X Close

Why is the West locking down China? New travel restrictions prove we've learnt nothing

Pandemic workers in Beijing in December (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

Pandemic workers in Beijing in December (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)


and
January 4, 2023   8 mins

The start of the new year has unshakeable feeling of Groundhog Day to it. We’re not even a week into January, and already epidemiologists are warning of new Covid variants, while passengers travelling from China to the UK will once again be required to show a negative Covid test before boarding. Many of us have been left wondering: have we woken up in 2023 — or 2020?

As the past year came to an end, the same stubborn arguments which have been spinning around the world’s hamster wheel for the last three years were aired again — this time about China’s decision to abandon Zero Covid, and what this might mean for the rest of the world in terms of variants, Covid spread and the health of the general population. We don’t want to rehearse these arguments again, but they are vital: they cut to the heart of what lessons global societies will take from the Covid-19 pandemic and associated policy response, and how institutions will balance health and disease in the future. It’s too easy to say that we should just move on, because the future health of human societies depends on what decisions now are taken.

It’s pretty clear that China abandoned Zero Covid because it didn’t work, was causing huge socioeconomic and psychological harm, and threatened to undermine the political control of Xi Jinping. The writing was on the wall when footage emerged in August of shoppers in a Shanghai Ikea stampeding for the exit after authorities sought to seal off the store and send everyone in it to quarantine following the discovery of one shopper who had been exposed to an asymptomatic six-year-old child. Once mass protests began to spread in November, the decision was taken to move on before they became a threat to the regime.

To us, a number of conclusions can be drawn, which we discuss in The Covid Consensus. Clearly, lockdowns could only work in a very limited way, to reduce spread for a short period of time; they were therefore impractical for any length of time without causing enormous harm, which is why Zero Covid was impossible. Moreover, in spite of China’s severe attempts to prevent travel, the spread of a highly infectious respiratory virus cannot be shut down completely in the era of global supply chains, even with hermetically sealed borders, as proved to be the case in Australia and New Zealand.

Nevertheless, many seem to be trying to draw different and nonsensical lessons, showing that nothing has been learned from the past three years. Once again, the Western media is stoking unnecessary fears with panic-stricken reports of “China’s new Covid nightmare”. The rapid infection of potentially more than a billion Chinese people, we are told, is likely to result in countless deaths among the population, and spark the emergence of dangerous new variants that could lead to “a global catastrophe”, as millions of potentially disease-carrying citizens prepare to celebrate the reopening of the country’s borders by travelling to all corners of the world.

So, instead of celebrating the end of the Zero Covid prison in which so many Chinese have been incarcerated, during the past week, several countries — including the US, Japan, Italy, Spain, France and, most recently, the UK — have reacted by reintroducing restrictions for passengers from China, requiring them to show a negative PCR or antigen test before boarding.

But are such fears justified? First, let us explore whether China is really heading for a public health disaster of apocalyptic proportions, as the news would have us believe. According to the Chinese government, the country is registering around 5,000 new cases, and only a handful of Covid deaths, per day. Official deaths since the start of the pandemic are just over 5,000. These numbers are universally considered to be hogwash; China has routinely been accused of downplaying infections and deaths for political reasons. The World Health Organization, for example, reports around 150,000 new cases, and 400 deaths, per week, and a total of just over 30,000 deaths.

As far as the latest wave is concerned, there is at least an official explanation for the discrepancy: China recently announced that it will include only deaths from pneumonia or respiratory failure in its official Covid-19 death toll; deaths that occur in patients with pre-existing illnesses, on the other hand, will not be counted as Covid-19 deaths. If true, this contrasts starkly with the very “liberal” approach to Covid-19 deaths (and hospitalisations) adopted by most Western countries throughout the pandemic, and still widely used, whereby any deceased person who has recently (or even not so recently) tested for Covid is classified as a “Covid death”, even if the death was manifestly unrelated to Covid. Figures related to new cases are even more unreliable, since they obviously depend on the number (and method) of tests that are carried out.

One thing, however, is certain: in the coming weeks and months, a huge portion of the Chinese population is going to catch the virus. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), for example, estimates that around 1 million Chinese people are already getting infected every day. Some reports claim that 250 million people across the country have been infected just in December. How many deaths this leads to depends on a number of factors, including the ability of the Chinese authorities to put measures in place to protect those who are actually at risk of developing a serious illness from Covid-19, namely the elderly and those with serious medical conditions. The IHME expects close to 300,000 Covid deaths by April 2023 — roughly 100,000 deaths per month (3,000 per day).

