6 ms·

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 jo

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
    Are there any government whose narrative you trust? It seems to me that never trusting anything a governments because they have once [0] lied is a little extreme. In fact, I'm not sure I can name a country whose government hasn't lied in recent times. This would then extend to academia as well, since most research is in some way funded by the state. [0]: I know they have lied more than once. I'm not sure what a more appropriate word would have been.
    - alasdair_ 7y ago
      I would trust the CDC’s numbers because I know of no incentive for them to lie and their numbers have generally been truthful in the past. In addition, any doctor at the CDC is free to say “these numbers are fraudulent” publicly without worrying they will be arrested. I would not trust a political party’s economy numbers without external verification, however, because a party has an incentive to lie.
      - TheNorthman 7y ago
        > because I know of no incentive for them to lie Their incentive to lie seems obvious to me. The US benefits from what hurts China. Besides, the CDC have been caught accepting millions of dollars from commercial interests ("Big pharma"), which obviously also plays a role in fear mongering.
- adnzzzzZ 7y ago
  This is the first comment I've made on this forum about China, so whoever you're speaking to is clearly not me but a collective "you" instead. Responding as myself, I simply added balance to the comment above me. Many people are making the exact same argument the person I responded to is making, and while that argument isn't false, it's clearly misleading. China does get credit for responding to the situation as they did after the central government got involved. However, we must remember that the situation would likely not have occurred in the first place if the people speaking out about it early on weren't punished, which wouldn't happen in most western countries as local governments have way less power and way less incentives to make that kind of thing happen. This situation is a good example of the problems of their authoritarian system, and a good reminder of why we value (or why we should value) the things we value in the West, like free speech.
  - stone-monkey 7y ago
    > However, we must remember that the situation would likely not have occurred in the first place if the people speaking out about it early on weren't punished, which wouldn't happen in most western countries as local governments have way less power and way less incentives to make that kind of thing happen. I'm not saying the Chinese government doesn't have problems, nor am I saying free speech is bad, but I have no idea how you could come to this conclusion that free speech would somehow limit the spread of this disease. We have free speech in the US and that's literally led to the rise of anti inoculation advocacy.
    - adnzzzzZ 7y ago
      Anti-vaccination advocacy exists because some kids do get problems from vaccines. I'm not an anti-vaxxer but it's an inherent feature of how vaccines work that a very small percentage of kids will have some serious things happen as a result of being vaccinated. When you have a big population and the Internet, this small percentage of parents will logically come together to cope with their problems. The fact that those people exist and they can talk about it is evidence that our system is working, not that it isn't.
      - 7y ago
- blfr 7y ago
  It seems to me that China can only make wrong in your eyes. It's a semi-communist dictatorship. They do have a terrible, oppressive system. This is not some questionable assumption. And naturally, free people's opinion of China is much lower than of Denmark or Australia.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
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.

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
  Are there any government whose narrative you trust? It seems to me that never trusting anything a governments because they have once [0] lied is a little extreme. In fact, I'm not sure I can name a country whose government hasn't lied in recent times. This would then extend to academia as well, since most research is in some way funded by the state. [0]: I know they have lied more than once. I'm not sure what a more appropriate word would have been.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    I would trust the CDC’s numbers because I know of no incentive for them to lie and their numbers have generally been truthful in the past. In addition, any doctor at the CDC is free to say “these numbers are fraudulent” publicly without worrying they will be arrested. I would not trust a political party’s economy numbers without external verification, however, because a party has an incentive to lie.
    - TheNorthman 7y ago
      > because I know of no incentive for them to lie Their incentive to lie seems obvious to me. The US benefits from what hurts China. Besides, the CDC have been caught accepting millions of dollars from commercial interests ("Big pharma"), which obviously also plays a role in fear mongering.
adnzzzzZ 7y ago
This is the first comment I've made on this forum about China, so whoever you're speaking to is clearly not me but a collective "you" instead. Responding as myself, I simply added balance to the comment above me. Many people are making the exact same argument the person I responded to is making, and while that argument isn't false, it's clearly misleading. China does get credit for responding to the situation as they did after the central government got involved. However, we must remember that the situation would likely not have occurred in the first place if the people speaking out about it early on weren't punished, which wouldn't happen in most western countries as local governments have way less power and way less incentives to make that kind of thing happen. This situation is a good example of the problems of their authoritarian system, and a good reminder of why we value (or why we should value) the things we value in the West, like free speech.
- stone-monkey 7y ago
  > However, we must remember that the situation would likely not have occurred in the first place if the people speaking out about it early on weren't punished, which wouldn't happen in most western countries as local governments have way less power and way less incentives to make that kind of thing happen. I'm not saying the Chinese government doesn't have problems, nor am I saying free speech is bad, but I have no idea how you could come to this conclusion that free speech would somehow limit the spread of this disease. We have free speech in the US and that's literally led to the rise of anti inoculation advocacy.
  - adnzzzzZ 7y ago
    Anti-vaccination advocacy exists because some kids do get problems from vaccines. I'm not an anti-vaxxer but it's an inherent feature of how vaccines work that a very small percentage of kids will have some serious things happen as a result of being vaccinated. When you have a big population and the Internet, this small percentage of parents will logically come together to cope with their problems. The fact that those people exist and they can talk about it is evidence that our system is working, not that it isn't.
    - 7y ago
blfr 7y ago
It seems to me that China can only make wrong in your eyes. It's a semi-communist dictatorship. They do have a terrible, oppressive system. This is not some questionable assumption. And naturally, free people's opinion of China is much lower than of Denmark or Australia.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

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.