8 ms·

The Chinese government's response to this situation (after some initial dithering) has been to move swiftly with big moves. I suspect that the force that overca

by bane 7y ago

The Chinese government's response to this situation (after some initial dithering) has been to move swiftly with big moves. I suspect that the force that overcame the initial delays in local response were powerful central government actors who could some in and simply shut cities and entire areas down and not fool around. There appears to be at least one emergency prefab hospital with about 1600 beds under construction and foreign disease experts have been invited in to help with the situation. And now large liquidity injections into the markets. Compare this to the previous recent epidemics that came from China, SARS, H7N9, some variants of Swine Flu and so on. This response feels very different. I work near some people who are providing some analysis of the disease and the evaluation from that community seems to be that the Chinese government has been doing a really strong job in their response and it seems to reflect a turning point in how the government deals with these things. In the past it appears that even having a rampant disease epidemic was considered so embarrassing that it was everything that could be done to hide it. Now it appears that hiding it and acting like its not happening is so embarrassing that a muscular response is warranted. I suppose that's an improvement.

adnzzzzZ 7y ago
This kind of analysis I'm seeing everywhere is so misguided. The reason the local government didn't report on the situation accurately and even punished some journalists for speaking about it is a flaw of how their country is run and how their command structure incentives are poorly set up. This isn't a new problem and it's why we have converged to a different system in most of the West. The government coming in later after the situation is already out of control and responding aggressively is only a sign of their failure, given that it wouldn't be necessary for this to happen in a country that wasn't so authoritarian. This should be a wake up call to people in the West who think that banning "fake news" and "misinformation" is a good idea, given that the local government used this exact same excuse to punish journalists speaking about the outbreak early, when it could have been controlled properly.
- cambalache 7y ago
  It seems to me that China can only make wrong in your eyes. If it takes time to act it is because the system causes this failure. If the government acts swiftly, it is because they are in panic. If it does not solve the situation, of course because they have a terrible oppressive culture. If the problem is fixed. Of course, because these are one of the few advantages of having an authoritarian system. No matter what China does, you will say something bad. I know this makes me sound like CCP shill, but I am not. I only want to read an assessment made with the same level of rigour and sympathy, if, instead of China was Denmark or Australia.
  - Jamwinner 7y ago
    Denmark is nothing like china besides being a country. If china wants to be compared favorably to other contries, the need to act favorible to most countries. Full stop.
  - totalZero 7y ago
    I think the point is that the Chinese government didn't act swiftly, arrested people who initially spread information about the disease in Wuhan, failed to contain the situation, and has now allowed it to become a global problem. Due to the way China's government has lied in the past, I am hesitant to believe their numbers or their narrative until it can be confirmed by outside parties.
    - FooBarWidget 7y ago
      Then does the fact that they're responding much more quickly and much more heavily this time mean nothing at all? You say "didn't act swiftly". What is swift to you? A month went by since the first case before they started getting their act together, true, but how quickly do you think other nations could have acted? Compared to SARS, where it took them months, 1 month is a major improvement. It's still not good enough because the virus is that ruthless, but Rome isn't built in one day. I have reason to believe that they've learned a great deal from how SARS was handled, and that they'll respond even better in a future outbreak event.
    - TheNorthman 7y ago
- ithinkinstereo 7y ago
  There's a Chinese saying that's apt here; "山高皇帝远" which literally translates into "mountains are high, the emperor is far away." However, I disagree that this is solely unique to China. You see it in the west too. The water crisis in Flint, MI springs to mind.
  - yorwba 7y ago
    Shortsighted politicians exist everywhere, but the political system determines what their short-term goals focus on. In a centralized top-down system like China's, politicians advance their career by currying favor with their superiors by demonstrating plan fulfillment, and if they fail they'll try to fake the numbers to make it look like they succeeded. This affects mostly nationally visible metrics like GDP, poverty rate etc. I guess epidemics also fall into that category. In a localized bottom-up system, politicians advance their career by currying favor with voters by distributing handouts, like farming subsidies, tax cuts or artificially low prices. The Flint water crisis was at least partially caused by politicians not wanting to improve the infrastructure, because the cost would have to be recouped by raising the water price, which would have been unpopular.
    - ithinkinstereo 7y ago
      That's true, but my point is that the "Emperor is far away" problems can be found in any type of governing model. Some may limit it, but even then, there are tradeoffs. One advantage of a centralized top-down system is that when an issue becomes sufficiently prioritized at the top, everyone below falls in line. The primary advantage here is speed and the ability to see through long-term plans. You see this in China's rapid rise in certain industries/technologies, and of course, in their response to the 2019-nCoV epidemic. > In a localized bottom-up system, politicians advance their career by currying favor with voters by distributing handouts, like farming subsidies, tax cuts or artificially low prices. I agree with this statement, generally, but there are many exceptions. Speaking only about politicians the US, at a certain level, further career advancement is also very dependent on currying favor with superiors (sometimes, even more so than currying favor with constituents, especially if one has national and not just local ambitions). This is equally true at the national level--see: the internal politicking within the DNC and RNC in terms of fundraising, toeing the party line, etc. to receive endorsement and campaign funds--as it is at the local level--see: "machine" politics like in Chicago, where advancement is equally, if not more, predicated on currying favor with your local party leadership and senior city politicians than it is with voters. Or course, this problem (in the US, at least) might also just be the results of our two-party dominated system, where party-endorsements trumps almost everything else when it comes to getting votes. To your point though, this can be overcome if you curry enough favor with the local voters (Trump himself vis-a-vis the RNC is a good example of this).