These numbers may seem shocking, but they need to be contextualised. Assuming that a large percentage of the 1.4 billion-strong Chinese population eventually catches Covid, as seems likely, this would amount to a minuscule infection fatality rate (IFR) — less than 0.001%. Most of the deceased are also likely to be very elderly people who would have died within a short time — as was the case for the overwhelming majority of Covid-related deaths in Western countries. In fact, since more than 10 million people died in China in 2021 (the most recent year for which there are statistics), this figure — even if it continued at that rate throughout the year — would lead to around a 12% mortality increase, broadly in line with global averages elsewhere in 2020.

We also need to keep in mind that the dominant strain in China at the moment appears to be a subvariant of the Omicron variant BA.5 (BA.5.2.1.7), also called BF.7, which we know to be more transmissible but much less lethal than previous variants — exactly the kind of evolution you would expect to see in a virus like SARS-CoV-2. Indeed, Chinese authorities have confirmed that the virus causes relatively mild symptoms in the vast majority of those infected. There’s little reason to doubt this, as much as one may be sceptical of the information coming out of China.

And yet, Western politicians are now telling us that the reason we need new restrictions is that, as the Chair of the Defence Select Committee Tobias Ellwood said, “we simply cannot trust Chinese data”. Such claims would hold more water if that same Western establishment hadn’t spent the best part of the past three years taking the Chinese Covid-19 statistics at face value, and using them as evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns. Up to March 2020, 39 of 42 reproduction number estimates were based on Chinese data, as was the Imperial College report that predicted 510,000 deaths in the UK, which would fall to somewhere between 5,700 and 39,000 with Chinese-style “suppression” measures. Needless to say, those predictions turned out to be wildly inaccurate.

In other words, the Chinese data was deemed perfectly reliable insofar as it was useful to justify restrictions in the West. Today, on the other hand, it is accused of being unreliable… in order to justify restrictions in the West. The doublethink is jarring — and the results are likely to be similarly flawed. Just as lockdowns failed to contain the spread of the virus within countries, previous attempts to prevent Delta and Omicron variants from spreading beyond India and southern Africa, respectively, also failed miserably. Even the WHO considers travel bans to be “usually not effective”, while Andrew Pollard, chairman of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, also admitted that “trying to ban a virus by adjusting what we do with travel has already been shown not to work very well”. Neither is there any evidence that pre-departure testing will “help slow the spread” of the virus, as claimed by the CDC’s director Rochelle Walensky. In July, for example, French researchers found the Omicron variant in wastewater from two commercial airplanes that flew from Ethiopia to France in December 2021 even though passengers had been required to take Covid tests before boarding, concluding that mandatory testing before boarding “did not prevent massive importation of Omicron variant into Europe”.

More importantly, why would we want to do that? Data from last month suggests a majority of people in Western countries have had coronavirus infections, and that prior infection, even in the unvaccinated, offers strong protection against BA.5 Omicron hospitalisation. Moreover, the Omicron subvariant that has been spreading in China has been detected in the US, Europe and rest of the world for many months, which means we also have good levels of natural immunity to that subvariant (as well as high vaccination rates, which were told were the golden bullet to end the pandemic). So, there’s no reason to fear coming into contact with a Chinese tourist any more than there is to come into contact with any other human being.

Furthermore, not only is there “currently no evidence” to suggest that a new and dangerous strain of the virus has emerged in the Chinese population, but there’s no reason to believe this is likely to happen either — or at least it’s not more likely to happen in China than anywhere else. “The likelihood of variants emerging [in China] is the same as it is in other places where there are Covid waves,” said Pollard. Besides, as noted already, even if it were to emerge, it would spread across the world regardless of the measures put in place, just like all previous variants.

Why, then, are policymakers once again going down this route? Part of the explanation is that politicians, by peddling a pro-lockdown narrative for the past three years, have now created an artificial demand for restrictive measures among their fear-stricken constituents, some of whom are now even making the case for wearing masks forever or for the permanent institutionalisation of what Giorgio Agamben might call “bare life”. Even more worryingly, it appears to indicate that Western governments have little intention of giving up the powers they’ve claimed under the guise of “fighting the virus”. While these current travel restrictions won’t affect the daily lives of Western citizens, they nonetheless show how easily “lockdown laws”, many of which remain in place in the UK and other countries, can be reinstated. If restrictions can be arbitrarily brought back at any moment in the name of public health, what’s to stop governments from abusing these powers once again in the future? For instance, the British government’s “Living with Covid-19” guidance, published in February 2022, states that it “will retain contingency capabilities and will respond as necessary to further resurgences or worse variants of the virus”.

