countless unnecessary deaths.

virusrexToday  01:50 am JST

This is the reason why China should consider changing their approach, because it is faulty and risk failing according to the experts (including chinese ones) you produced the reason you are searching for.

But it is working.

If by sucess you mean losing a huge amount of resources for a much reduced benefit then many other countries do, cutting your hand is also a very effective way to prevent finger injuries, but it can hardly be called a successful strategy if equivalent results are possible with much less drastic measures.

So implement strategies like what? Like the US, Europe, Japan, which lost a huge amount of resources yet still saw high numbers of cases, and deaths?

Again, according to the experts (including Chinese ones) is not. At least not without sacrificing so much that the cost/benefit of the measures put the country in disadvantage. And since the possibility of everything going down in flames as in HK is there pretending the data predicting this is not worth considering is irrational and irresponsible. 

Well, sounds like there are other experts that disagree with you. And what is this article all about anyway?

The whole point of making public health decisions is to prevent disasters from happening in the first place, not just reacting once things get complicated, acting too late would mean countless unnecessary deaths.

Sounds like China made a public health decision called zero covid policy, which has been successful.

Elvis is hereToday  07:21 am JST

The recent reports on the news wire is that record cases have occurred in recent days. This indicates quite strongly that the approach used is not working. I could probably locate a source for you but I would request that you graciously look such information up yourself as you seem to be be able to use the internet very well.

Yes, record cases have occurred in China--about 5000 yesterday--for the entire country.

While Tokyo alone had, well, you can find that info somewhere.

But it is working.

Again at a very high cost including in human lives, which means it is not working, pretending the argument that disqualifyes your is not there in the text that you quote is not valid, it just shows your intention is to be in denial of it.

So implement strategies like what? Like the US, Europe, Japan, which lost a huge amount of resources yet still saw high numbers of cases, and deaths?

Implement the strategies that have shown they work, with a much less important amount of resources necessary to reduce deaths to a minimum, this is obvious and part of the reasons the experts in the article are using to say the chinese approach is not working, you should read it.

Well, sounds like there are other experts that disagree with you. And what is this article all about anyway?

Then reference to them, because those in the article you keep trying to ignore agree the strategy can't be maintained successfully and its costs (including in human lives) is not justifed for a result that can be obtained without them. Just saying experts disagree (without mentioning those experts) is not an argument, it is just wishful thinking.

Sounds like China made a public health decision called zero covid policy, which has been successful.

Except it does not, taking into account the costs, and specially the huge risk of failing according to the experts, they predict a very real risk of cases spiraling out of control because of the negative of trying much more effective measures that do not depend on having zero cases anywhere and you have made absolutely zero effort in disqualifying that opinion, which means you implicitly recognize it as right. This completely contradict your position.

Yes, record cases have occurred in China--about 5000 yesterday--for the entire country.

While Tokyo alone had, well, you can find that info somewhere.

Having cases is not a public health problem if the risk from those cases is less than the risk to the health and life from the measures put in order to have zero cases. If more people will end up dying from the use of resources that prevent benign cases then having more cases (and less deaths) is still better.

virusrexToday  07:47 am JST

Again at a very high cost including in human lives, which means it is not working,

How many human lives? And not working, compared to what is working in what country?

Implement the strategies that have shown they work, with a much less important amount of resources necessary to reduce deaths to a minimum, this is obvious and part of the reasons the experts in the article are using to say the chinese approach is not working, you should read it.

China had only 2 Covid related deaths in the country the other day. Sounds like a strategy that has been used for 2 years has been working. Trying to argue something isn't working, because it has been working but mght not---intriguing to say the least. Did you read the article? Information like:

Although cases from the chaotic initial outbreak in Wuhan in early 2020 are widely believed to have been under-reported, life since then has **largely returned to normal.**

taking into account the costs,

Ok, 2 Covid related deaths in the entire country yesterday. What precisely are the costs you keep going on about?

How many human lives? And not working, compared to what is working in what country?

That is better, you simply trying to ignore a cost do not make it disappear, so at least it is a step forward to recognize this is actually possible, even likely. For that you have to refer to the opinion of the experts.

China had only 2 Covid related deaths in the country the other day.

And how many deaths related to the huge amount of resources used to get to this point? this becomes important if other approaches would get equivalent results without any waste of resources.

Trying to argue something isn't working, because it has been working but mght not---intriguing to say the least.

No, criticizing something that works only by throwing resources and lives to it when it has been proved not to be necessary is perfectly valid. Again according to the experts that know about the topic (including chinese ones) that you try so much to ignore for no valid reason.