- basch 7y ago
  Is it any different than Flint Michigan? Except that Obama came in and drank the water.
  - maratd 7y ago
    This sort of what-about-ism doesn't address the core point. That top-down command and control systems are vulnerable to precisely this type of outcome. Providing a single western example of a much milder localized circumstance doesn't address anything except deflect attention from the main point. Flint was a local event. This is consuming all of China.
    - basch 7y ago
      I was addressing "This isn't a new problem and it's why we have converged to a different system in most of the West." You did answer my question though. I dont agree with the "it cant happen here because we have a different system" angle of my parent.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  While I'm not saying you're wrong, I think it's worth pointing out that the reason the 1918 flupandemic was called the "Spanish flu" for many years, was that Spain was the first nation to admit that there was a problem. They weren't the first, or even second or third nation to get it, just the first to admit it. So the problem of not admitting the seriousness of the situation, is not a new one. Which is not to say that it's not a bad thing, just that it's not in any way unique to China, or even to non-democracies.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    A government held to the standards of over a hundred years ago is still garbage by today's standard. "x is not a new problem" - is not an argument - it's a whataboutism. Every single problem has existed before.
    - rossdavidh 7y ago
      You're right, it's not an argument, it was a thing to point out, that this problem is not specific to non-democracies. The reason the example is from 100 years ago, is that we haven't really seen as serious a threat as that since then. The closest we've had in the western world since then, was AIDS in the 80's, and I don't think the response was all that top-notch in the first few years. But then, the disease speed of mortality was much slower. We haven't really seen what a western democracy would do in a case like this, since 1918.
      - bane 7y ago
        The closest I can think of might be Mad Cow Disease.
        rossdavidh 7y ago
        Good point! I think we can say the UK's response was, for some time after that began, less than exemplary.
    - basch 7y ago
- milofeynman 7y ago
  Great point. The Original Comment seems to have forgotten that journalists were getting locked up for spreading "rumors" less than 2 weeks ago during a vital time in the spread.
  - milofeynman 7y ago
    Source https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/23/following-sars-playbook-china-keeps-dangerous-tight-leash-coronavirus-information/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/23/following...
- bane 7y ago
  I actually don't disagree with you. But I'm of the opinion that the authoritarian nature of the Chinese central government is both a blessing and a curse. As you've correctly pointed out, central authoritarian governments seem to end up with local administrations that are fairly incompetent and corrupt as their measure of success if not in good local governance, but by pleasing the central authority. On the flip side, when the proverbial "Eye of Sauron" of a central government decides to do something without reservation, this style of governance can get a lot of stuff done very quickly. Ultimately the problem for these series of epidemics is the poor conditions and practices of many Chinese citizens that results in unsanitary conditions, especially around food animals. It's easy to look at China as a whole, take a point sampling for a given location and time, and come to a negative evaluation of the entire place. What's harder to do is to recognize that in absolute terms, China today is in much better shape than it was before the '78 reforms. China today is in much better shape than it was before 2000! The structural problem within China, with respect to how local governing happens, is most certainly a problem. However, I think it's very easy to lob complaints across the Ocean when the West is certainly not in a present state of good order at the moment.
rasz 7y ago
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/30/asia/chinese-health-care-virus-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/30/asia/chinese-health-care-... "Wuhan's Communist Party chief Ma Guoqiang acknowledged that before mid-January, samples had to be sent to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) in Beijing. From mid-January, Wuhan was able to test about 300 cases a day" Think about that one, does this sound like taking it seriously? "test about 300 cases a day" is a good way to doctor the number of infections.
duxup 7y ago
I suspect the fear comes from the fact that the response in the past was so poor... While the central government likes / makes grand gestures... they've proven to be reactionary only, slow, and can't be trusted to be honest, and to some extent the local government isn't honest with the central government. The track record is well established and I don't see much reason to believe that they've changed / the incentives for everyone are all wrong / aren't likely to change quickly in a non transparent system.
predators372 7y ago
Is this like a commercial or someone's actual opinion?
2ion 7y ago
What people also should realize is that China is likely the only country of this size and might in the world that is even able to pull off a response like this anymore -- perhaps Russia could also be a candidate -- just in terms of handling the population. The same approach would likely fail in Western democracies starting with logistics and then individuals being too much out of line.
- filesystem 7y ago
  I believe any advantage this may have created is likely offset by China's extremely high population density compared to Western democracies.