The threat of such “capabilities” relates to a more fundamental issue, which is how human societies relate to illness and disease. The pandemic threw this into the foreground, and offered two contrasting approaches. The first is the biomedical approach, which has been championed by Bill Gates in his book on the pandemic and subsequently by Joe Biden in his new pandemic policy, which relies on the rapid production of vaccines, while citizens will need to wait in lockdown until these new products are available.

The alternative requires us to move beyond the guidance — or tyranny, depending on your point of view — of “the science”, and to recognise the role that philosophy and humanistic knowledge has in human life. Whether or not humans choose to embrace this way of living is ultimately a question of values. We can either confront the truth that death is — and always will be — a fundamental part of life, embrace the case for living well and healthily while we are alive, and recognise the place that human contact, exchange, and the sharing of bodily and social space has in well-being and therefore in health. Or, we can assign more value to the technical shield which we have been constructing around ourselves for the past decades. Looking at what’s now playing out in China, we know which we prefer.


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

50 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
1 year ago

Why would anyone, with half a brain, think that the restrictions on Chinese people, travelling from China, are anything to do with (following the science) firstly and foremost trying to prevent the further spread of COVID. I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I suspect a ‘certain’ amount of punishment, revenge and power politics at play. And, who knows maybe, if it forces China to be more open, honest and forthcoming, about the origins of COVID, then maybe, maybe, that’s no bad thing ? Or, it could just make things worse ! Of course, we, in the ‘West’, might also be a little more open, honest and forthcoming about why we’re asking for restrictions on Chinese travellers.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Lewis
Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

And what about the recommendation to mask up??

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

And what about the recommendation to mask up??

Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
1 year ago

Why would anyone, with half a brain, think that the restrictions on Chinese people, travelling from China, are anything to do with (following the science) firstly and foremost trying to prevent the further spread of COVID. I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I suspect a ‘certain’ amount of punishment, revenge and power politics at play. And, who knows maybe, if it forces China to be more open, honest and forthcoming, about the origins of COVID, then maybe, maybe, that’s no bad thing ? Or, it could just make things worse ! Of course, we, in the ‘West’, might also be a little more open, honest and forthcoming about why we’re asking for restrictions on Chinese travellers.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Lewis
R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

The state of exception continues. Will nobody rid me of these turbulent scientists?

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

The state of exception continues. Will nobody rid me of these turbulent scientists?

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

I think the reason for the travel restrictions is much more banal than the semi-scaremongering in this article. I think it’s because politicians feel the public wants them to do something, or at least be seen to do something. Hence something with the minimum impact on our own population.
Nonsense really and not driven by science, but sometimes politics works like this.
That said there might be some validity in western countries getting a chance to test some Chinese to confirm/check if there is a new variant of concern. On this one can see we might be unwise to trust the CCP to tell us if that is what they had found. This doesn’t mean we then career headlong back into Lockdowns and panic, but does mean we check out any new variant for how the immunity across the West might respond calmly.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

That goes without saying: you have to do something, and this is “something”. It has be the refrain for the past three years.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

Nassim Taleb’s theory of naive interventionism.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

Nassim Taleb’s theory of naive interventionism.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

That goes without saying: you have to do something, and this is “something”. It has be the refrain for the past three years.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

I think the reason for the travel restrictions is much more banal than the semi-scaremongering in this article. I think it’s because politicians feel the public wants them to do something, or at least be seen to do something. Hence something with the minimum impact on our own population.
Nonsense really and not driven by science, but sometimes politics works like this.
That said there might be some validity in western countries getting a chance to test some Chinese to confirm/check if there is a new variant of concern. On this one can see we might be unwise to trust the CCP to tell us if that is what they had found. This doesn’t mean we then career headlong back into Lockdowns and panic, but does mean we check out any new variant for how the immunity across the West might respond calmly.

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago

The last two chapters of this article are the essence of the debate. The rest is almost irrelevant mumbo jumbo (even though it should not be) This may be due to that fact that he authors forgot to mention that the mainstream ‘scientific’ narrative is/has principally been developed by the industry. It is a narrative of investment and return very cleverly and beautifully irrestibly wrapped into a ‘health narrative’. Note a Goldman Sachs report has shown that the drug industry does not invest in medicine that cure (only medicines that treat) https://www.levinperconti.com/blog/big-banking-recommends-drug-companies-avoid-making-effective-drugs/
more articles in the BMJ on the influence of pharma on our health care…

Janet G
Janet G
1 year ago

Thank you for the link to the Goldman Sachs report

Janet G
Janet G
1 year ago

Thank you for the link to the Goldman Sachs report

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago

The last two chapters of this article are the essence of the debate. The rest is almost irrelevant mumbo jumbo (even though it should not be) This may be due to that fact that he authors forgot to mention that the mainstream ‘scientific’ narrative is/has principally been developed by the industry. It is a narrative of investment and return very cleverly and beautifully irrestibly wrapped into a ‘health narrative’. Note a Goldman Sachs report has shown that the drug industry does not invest in medicine that cure (only medicines that treat) https://www.levinperconti.com/blog/big-banking-recommends-drug-companies-avoid-making-effective-drugs/
more articles in the BMJ on the influence of pharma on our health care…

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

This is Chinas doing in the first place, when they lied about the spread of the new virus in the early stages. Let them deal with their sick, why should other countries pay to treat Chinese citizens after the damage the CCP has caused?