If the same experts say this is not sustainable and it is very likely to end up as a repetition of what happened in HK you have two very powerful reasons to consider other approaches, even if you try very hard to ignore those reason that does not mean they disappear.

Ok, 2 Covid related deaths in the entire country yesterday. What precisely are the costs you keep going on about?

Again, read the article, it is much better explained and it is not my personal opinion aobut it that matters but the one of the experts that actually know about the pandemic and the Chinese response. Speaking of which, whare are the experts that you said contradict this point? was that also a non argument after all?

virusrexToday  09:54 am JST

That is better, you simply trying to ignore a cost do not make it disappear, so at least it is a step forward to recognize this is actually possible, even likely. For that you have to refer to the opinion of the experts.

Which is not you; fair.

And how many deaths related to the huge amount of resources used to get to this point? this becomes important if other approaches would get equivalent results without any waste of resources.

How many then? Waiting for your answer. And this would not become important if there were no deaths related to the resources used.

Again according to the experts that know about the topic (including chinese ones) that you try so much to ignore for no valid reason. 

If the same experts say this is not sustainable and it is very likely to end up as a repetition of what happened in HK you have two very powerful reasons to consider other approaches, even if you try very hard to ignore those reason that does not mean they disappear.

Where are these experts? You have viable sources?

Again, read the article, it is much better explained and it is not my personal opinion aobut it that matters but the one of the experts that actually know about the pandemic and the Chinese response. Speaking of which, whare are the experts that you said contradict this point? was that also a non argument after all?

My advice to you is not only read the article, but also understand it. Then we can have a coherent discussion.

Which is not you; fair.

When have I ever said I was the one saying this? once again, this is in the article that you apparently have not read yet.

How many then? Waiting for your answer. And this would not become important if there were no deaths related to the resources used.

Once you are out of fantasy world you would know that there are no infinite resources and there are ever need for more in public health, everything that consumes resources inevitably leads to those resources not being directed to actions that promote health and prevent death. Which is why the experts are saying a huge wasteful strategy can reach a point where it is saving less lives than indirectly producting.

Where are these experts? You have viable sources?

Yes, exactly this same article explicitly mention the experts talking about the problem of the zero covid poilcy. One thing is to ignore the example you yourself offered about a failing strategy is precisely how the zero covid policy failed, another completely different is to pretend the article you are commenting in doesn't exist.

My advice to you is not only read the article, but also understand it. Then we can have a coherent discussion.

You have continously ignored (and then asked about) things included in the article, that would indicate you have not even read it.

Another thing is that you again failed to present the experts that according to you contradict this point. Why are you quoting something just to pretend it is not there? you were the one saying there were experts, was that also something pulled out of thin air?

The above argument assumes that China's and Hong Kong's statistics regarding Covid-19 infections and deaths are honest and accurate. There is no way to independently check their accuracy. A great many organizations outside of China are of the strong opinion that China deliberately understates their Covid-19 infections and deaths. In China good news is rewarded and bad news is punished. Local officials fear what happens if their local area shows an increase in Covid-19 cases, knowing heads will roll including prison time while local officials reporting good news get promotions. Honesty and introspection are punished at ever turn so do not be too confident any statistics coming out of China reflect reality.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/can-chinas-covid-19-statistics-be-trusted/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2022/01/11/part-3-anomalies-in-the-chinese-covid-data--evidence-of-manipulation/?sh=5aebe8086cba

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-accurate-are-chinas-virus-numbers

virusrexMar. 20  10:40 pm JST

once again, this is in the article that you apparently have not read yet.

You talk about "experts all over the world" but constantly fail to produce any. I get it--you're the expert because you say you are.

Read the article again, think about it, then read the quote from the article, and try to fight the reality of the numbers; good luck!:

China's caseload since the start of the pandemic -- just over **115,000 -- is a fraction of those recorded elsewhere. The official death toll has stayed under 5,000.**

How do your experts (you, right?) compare those numbers with, say, the USA, Europe, Brazil---Japan???

Desert TortoiseToday  02:08 am JST

The above argument assumes that China's and Hong Kong's statistics regarding Covid-19 infections and deaths are honest and accurate. There is no way to independently check their accuracy.

Is there a way to prove the numbers are not accurate? What would be the motivation for HK to fake their numbers?

You talk about "experts all over the world" 

Where exactly did I? I talked about experts including Chinese ones, and repeatedly refer you this article where they express their opinion, refusing to read the article is bad enough, making up things that other people have not said is even worse. That means you can't do anything against what is actually being said.