by bane 7y ago

adnzzzzZ 7y ago

This kind of analysis I'm seeing everywhere is so misguided. The reason the local government didn't report on the situation accurately and even punished some journalists for speaking about it is a flaw of how their country is run and how their command structure incentives are poorly set up. This isn't a new problem and it's why we have converged to a different system in most of the West. The government coming in later after the situation is already out of control and responding aggressively is only a sign of their failure, given that it wouldn't be necessary for this to happen in a country that wasn't so authoritarian. This should be a wake up call to people in the West who think that banning "fake news" and "misinformation" is a good idea, given that the local government used this exact same excuse to punish journalists speaking about the outbreak early, when it could have been controlled properly.

cambalache 7y ago
It seems to me that China can only make wrong in your eyes. If it takes time to act it is because the system causes this failure. If the government acts swiftly, it is because they are in panic. If it does not solve the situation, of course because they have a terrible oppressive culture. If the problem is fixed. Of course, because these are one of the few advantages of having an authoritarian system. No matter what China does, you will say something bad. I know this makes me sound like CCP shill, but I am not. I only want to read an assessment made with the same level of rigour and sympathy, if, instead of China was Denmark or Australia.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  Denmark is nothing like china besides being a country. If china wants to be compared favorably to other contries, the need to act favorible to most countries. Full stop.
- totalZero 7y ago
  I think the point is that the Chinese government didn't act swiftly, arrested people who initially spread information about the disease in Wuhan, failed to contain the situation, and has now allowed it to become a global problem. Due to the way China's government has lied in the past, I am hesitant to believe their numbers or their narrative until it can be confirmed by outside parties.
  - FooBarWidget 7y ago
    Then does the fact that they're responding much more quickly and much more heavily this time mean nothing at all? You say "didn't act swiftly". What is swift to you? A month went by since the first case before they started getting their act together, true, but how quickly do you think other nations could have acted? Compared to SARS, where it took them months, 1 month is a major improvement. It's still not good enough because the virus is that ruthless, but Rome isn't built in one day. I have reason to believe that they've learned a great deal from how SARS was handled, and that they'll respond even better in a future outbreak event.
  - TheNorthman 7y ago
ithinkinstereo 7y ago
There's a Chinese saying that's apt here; "山高皇帝远" which literally translates into "mountains are high, the emperor is far away." However, I disagree that this is solely unique to China. You see it in the west too. The water crisis in Flint, MI springs to mind.
- yorwba 7y ago
  Shortsighted politicians exist everywhere, but the political system determines what their short-term goals focus on. In a centralized top-down system like China's, politicians advance their career by currying favor with their superiors by demonstrating plan fulfillment, and if they fail they'll try to fake the numbers to make it look like they succeeded. This affects mostly nationally visible metrics like GDP, poverty rate etc. I guess epidemics also fall into that category. In a localized bottom-up system, politicians advance their career by currying favor with voters by distributing handouts, like farming subsidies, tax cuts or artificially low prices. The Flint water crisis was at least partially caused by politicians not wanting to improve the infrastructure, because the cost would have to be recouped by raising the water price, which would have been unpopular.
  - ithinkinstereo 7y ago
    That's true, but my point is that the "Emperor is far away" problems can be found in any type of governing model. Some may limit it, but even then, there are tradeoffs. One advantage of a centralized top-down system is that when an issue becomes sufficiently prioritized at the top, everyone below falls in line. The primary advantage here is speed and the ability to see through long-term plans. You see this in China's rapid rise in certain industries/technologies, and of course, in their response to the 2019-nCoV epidemic. > In a localized bottom-up system, politicians advance their career by currying favor with voters by distributing handouts, like farming subsidies, tax cuts or artificially low prices. I agree with this statement, generally, but there are many exceptions. Speaking only about politicians the US, at a certain level, further career advancement is also very dependent on currying favor with superiors (sometimes, even more so than currying favor with constituents, especially if one has national and not just local ambitions). This is equally true at the national level--see: the internal politicking within the DNC and RNC in terms of fundraising, toeing the party line, etc. to receive endorsement and campaign funds--as it is at the local level--see: "machine" politics like in Chicago, where advancement is equally, if not more, predicated on currying favor with your local party leadership and senior city politicians than it is with voters. Or course, this problem (in the US, at least) might also just be the results of our two-party dominated system, where party-endorsements trumps almost everything else when it comes to getting votes. To your point though, this can be overcome if you curry enough favor with the local voters (Trump himself vis-a-vis the RNC is a good example of this).