Diane Tasker
Diane Tasker
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Its unlikely that they will be consigned to the queue of thousands of desperately ill people that haven’t yet succumbed whilst waiting for an NHS ambulance. We need to require evidence of robust travel insurance and let the private sector take the strain. After all, it has the benefit of a great many of the country’s university trained ex NHS nurses and doctors lured by higher pay and working conditions.

Diane Tasker
Diane Tasker
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Its unlikely that they will be consigned to the queue of thousands of desperately ill people that haven’t yet succumbed whilst waiting for an NHS ambulance. We need to require evidence of robust travel insurance and let the private sector take the strain. After all, it has the benefit of a great many of the country’s university trained ex NHS nurses and doctors lured by higher pay and working conditions.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

This is Chinas doing in the first place, when they lied about the spread of the new virus in the early stages. Let them deal with their sick, why should other countries pay to treat Chinese citizens after the damage the CCP has caused?

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago

We are into “The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf” territory. Our health authorities have no credibility left at all – God help us if we have a true pandemic and they really do need people to comply. Half the population- including me – will just ignore them.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago

We are into “The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf” territory. Our health authorities have no credibility left at all – God help us if we have a true pandemic and they really do need people to comply. Half the population- including me – will just ignore them.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago

We definitely have learnt nothing. And tge fact that sll the countries decided to impose this restron China basically at the same times shows that these restrictions have nothing to do with covid/flu (who can tell the difference without testing?) and something else is at play.

Sad days indeed. And to think that just a few weeks ago those people were asking us to ‘forgive and move on’ and now they are doing it all again.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago

We definitely have learnt nothing. And tge fact that sll the countries decided to impose this restron China basically at the same times shows that these restrictions have nothing to do with covid/flu (who can tell the difference without testing?) and something else is at play.

Sad days indeed. And to think that just a few weeks ago those people were asking us to ‘forgive and move on’ and now they are doing it all again.

R S Foster
R S Foster
1 year ago

…revenge…and punishment. And quite right too. I’m all for locking them all up with the Celestial Emperor and his minions until they see sense and remove him, TBH..!

R S Foster
R S Foster
1 year ago

…revenge…and punishment. And quite right too. I’m all for locking them all up with the Celestial Emperor and his minions until they see sense and remove him, TBH..!

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago

The original virus came from China. A new virus could come from China. Our experts allowed the first virus in. Perhaps they are replaying what happened last time: pretend to be terrified. Pretend to take it all seriously and then allow it in. Then mandatory everything. The West will give in to China and we will have plandemic 2. Hope I am wrong.

Last edited 1 year ago by Karl Juhnke
Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Karl Juhnke

Allowed the virus in? The whole point of the article, which has clearly sailed way above your head, is that it’s impossible to prevent an infectious virus from circulating. Ask Australia and NZ how trying to stop it worked out for them.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Karl Juhnke

Allowed the virus in? The whole point of the article, which has clearly sailed way above your head, is that it’s impossible to prevent an infectious virus from circulating. Ask Australia and NZ how trying to stop it worked out for them.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rocky Martiano
Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago

The original virus came from China. A new virus could come from China. Our experts allowed the first virus in. Perhaps they are replaying what happened last time: pretend to be terrified. Pretend to take it all seriously and then allow it in. Then mandatory everything. The West will give in to China and we will have plandemic 2. Hope I am wrong.

Last edited 1 year ago by Karl Juhnke
Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
1 year ago

Great piece, look forward to reading the book. Thomas Fazi is the most objective and incisive observer among political journalists today. It’s a riveting subject for me personally, having spent the first five years of life living in the vast grounds of our country’s only purpose-built pandemic and infectious diseases hospital, where my father was a resident doctor. Surrounded by barbed wire topped chain link fence, it wascself-sufficient for the medical staff, with oan on-site nurses’ multi-storey apartment block with swimming pool, cottages for doctors’ families, an 18 hole golf course, 12 tennis courts, ocean beach (Little Bay), billiards rooms, a small farm and local market gardens. Dad later became our country’s Chief Wuarantine Officer and CMO and a world authority on vaccines and public health. A brilliant doctor and a good man. And the last person on earth to determine public policy. Why? Those who see people die on their watch can never be objective about policy. They become absolutists. Beneficent Stalinists. Because it’s inevitably all intensely personal and emotional, despite all their scientific training and intentions of objectivity. Moreover, all hospitals are “capsules,” mini-worlds that for doctors become universal.

