Can China gradually unblock it?

(one)

When the epidemic first started in 2020, I wrote an article arguing that China's governance model would inevitably be challenged by the epidemic.

My analysis at the time was that China’s governance stability in recent years was largely due to the establishment of a parallel time and space through information control, making people in China believe that foreign people are living in dire straits, and the rise of the Chinese model dominates the world. This pile of things is actually divorced from reality, transcending the physical world with political mobilization; but the epidemic itself is objective and materialistic, and the virus does not care about lies, and the two will inevitably collide.

However, with the outbreak of the epidemic, the Chinese government used the nationwide system to brutally and directly suppress the epidemic. In European and American societies, there are many democratic politicians who are proud of ignoring the epidemic, and brought many unnecessary innocent lives to carbon in the first year of the epidemic. For a while, China's "concentrating efforts to do big things" seemed to be better able to fight the epidemic than the "disturbance" of European and American democratic societies, proving China's "institutional superiority."

(two)

At the end of 2022, things changed.

The epidemic has evolved to the Omicron strain, and as expected by many epidemiologists, the infectivity of the virus has increased significantly, but the lethality has decreased significantly. The equation that worked for the past two years, doesn't work anymore. In order to maintain the past management and control model in China, the cost has risen sharply, but the benefit has dropped sharply. The day when the objective scientific laws of the epidemic collide with the subjective political tasks finally came, and the parallel time and space became more and more fragile.

As mentioned before, information control in the former Soviet Union relied on an absolute Iron Curtain, but China is much smarter today: let some people get rich first, then even if they see a different world abroad, they may not be envious; People with the same income level can enjoy cheaper services in China, so they feel that living in China is better, which in turn forms a "self-contained wall".

Under the epidemic, cracks appeared in the "self-contained wall". Although it has become very difficult to go abroad during the epidemic, for those who can go, the first experience is that life in foreign countries has returned to normal. Although the number of confirmed cases is inexhaustible every day, people are not living in dire straits as described by the domestic media. And even those who have no chance to go abroad, as long as they watch the World Cup broadcast on TV, tens of thousands of fans cheer and embrace at the scene without wearing masks, and they will not feel the horror of the virus at all, which has formed a huge gap with China's various containment measures.

The "self-contained wall" can explain many things, but there are always some things that cannot be answered, and the development of the epidemic seems to have finally hit this point. If so, in recent days, there have been angry roars all over the country.

(three)

On the epidemic, can China gradually unblock it? This question, in the final analysis, goes back to science, but it is not just science.

In the early days of the epidemic, scientists didn't know much about the virus, and it was inevitable that medicines and stones would be thrown indiscriminately at the beginning. With research and experience, we now know what to do and what not to do. For example, we now know that touching the surface of an object is not the main way to get the virus, and the risk is relatively low. Of course, the US CDC will still ask everyone to wash their hands frequently, but only if there are confirmed or suspected confirmed cases in the room within 24 hours, the room needs to be disinfected. In other words, it is completely unscientific for those "big whites" to use spray guns to spray everywhere in the open-air passages in the community. Not only is it useless to fight the epidemic, but it will damage the environment.

In addition, as the virus evolves, so should our responses. For example, studies have found that with the popularization of Omicron, the virus can no longer be detected in cough samples and environmental samples after the onset of symptoms of confirmed patients on the third day; in other words, any long-term isolation is unnecessary, and there is no scientific reason to Weld the gates: Bijing only takes a few days, and those who are going to be sick will get sick (and then recover). Taking Taiwan as an example, the current policy is to allow confirmed patients to stay at home for 5 days, and then they can go out; during the first 7 days of going out, they should not participate in group activities, but as long as the quick test turns negative, the restrictions can be lifted early. This is a scientific approach: because research has found that if the quick screening fails, it means that it is not contagious, and you can live as usual, and there is no need to do nucleic acid every day.

I don't believe that Chinese scientists don't know the above truths. But it's one thing for scientists to know, and another for political implementation. Governments are lazy. Once they start doing something, they will keep doing it, especially in centralized regimes. What's more, the Chinese government has used the effective control of the epidemic as the cornerstone of self-governance effectiveness in the past two years. How do you tell them to turn around?

Remember the "Scientific Outlook on Development"? In reality, those who have power must be loyal first, and they must implement the order whether they understand it or not. This is not simply a problem with the people who implement it, but also what kind of system induces them to implement it. The same is true to understand why there is a farce of making nucleic acid for fish and shrimp (fish has no lungs and will not be infected with pneumonia).

