Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 epidemic, the Chinese government has implemented various policies like putting cities under lockdown and building makeshift hospitals. These efforts appear to have helped bring the epidemic under some measure of control. Attention is now shifting to the disease’s outbreak across the world. With an increasing number of confirmed cases reported in Korea, Japan, Italy, and Iran, community spread seems inevitable. Western countries like the US, France, Germany and the UK are also affected by the outbreak, prompting some countries to discuss if they should learn from China’s containment measures.
The Chinese government’s prompt decision to impose a lockdown on Wuhan and its subsequent successful implementation were done to control the source of infection, not to show the supremacy of its political and social systems.
Various Western media have questioned some of the extreme measures taken. For instance, an article published in The New York Times, "Scale of China’s Wuhan Shutdown Is Believed to Be Without Precedent", quoted views such as "the shutdown would almost certainly lead to human rights violations and would be patently unconstitutional in the United States". In an opinion piece published in The Atlantic titled "Democracies Are Better at Fighting Outbreaks", the author opined that "democracies cooperate more than non-democracies" and that democratic societies "tend to have better health and human development indicators". How true are these views?
Political regimes aside, classic epidemiologic theory in infectious disease containment suggests the need for breaking the infection chain in what is known as the “epidemiologic triad model”.
This is done by controlling the source of infection, cutting off transmission modes, and protecting susceptible hosts from the virus. In the early stages of the Covid-19 outbreak in China when the virus was relatively more contagious, there was neither effective medicine for treatment nor preventive vaccines; the manner in which the virus spreads also remained unknown. Controlling the source of infection seemed to be the only choice left.
The Chinese government’s prompt decision to impose a lockdown on Wuhan and its subsequent successful implementation were done to control the source of infection, not to show the supremacy of its political and social systems.
...if China had remained hesitant in its policies due to carelessness or worry over its international image and consequently caused a further spread of the outbreak, it would be criticised by international media all the same.
Moreover, as hospital beds were limited, hospitals were unable to admit all suspected cases in a timely manner, resulting in further community spread as many suspected cases were left to seek medical treatment on their own. Thus, the officials later decided to quickly build makeshift hospitals and the Huoshenshan and Leishenshan Hospitals. The makeshift hospitals are used to admit mildly infected Covid-19 patients, with the aim of completely quarantining them away from healthy people to reduce the spread of the outbreak. Huoshenshan and Leishenshan Hospitals admit critically-ill patients, with the aim of providing medical treatment.
Following increased accuracy in quarantine measures, virus containment was gradually achieved and put under control. To some extent, the lockdown was just the first measure in controlling the source of infection and was a rough-and-ready method. The building of quarantine hospitals and establishing a system of differentiated treatment, in comparison, were much more precise measures in virus containment.
Western media has criticised the lockdown as an infringement of human rights. However, in the face of a quickly escalating outbreak at the beginning of the epidemic, if China had remained hesitant in its policies due to carelessness or worry over its international image and consequently caused a further spread of the outbreak, it would be criticised by international media all the same. And if the Chinese government had simply told people to exercise self-discipline and stay home instead of imposing a lockdown, the measure might not have worked as it would have depended on how socially responsible the citizens were.
As to whether Western countries should adopt the lockdown policy, one needs to understand that mechanically “copying and pasting” policies is meaningless due to different circumstances faced by each country. Regardless of a lockdown, governments need to emphasise the severity of the epidemic and ensure that people wash their hands frequently, take the necessary protective measures, and increase their own sense of social responsibility, namely, by putting themselves in self-quarantine if they have a recent travel history or are feeling unwell. The government should also distribute social and medical resources properly, actively preparing for epidemic prevention work.
The important thing is, viruses do not selectively infect countries based on ideological differences, and policymakers should not selectively implement certain policies based on ideology. In the face of a tough viral enemy, empty discussions of ideological beliefs are impractical and meaningless. Policymakers should shoulder the responsibility and pragmatically decide on the most effective measures for the greater good of their people.
Related Readings: Government-endorsed ‘epidemic textbook’ taken off the shelves: A celebration too soon? | Is the lockdown airtight? Infected Wuhan former prisoner's entry into Beijing sparks concern