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
1 year ago

Have I got this right? They are asking for travellers from China to have two negative tests before they come. They are not stopping travellers from China entering the UK. Is that right? They are not locking down China as it says in the title of this piece. It’s hardly a severe restriction and is a sensible measure. I fully understand that it won’t stop new variants coming to the UK but if it slows down the infection rate it must be a good thing bearing in mind the warnings of overload already being given by NHS Trusts.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

If two negative tests are required from travellers from China, why not from everywhere else? And then straight away we are in the economically damaging loop, where people are afraid to travel in case they are stranded on their return leg.

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Isn’t the point about China that we know that there are a very large number of cases there? Some European countries are already applying restrictions. It’s a matter of risk I suppose.
There’s going to be an economic hit for the UK anyway if we have a large number of cases here.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

Would you care if there were a high number of flu cases in China? Without a test it’s very hatd to tell the difference, with the flu usually being more severe nowadays. You are just afraid of this one respiratory virus because we have all been conditioned to.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

Would you care if there were a high number of flu cases in China? Without a test it’s very hatd to tell the difference, with the flu usually being more severe nowadays. You are just afraid of this one respiratory virus because we have all been conditioned to.

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Isn’t the point about China that we know that there are a very large number of cases there? Some European countries are already applying restrictions. It’s a matter of risk I suppose.
There’s going to be an economic hit for the UK anyway if we have a large number of cases here.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

What you are telling me is that people with COVID from China are more dangerous than people with COVID from Germany or the US or Korea, and that keeping them at bay will help us… do what?
And let not forget the recommendation to mask up that they mentioned yesterday.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

That’s the thing. If you’re from Germany or Holland, we don’t care if you have Covid, but if you’re from China, well we can’t have that.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

That’s the thing. If you’re from Germany or Holland, we don’t care if you have Covid, but if you’re from China, well we can’t have that.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

If two negative tests are required from travellers from China, why not from everywhere else? And then straight away we are in the economically damaging loop, where people are afraid to travel in case they are stranded on their return leg.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

What you are telling me is that people with COVID from China are more dangerous than people with COVID from Germany or the US or Korea, and that keeping them at bay will help us… do what?
And let not forget the recommendation to mask up that they mentioned yesterday.

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
1 year ago

Have I got this right? They are asking for travellers from China to have two negative tests before they come. They are not stopping travellers from China entering the UK. Is that right? They are not locking down China as it says in the title of this piece. It’s hardly a severe restriction and is a sensible measure. I fully understand that it won’t stop new variants coming to the UK but if it slows down the infection rate it must be a good thing bearing in mind the warnings of overload already being given by NHS Trusts.

George Wells
George Wells
1 year ago

I have it from colleagues in China that many people are sick (and many are hospitalised) from Covid right now and that restrictions on travel have been removed. To argue, as the authors do, that now is the time to load some of these people onto the NHS (in the busy winter season), is plainly stupid.

Last edited 1 year ago by George Wells
Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  George Wells

Many people in Ireland are sick with Covid (or other respiratory viruses) at the moment and Irish hospitals are full to overflowing. Are we to ban travel from Ireland on the same basis? It seems unlikely that anyone capable of undertaking a long distance flight, who presumably has a good reason for travelling, is particularly likely to immediately require NHS treatment. But we definitely won’t be able to afford an NHS if we keep trashing the economy.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stephen Walsh
Christopher Peter
Christopher Peter
1 year ago
Reply to  George Wells

Please, read the article again. The point being made is that travel restrictions will not stop the virus spreading. They didn’t before and they won’t again. That’s the key point, along with the lack of evidence that there’d be anything coming from China that (1) isn’t already here and (2) we don’t already have much higher level levels of resistance to in the population, due to previous high levels of exposure and better vaccines (neither of which they have in China).