Your quote does absotutely nothing to demonstrate the approach is sustainable now, or that it is not preventing more deaths than it causes, focusing only one what can be misrepresented to appear to support your point is also completely invalid. The actual comparison that is necessary is on the same country but with a much more cost effective approach that would end up with the same benefits.

The person that made up experts that supposedly contradicts this point only to remain completely silent when asked for those experts has been you, this indicate very clearly this was completely false.

The world would benefit a huge lot if china bankrupt itself with this failing strategy, looking at hong kong this may end up with lots of dead chinese people.

virusrexToday  06:51 am JST

You talk about "experts all over the world" 

Where exactly did I? I talked about experts including Chinese ones

Well, if you talk about experts including Chinese ones, from where are the other experts to whom you refer? Inner Mongolia?

Since other readers might be paying attention, I will state again--the Chinese zero Covid policy has been effective, and China should maintain it. If anyone has an opposite view, let's hear it, because no one has presented on here yet. But virusrex---follow on, as you get your hat handed to you.

Let's look at another expert "all over the world." Alexandra Martiniuk, a professor and epidemiologist at the University of Sydney (not in China).

What does Alexandra have to say about zero covid policies?

Well, first, let's look back a little at Australia'a approach. From the January 2022 article in the link below, for much of the pandemic, Australia aimed for zero Covid cases, employing regular lockdowns. And it worked — the nation’s Covid mortality rate has been among the lowest in the world. 

Anyone want to argue against this at this point? virusrex-are you following?

When Australia relaxed contract tracing, wearing masks in public guess what happened? In other words, when Australia stopped its zero covid strategy, what was the result? More Covid cases!

And Alexandra the Expert said "the timing of Australia’s U-turn was not ideal." In other words, the new approach was not as successful as the old approach, which was---A zero covid policy.

From the same article: "The one state to have dodged the omicron surge is Western Australia, which has maintained a hard border with other states and territories. It remains almost free of Covid, but has faced criticism for not allowing fellow Australians to enter, even for compassionate reasons." Gee--a Zero Covid Policy implemented and preventing Covid cases. How novel (get it?)!

So, the conclusion, the zero covid policy in Australia was more successful at containing Covid cases than a non-zero covid policy.

Similarly, in China , the zero Covid policy has been successful to keep Covid cases and covid related deaths low--some of the lowest in the world.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/australia-decided-let-covid-rip-good-idea-rcna11509

Well, if you talk about experts including Chinese ones, from where are the other experts to whom you refer? Inner Mongolia?

Good to see you accept you made up that comment nobody ever said, it is a positive step, so if you think those experts are wrong what are your arguments?

Your point is still irrelevant, cutting your hand is a very effective way to avoid hurting your finger, but it is terribly inneficient and can be a negative when the total situation is considered. The same is what is happening with the zero COVID policy.

And Alexandra the Expert said "the timing of Australia’s U-turn was not ideal." In other words, the new approach was not as successful as the old approach, which was---A zero covid policy.

No, that is completely false, the zero covid can still be the worst option, so it can be replaced to improve, but what came after the replacement (and the timing of it) could have made things much better yet.

The whole article makes it clear that the zero covid policy was unsustainable, but that the other extreme (eliminating every form of control) can be as bad, the problem for you is that nobody is saying that a zero covid policy can only be replaced with the "letting it rip" policy, that is your strawman.

What the experts that you refuse to consider keep saying is that the policy can be modified to allow for limited spreading keeping in place most of the controls, making it much more efficient and less likely to end up being overrun like it happened in HK,

, the conclusion, the zero covid policy in Australia was more successful at containing Covid cases than a non-zero covid policy.

No, that is false conclusion that you came up with but it is not supported in the article, what it clearly said was that the "let it rip" policy was not as effective as other options could have been, but since this is not a false dichotomy as you want to misrepresent there is not problem, if you end up trying to misrepresent what other people said as your only point I can understand now why you keep refusing to bring any experts opinion contradicting this article that says the zero covid policy is at the same time unsustainable and risky.

I get it--you're the expert because you say you are.

Yep. He's the "expert".

Yep. He's the "expert".

And like all self-annointed experts, has been totally wrong on C19 since day 1.

Insisted masks, lockdowns, social distancing and (erm, another tiny detail that has nothing to do with the vaccine) have been 100% effective and the way to go.

Complete and utter failure on every issue.

Complete and utter failure on every issue.

It is very easy to say this, but how come every time someone ask where exactly did that happen you end up silent?

Vaccines are effective, masks as well, covid is a dangerous disease that killed millions of people all over the world, the failure come from all the people that repeatedly tried to mislead others into thinkign this was not true only to be demonstrated wrong at every point.