basch 7y ago
Is it any different than Flint Michigan? Except that Obama came in and drank the water.
- maratd 7y ago
  This sort of what-about-ism doesn't address the core point. That top-down command and control systems are vulnerable to precisely this type of outcome. Providing a single western example of a much milder localized circumstance doesn't address anything except deflect attention from the main point. Flint was a local event. This is consuming all of China.
  - basch 7y ago
    I was addressing "This isn't a new problem and it's why we have converged to a different system in most of the West." You did answer my question though. I dont agree with the "it cant happen here because we have a different system" angle of my parent.
rossdavidh 7y ago
While I'm not saying you're wrong, I think it's worth pointing out that the reason the 1918 flupandemic was called the "Spanish flu" for many years, was that Spain was the first nation to admit that there was a problem. They weren't the first, or even second or third nation to get it, just the first to admit it. So the problem of not admitting the seriousness of the situation, is not a new one. Which is not to say that it's not a bad thing, just that it's not in any way unique to China, or even to non-democracies.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  A government held to the standards of over a hundred years ago is still garbage by today's standard. "x is not a new problem" - is not an argument - it's a whataboutism. Every single problem has existed before.
  - rossdavidh 7y ago
    You're right, it's not an argument, it was a thing to point out, that this problem is not specific to non-democracies. The reason the example is from 100 years ago, is that we haven't really seen as serious a threat as that since then. The closest we've had in the western world since then, was AIDS in the 80's, and I don't think the response was all that top-notch in the first few years. But then, the disease speed of mortality was much slower. We haven't really seen what a western democracy would do in a case like this, since 1918.
    - bane 7y ago
      The closest I can think of might be Mad Cow Disease.
      - rossdavidh 7y ago
        Good point! I think we can say the UK's response was, for some time after that began, less than exemplary.
  - basch 7y ago
milofeynman 7y ago
Great point. The Original Comment seems to have forgotten that journalists were getting locked up for spreading "rumors" less than 2 weeks ago during a vital time in the spread.
- milofeynman 7y ago
  Source https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/23/following-sars-playbook-china-keeps-dangerous-tight-leash-coronavirus-information/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/23/following...
bane 7y ago
I actually don't disagree with you. But I'm of the opinion that the authoritarian nature of the Chinese central government is both a blessing and a curse. As you've correctly pointed out, central authoritarian governments seem to end up with local administrations that are fairly incompetent and corrupt as their measure of success if not in good local governance, but by pleasing the central authority. On the flip side, when the proverbial "Eye of Sauron" of a central government decides to do something without reservation, this style of governance can get a lot of stuff done very quickly. Ultimately the problem for these series of epidemics is the poor conditions and practices of many Chinese citizens that results in unsanitary conditions, especially around food animals. It's easy to look at China as a whole, take a point sampling for a given location and time, and come to a negative evaluation of the entire place. What's harder to do is to recognize that in absolute terms, China today is in much better shape than it was before the '78 reforms. China today is in much better shape than it was before 2000! The structural problem within China, with respect to how local governing happens, is most certainly a problem. However, I think it's very easy to lob complaints across the Ocean when the West is certainly not in a present state of good order at the moment.

rasz 7y ago

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/30/asia/chinese-health-care-virus-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/30/asia/chinese-health-care-... "Wuhan's Communist Party chief Ma Guoqiang acknowledged that before mid-January, samples had to be sent to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) in Beijing. From mid-January, Wuhan was able to test about 300 cases a day" Think about that one, does this sound like taking it seriously? "test about 300 cases a day" is a good way to doctor the number of infections.

duxup 7y ago

I suspect the fear comes from the fact that the response in the past was so poor... While the central government likes / makes grand gestures... they've proven to be reactionary only, slow, and can't be trusted to be honest, and to some extent the local government isn't honest with the central government. The track record is well established and I don't see much reason to believe that they've changed / the incentives for everyone are all wrong / aren't likely to change quickly in a non transparent system.

predators372 7y ago

Is this like a commercial or someone's actual opinion?

2ion 7y ago

What people also should realize is that China is likely the only country of this size and might in the world that is even able to pull off a response like this anymore -- perhaps Russia could also be a candidate -- just in terms of handling the population. The same approach would likely fail in Western democracies starting with logistics and then individuals being too much out of line.

filesystem 7y ago
I believe any advantage this may have created is likely offset by China's extremely high population density compared to Western democracies.