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
1 year ago

I think you are missing the point. It is true that any virus (human, animal or plant) floating around in the world will eventually reach the UK. They are probably already here as you say. The point is to slow the infection rate down so we can cope with it. The more infective people in the population the higher the infection rate. If one infected person gets on the plane in China and travels 12 hours in a sealed tube by the time he gets off in the UK he’ll be accompanied by 10 others.
I’m not a fan of the NHS. I think it’s failing us. I feel sick every time I see one of those rainbow “Thank you NHS posters”. But it’s all we’ve got and we have to try to stop it being overwhelmed.
I’m quite sure that between them the Foreign office and the Home Office will screw up the arrangements but otherwise it’s a sensible and not overly restrictive policy. They are not locking down China.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

And when will this wonderful time when the NHS can cope arrive? What is the NHS doing with the extra time, given that any restriction has some economic impact, so is not cost-free? Slowing the spread of the virus doesn’t seem to have done much for us up until now, even accepting it’s actually ever been achieved.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

It is a bit like not getting splashed with water when you come out of the bath for fear of getting wetter.

Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

How does it slow the infection rate? We already have the virus spreading around the UK, it will be back every winter along with flu and the other coronaviruses etc. People can still travel from China, they just need a test, which I assume is done in China?
I might have missed something though, have our government provided some statistics about how it will slow the infection rate?

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Walsh

Thanks Paul, My main argument with the article is that he refers to “Locking Down China”. But, as you say, people can still travel from China but they must have a test first which doesn’t seem to be a huge imposition. It’s not really locking down China.
You may be right about the infection rate. My thinking was that if you introduce one infective person into a population and that person infects two others in the first week then after 8 weeks you’ve got 256 people infected. If you start with 10 infective people entering the population then after 8 weeks you’ve got 2560 infections. So I figure you need to keep the number of infective people entering a population to a minimum. Many of the Chinese entering the UK will be students going to University which may be a good way to spread it around, mixing with lots of others students and so on.
I seems common sense to me that the more infective people entering the country the more infections there will be.
To me, asking for visitors from China to get tested before they come here seems proportional to the risk. It’s not a great imposition and may help.

Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

You are right on that point, sounds like a click bait headline. I believe the testing also only applies to direct flights from China.
I think spread is slightly more complex than your example. It is mainly airborne spread, not person to person. Keeping out crowded indoor spaces is probably the best thing anyone vulnerable to the virus can do, assuming they are already vaccinated.
It is already in the air in all these crowded spaces along with flu virus etc.
Constantly bringing in pointless restrictions damages economies and is especially harmful to poorer people.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Walsh
Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

Steve, how can it be “common sense” when you have already plenty of people here who can transmit COVID freely and, very likely, do so? I don’t know what the latest statistics on infections are, but let’s say that 1 in 35 people has now COVID, that is about 2 mil out of a population of 70 mil.
Say 100000 chinese people arrive in the next could of weeks, all with COVID, that would mean an increase of 5% of the infected, while the indigenous COVID may have increased to 1/20, i.e. 3.5 mil.
As you see we are talking about a difference of several orders of magnitude. A bit like, you fall into the sea, but then get annoyed because someone hits you with a water gun as it makes you wetter.

Diane Tasker
Diane Tasker
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

Which Covid are you referring to? China searched for and incubated the original strain which we’re relatively chummy with now – well those with young, robust immune systems. What may be imported now is anybody’s guess (due to the lack of curiosity of the WHO have been as useful as a chocolate teaspoon throughout) Consider the vulnerable and your grannies and grandads who won’t ‘get over’ a visitation from a more rapacious strain.

Diane Tasker
Diane Tasker
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

Which Covid are you referring to? China searched for and incubated the original strain which we’re relatively chummy with now – well those with young, robust immune systems. What may be imported now is anybody’s guess (due to the lack of curiosity of the WHO have been as useful as a chocolate teaspoon throughout) Consider the vulnerable and your grannies and grandads who won’t ‘get over’ a visitation from a more rapacious strain.

Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

You are right on that point, sounds like a click bait headline. I believe the testing also only applies to direct flights from China.
I think spread is slightly more complex than your example. It is mainly airborne spread, not person to person. Keeping out crowded indoor spaces is probably the best thing anyone vulnerable to the virus can do, assuming they are already vaccinated.
It is already in the air in all these crowded spaces along with flu virus etc.
Constantly bringing in pointless restrictions damages economies and is especially harmful to poorer people.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Walsh
Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

Steve, how can it be “common sense” when you have already plenty of people here who can transmit COVID freely and, very likely, do so? I don’t know what the latest statistics on infections are, but let’s say that 1 in 35 people has now COVID, that is about 2 mil out of a population of 70 mil.
Say 100000 chinese people arrive in the next could of weeks, all with COVID, that would mean an increase of 5% of the infected, while the indigenous COVID may have increased to 1/20, i.e. 3.5 mil.
As you see we are talking about a difference of several orders of magnitude. A bit like, you fall into the sea, but then get annoyed because someone hits you with a water gun as it makes you wetter.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Walsh

How about a new one? Happened before.

Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Karl Juhnke

There are many viruses around, any one of which can and do mutate all the time. The logic of stopping something that might happen, is that we should never let anyone travel anywhere.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Karl Juhnke

There are many viruses around, any one of which can and do mutate all the time. The logic of stopping something that might happen, is that we should never let anyone travel anywhere.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Walsh
Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Walsh

Thanks Paul, My main argument with the article is that he refers to “Locking Down China”. But, as you say, people can still travel from China but they must have a test first which doesn’t seem to be a huge imposition. It’s not really locking down China.
You may be right about the infection rate. My thinking was that if you introduce one infective person into a population and that person infects two others in the first week then after 8 weeks you’ve got 256 people infected. If you start with 10 infective people entering the population then after 8 weeks you’ve got 2560 infections. So I figure you need to keep the number of infective people entering a population to a minimum. Many of the Chinese entering the UK will be students going to University which may be a good way to spread it around, mixing with lots of others students and so on.
I seems common sense to me that the more infective people entering the country the more infections there will be.
To me, asking for visitors from China to get tested before they come here seems proportional to the risk. It’s not a great imposition and may help.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Walsh

How about a new one? Happened before.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

‘Slow the infection rate’ … Do you have any data that shows that these restrictions indeed have slowed down the infection rate in any meaningful way? Or are you just repeating the “flatten the curve” propaganda that we were fed in 2020,

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

So please answer the comments above as to why someone from China with Covid is more dangerous to the NHS than someone from Ireland, the US, Korea or anywhere else?

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

And when will this wonderful time when the NHS can cope arrive? What is the NHS doing with the extra time, given that any restriction has some economic impact, so is not cost-free? Slowing the spread of the virus doesn’t seem to have done much for us up until now, even accepting it’s actually ever been achieved.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

It is a bit like not getting splashed with water when you come out of the bath for fear of getting wetter.

Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

How does it slow the infection rate? We already have the virus spreading around the UK, it will be back every winter along with flu and the other coronaviruses etc. People can still travel from China, they just need a test, which I assume is done in China?
I might have missed something though, have our government provided some statistics about how it will slow the infection rate?

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

‘Slow the infection rate’ … Do you have any data that shows that these restrictions indeed have slowed down the infection rate in any meaningful way? Or are you just repeating the “flatten the curve” propaganda that we were fed in 2020,

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

So please answer the comments above as to why someone from China with Covid is more dangerous to the NHS than someone from Ireland, the US, Korea or anywhere else?

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago

What I remember is that the West allowed the virus in via China whilst pretending to take it seriously and then locked us up and forced the jab. More of the same coming I think.

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
1 year ago

I think you are missing the point. It is true that any virus (human, animal or plant) floating around in the world will eventually reach the UK. They are probably already here as you say. The point is to slow the infection rate down so we can cope with it. The more infective people in the population the higher the infection rate. If one infected person gets on the plane in China and travels 12 hours in a sealed tube by the time he gets off in the UK he’ll be accompanied by 10 others.
I’m not a fan of the NHS. I think it’s failing us. I feel sick every time I see one of those rainbow “Thank you NHS posters”. But it’s all we’ve got and we have to try to stop it being overwhelmed.
I’m quite sure that between them the Foreign office and the Home Office will screw up the arrangements but otherwise it’s a sensible and not overly restrictive policy. They are not locking down China.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago

What I remember is that the West allowed the virus in via China whilst pretending to take it seriously and then locked us up and forced the jab. More of the same coming I think.

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago
Reply to  George Wells

If you lock up people long enough and then allow them to mix there will always be a huge surge in ‘infectious illness’ that is normal and natural.
Politicians should concentrate on making people healthy rather than fire-brigade trying to cure infectious illness: our modern health care narrative has now failed long enough for us trying to come to grips with this: there are ore chronically ill people now than there ever have been which brings its own share of acute pressures… As long and you think ‘infection’ – illness you will miss the point completely and remain a good client for the very clever pharma industry

Diane Tasker
Diane Tasker
1 year ago

I get your point about big pharma and that’s a valid consideration. But at the end of the day letting a possibly rapacious and unknown strain tour the country will sacrifice those who should have our protection, not, I suspect, the young and fit commentators here (although not always) who have a robust immune system.