Just before this wave of infections and public dissatisfaction broke out in China, many overseas scholars were not optimistic that the Chinese government could adjust the epidemic prevention policy in time. This is because a large number of interests and powers are embedded in China's nationwide system, so it is actually the opposite of the official propaganda. Not only is it not good at making effective decisions quickly, but it will not admit that it has gone too far until the moment of burning. Looking back at the Great Leap Forward, the Great Famine, and the ten-year Cultural Revolution, didn’t reform and opening up come into play because of desperation? Looking at the family planning, it is obvious that adjustments should be made early on in terms of demography, but there are too many interests involved in this system, so it is only now that the birth rate has plummeted and it is too late to realize the changes. We have no reason to believe that the same rigid system will suddenly become resilient in the face of the epidemic.

But really had to change. Even WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said as early as May this year that China could not continue to "clear to zero". By the way, I am afraid that the Chinese media has not mentioned this point of view of Tan Desai.

(Four)

Of course, I am not saying that China will fully open up all at once. But under pressure, it is necessary for the public to see the direction and see the end.

What is the end? It is not to make the epidemic disappear, but to make the epidemic no longer important. For example, more than 300 people die every day in the United States from the epidemic. Is that much? Going back to 2019 before the epidemic, the annual death toll in the United States was 2.85 million, or 7,800 per day. Relatively speaking, the more than 300 deaths from the epidemic every day are obvious, but not terrible. Relatively speaking, there are more than 400 deaths in the United States every day due to various accidents. Note that in the current United States, there is no mask order in public places, no city closures, and no mandatory testing to achieve this death rate.

Speaking of this, it is not only a question of value debate, but also a question of how to calculate the cost. How much death rate is acceptable for social normalization? Conversely, what is the daily number of abnormal deaths (ranging from delayed treatment to suicide due to mental breakdown to problems caused by financial difficulties) because of the current monitoring? Can you compare the two sets of numbers?

Needless to say, you also know that the current difficulty lies in the fact that the above-mentioned discussions are not allowed to happen under the current system. So please don't call for "talk more about problems and less about doctrine", "seek truth from facts and don't go on the line", criticize and criticize "only know how to vent emotions and can't see the overall situation"... Sorry, it is the system that makes everyone irrational . Do you want everyone to be more rational? Then please create rational conditions from the system: information disclosure, free debate.

(five)

The number of deaths per day mentioned above is an assumption of the end point. The reality is that many people died in the United States before reaching this point, and the death rate was once much higher. At present, most people in the United States have either been vaccinated or have been naturally infected with the epidemic. The overall resistance of the society still exists, which brings defense against the spread of the epidemic. Relatively speaking, China is really like a "blank sheet of paper" now. If all epidemic prevention measures are given up immediately, although the death rate of Omicron is relatively low, when the number of infections increases sharply, it will break through China's medical capacity. Yes, there will still be a lot of deaths. We cannot deny this.

But this is no reason not to unblock. No one tells you to unblock completely tomorrow, you can unblock it step by step. Chinese officials often refer to foreign countries' anti-epidemic strategies as "laying flat", which is completely scarecrow. There are two ways of epidemic prevention in various places. Some of them have a full-scale social outbreak before they have time to respond, such as many European and American countries; some have successfully blocked the first wave, and then voluntarily let it go at the right time, such as Singapore. China, New Zealand, and Taiwan have come this way. And between them, there are also obvious internal differences. According to statistics from Johns Hopkins University, the United States has 328 deaths per 100,000 population, while Canada next door has only 125. As for the figures for Singapore, New Zealand and Taiwan, they were 29, 45 and 60 respectively. It can be seen that it is obviously unfair to scare people with the overall data of the United States; what's more, the data of the United States includes the situation before Omicron.

If China wants to unblock the epidemic, there are already ready-made cases to imitate. The key is to allow the spread of the disease in society on the one hand, but the speed of the spread is controlled; instead of letting everyone get infected at the same time, they should be infected at different times, so that the amount of medical treatment can be dealt with Come. There is now a cure for the epidemic. As long as appropriate treatment is provided to high-risk infected persons, the epidemic is not terrible. Therefore, to see whether a place is successful in fighting the epidemic, we should not look at the number of confirmed cases every day, but the number of empty beds in hospitals. As long as it is not full, don't be too scared.

