To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Residents are seen wearing a mask as they walk through a street on December 8, 2020 in Wuhan, Hubei province,China. With no recorded cases of community transmissions since May, life for residents is gradually returning to normal. (Photo by Getty Images)
There is no doubt that bureaucratic bungling and authoritarian practices slowed China's response to the coronavirus. A New York Times piece documents many of these failings. But, it is a big step to go from the evidence presented in the article to the assertion in the first paragraph:
"Beijing acted against the coronavirus with stunning force, as its official narratives recount. But not before a political logjam had allowed a local outbreak to kindle a global pandemic."
If the pandemic was already present in Europe by December of 2019 then China's actions in January 2020 could not have prevented its spread to the rest of the world.
The clear implication of the second sentence is that if China's leadership had responded effectively to the pandemic, it could have been quickly contained in Wuhan and not spread around the world. The biggest problem with this assertion is that there is evidence that the pandemic was already present in Europe before the end of 2019, at a point where no one in China had any clear idea what they were dealing with.
A study released in June find evidence in sewage that the coronavirus had been present in Italy in December of 2019. A more recent study found that a child in Italy may have been infected with the coronavirus in November of last year. There has been other evidence that people in Europe may have already been infected with the disease in late 2019.
If the pandemic was already present in Europe by December of 2019 then China's actions in January 2020 could not have prevented its spread to the rest of the world. This doesn't excuse the government's efforts to suppress information about the pandemic, but it does mean that these efforts did not have the dire consequences claimed by the New York Times.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
There is no doubt that bureaucratic bungling and authoritarian practices slowed China's response to the coronavirus. A New York Times piece documents many of these failings. But, it is a big step to go from the evidence presented in the article to the assertion in the first paragraph:
"Beijing acted against the coronavirus with stunning force, as its official narratives recount. But not before a political logjam had allowed a local outbreak to kindle a global pandemic."
If the pandemic was already present in Europe by December of 2019 then China's actions in January 2020 could not have prevented its spread to the rest of the world.
The clear implication of the second sentence is that if China's leadership had responded effectively to the pandemic, it could have been quickly contained in Wuhan and not spread around the world. The biggest problem with this assertion is that there is evidence that the pandemic was already present in Europe before the end of 2019, at a point where no one in China had any clear idea what they were dealing with.
A study released in June find evidence in sewage that the coronavirus had been present in Italy in December of 2019. A more recent study found that a child in Italy may have been infected with the coronavirus in November of last year. There has been other evidence that people in Europe may have already been infected with the disease in late 2019.
If the pandemic was already present in Europe by December of 2019 then China's actions in January 2020 could not have prevented its spread to the rest of the world. This doesn't excuse the government's efforts to suppress information about the pandemic, but it does mean that these efforts did not have the dire consequences claimed by the New York Times.
There is no doubt that bureaucratic bungling and authoritarian practices slowed China's response to the coronavirus. A New York Times piece documents many of these failings. But, it is a big step to go from the evidence presented in the article to the assertion in the first paragraph:
"Beijing acted against the coronavirus with stunning force, as its official narratives recount. But not before a political logjam had allowed a local outbreak to kindle a global pandemic."
If the pandemic was already present in Europe by December of 2019 then China's actions in January 2020 could not have prevented its spread to the rest of the world.
The clear implication of the second sentence is that if China's leadership had responded effectively to the pandemic, it could have been quickly contained in Wuhan and not spread around the world. The biggest problem with this assertion is that there is evidence that the pandemic was already present in Europe before the end of 2019, at a point where no one in China had any clear idea what they were dealing with.
A study released in June find evidence in sewage that the coronavirus had been present in Italy in December of 2019. A more recent study found that a child in Italy may have been infected with the coronavirus in November of last year. There has been other evidence that people in Europe may have already been infected with the disease in late 2019.
If the pandemic was already present in Europe by December of 2019 then China's actions in January 2020 could not have prevented its spread to the rest of the world. This doesn't excuse the government's efforts to suppress information about the pandemic, but it does mean that these efforts did not have the dire consequences claimed by the New York Times.