Diane Tasker
Diane Tasker
1 year ago

I get your point about big pharma and that’s a valid consideration. But at the end of the day letting a possibly rapacious and unknown strain tour the country will sacrifice those who should have our protection, not, I suspect, the young and fit commentators here (although not always) who have a robust immune system.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  George Wells

Many people in Ireland are sick with Covid (or other respiratory viruses) at the moment and Irish hospitals are full to overflowing. Are we to ban travel from Ireland on the same basis? It seems unlikely that anyone capable of undertaking a long distance flight, who presumably has a good reason for travelling, is particularly likely to immediately require NHS treatment. But we definitely won’t be able to afford an NHS if we keep trashing the economy.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stephen Walsh
Christopher Peter
Christopher Peter
1 year ago
Reply to  George Wells

Please, read the article again. The point being made is that travel restrictions will not stop the virus spreading. They didn’t before and they won’t again. That’s the key point, along with the lack of evidence that there’d be anything coming from China that (1) isn’t already here and (2) we don’t already have much higher level levels of resistance to in the population, due to previous high levels of exposure and better vaccines (neither of which they have in China).

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago
Reply to  George Wells

If you lock up people long enough and then allow them to mix there will always be a huge surge in ‘infectious illness’ that is normal and natural.
Politicians should concentrate on making people healthy rather than fire-brigade trying to cure infectious illness: our modern health care narrative has now failed long enough for us trying to come to grips with this: there are ore chronically ill people now than there ever have been which brings its own share of acute pressures… As long and you think ‘infection’ – illness you will miss the point completely and remain a good client for the very clever pharma industry

George Wells
George Wells
1 year ago

I have it from colleagues in China that many people are sick (and many are hospitalised) from Covid right now and that restrictions on travel have been removed. To argue, as the authors do, that now is the time to load some of these people onto the NHS (in the busy winter season), is plainly stupid.

Last edited 1 year ago by George Wells
Gary Baxter
Gary Baxter
1 year ago

It’s only natural and perfectly reasonable for people outside of China to fear for a repeat of Wuhan virus spread exactly three years ago. The world simply can’t afford another three-year long pandemics.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gary Baxter
Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Baxter

No political diktat can prevent the spread of a virus. Only government imposed restrictions turned Covid into a three-year long pandemic and economic catastrophe, with the resulting backlog in the treatment of other conditions, and reduced resistance to other respiratory viruses, contributing to the excess mortality we now see in many western countries. There is no reason to believe a new variant is proportionately more likely to emerge from China than from anywhere else: if anything a new variant is surely more likely to emerge in a country where most of the population has already been exposed to Omicron, or earlier variants. These travel restrictions make no sense, are for show only, and trap us in an economically damaging loop of pointless intervention.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Of course they just might be concocting another virus.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Of course they just might be concocting another virus.

Christopher Peter
Christopher Peter
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Baxter

It might be natural but it’s not the point. There’s no evidence of any significantly new variant in China, and the indications are that we already have what they’ve got; and, most importantly, travel restrictions wouldn’t stop any new variants arriving anyway.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago

There was no evidence put forward last time around, but plenty came later. Military Games etc. Why not again?

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago

There was no evidence put forward last time around, but plenty came later. Military Games etc. Why not again?

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Baxter

It’s like you have learned nothing in three years. The lockdowns caused more pain than the pandemic ever did.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

And the same thing can happen again.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

And the same thing can happen again.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Baxter

And I thought the virus was already here. Silly me.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

Maybe silly you. Why wouldn’t China invent plandemic 2 with big pharma and big gov putting the boot in again?

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

Maybe silly you. Why wouldn’t China invent plandemic 2 with big pharma and big gov putting the boot in again?

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Baxter

Yes Gary. They invented the last one in hand with Fauci. Why not another and another?

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Baxter

No political diktat can prevent the spread of a virus. Only government imposed restrictions turned Covid into a three-year long pandemic and economic catastrophe, with the resulting backlog in the treatment of other conditions, and reduced resistance to other respiratory viruses, contributing to the excess mortality we now see in many western countries. There is no reason to believe a new variant is proportionately more likely to emerge from China than from anywhere else: if anything a new variant is surely more likely to emerge in a country where most of the population has already been exposed to Omicron, or earlier variants. These travel restrictions make no sense, are for show only, and trap us in an economically damaging loop of pointless intervention.

Christopher Peter
Christopher Peter
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Baxter

It might be natural but it’s not the point. There’s no evidence of any significantly new variant in China, and the indications are that we already have what they’ve got; and, most importantly, travel restrictions wouldn’t stop any new variants arriving anyway.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Baxter

It’s like you have learned nothing in three years. The lockdowns caused more pain than the pandemic ever did.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Baxter

And I thought the virus was already here. Silly me.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Baxter

Yes Gary. They invented the last one in hand with Fauci. Why not another and another?

Gary Baxter
Gary Baxter
1 year ago

It’s only natural and perfectly reasonable for people outside of China to fear for a repeat of Wuhan virus spread exactly three years ago. The world simply can’t afford another three-year long pandemics.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gary Baxter