Speaking of which, unfortunately, China's starting point is relatively low. The number of intensive care beds per 100,000 population is 28.5 in Taiwan, 11.4 in Singapore, and 3.6 in China. If the Chinese government had been able to allocate some of the resources used for "zeroing out" in the past three years to increase the amount of medical treatment, it would be much easier to turn around now.

Therefore, China's unblocking speed may be slower than other places, but this does not mean that there will be no unblocking. So how can the epidemic spread in society under control? This is a mathematical model can be calculated. Among the people who entered the country from other places, the percentage of people infected with the epidemic can be counted; how many days before they are allowed to complete the isolation and enter the society, and the percentage of these people who slipped through the net to carry the epidemic can also be counted. Statistics. Controlling the number of people who are expected to slip through the net can control the speed at which the epidemic spreads in society. This method has been tried in many places. To paraphrase the past, there are already homework to copy.

(six)

After three years of lockdown, although many people want to unblock it, there are also many people who are afraid in the bottom of their hearts. If the Chinese government can be open and honest and share all the data, it can greatly reduce the social instability that may arise during the unblocking process.

In fact, these data are already available, because Hong Kong has experienced a large-scale social spread of the epidemic, providing China with actual combat data for a high-density Chinese society. For example, young people aged 20 to 29 who have not been vaccinated have a mortality rate of 0.03%, that is, three people die for every 10,000 confirmed cases; if they have received three doses of the Sinovac vaccine, the mortality rate drops to 0.00 %. If so, there are very scientific reasons to believe that the first trial of relaxation in places where young people congregate, such as college towns, will not result in mass deaths. People who usually stay in the university do not need to be forced to do nucleic acid at all, and they don’t have to be afraid of getting infected; at most, they are required to do a quick screening before leaving school to ensure that they will not bring the disease back to the elderly at home when they leave school. OK. In this way, we can build confidence in the whole society step by step, and the lockdown can be gradually lifted.

Using Hong Kong data to calculate what might happen when China unblocks, there are two points to note. First, when the epidemic broke out in Hong Kong in February and March this year, the vaccination rate of the elderly was not high, and a lot of medical energy was wasted under the chaotic command. Both of these mistakes are avoidable. The number of deaths per 100,000 population in Hong Kong is 144, far higher than those in Singapore, New Zealand, and Taiwan. Hong Kong is actually not a good case, and there are better examples to learn from.

Second, in addition to Kexing vaccine, Hong Kong also has Fubitai vaccine to choose from. The data shows that vaccines based on messenger ribonucleic acid as a technology platform such as Fubitai are more effective than vaccines based on an inactivated virus technology platform such as Kexing. According to the same data from Hong Kong, the mortality rate of infected persons over the age of 80 who have not been vaccinated is 14.70%, those who have been vaccinated with three doses of Sinovac are 1.78%, and those who have been vaccinated with three doses of Fubitai are 0.98%. Although the death rate has dropped substantially once the vaccine has been administered, the difference in efficacy between the two vaccines is stark. Putting it on the scale of China's population of 1.4 billion, the pressure on medical capacity will also be different. China has always imposed restrictions on the introduction of foreign messenger RNA vaccines, which has also made it more difficult for China to unblock under the epidemic.

(seven)

Taiwan will lift the requirement to wear masks outdoors on December 1. That's too late for the rest of the world.

What will happen next, I don't think anyone can be sure. However, according to common scripts, it should be blamed on the localities for overweighting and execution problems. The problem is that this set of "all places are bad" plays has been performed so many times before the epidemic, or it is time to ask whether there is a huge incentive in the structure to make the place get out of control; or it is time to ask whether it is There are more rational ways to monitor local governance, such as democracy.

Among the friends I know in mainland China, there are quite polarized views on lifting the lockdown. Some can't wait to cancel all the prevention and control requirements immediately, while others turn pale when they hear about the diagnosis (although they seem to be afraid that the diagnosis will bring more closures than the diagnosis itself). After three years of the epidemic, I believe most people are exhausted physically and mentally. To continue, we can no longer rely on tough policies, but must seek truth from facts and use real science to convince the public.

What is real science? I don’t say that science is science. Anyone who has actually done research knows that the scientific method includes the following points: open data, open debate, admit mistakes, and have the courage to correct. Only when these points can be achieved can it be regarded as science.

Therefore, in order to unblock China in the face of the epidemic, the first thing to do should be to unblock the mind.

Attachment: Preliminary Data Analysis of Death Case Reports of COVID-19 in Hong Kong https://www.covidvaccine.gov.hk/pdf/death_analysis.pdf