My Take | Scientific consensus vs politicised criticism on China
- There is a virtual consensus among international researchers that China’s draconian measures of lockdowns and isolation had worked, though they are by no means the only or even the best containment methods for other countries
“China’s response was typically Chinese: suppression of information about the prevalence of the virus, a high degree of social control, and a massive mobilisation of resources once the threat became clear,” wrote Professor Dani Rodrik of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Actually, suppressing information and imposing social control during a national crisis are typical of authoritarian governments or dictatorial regimes, not just China. But, mobilising the-whole-of-government resources to contain and eliminate the threat requires bureaucratic focus, competence and resourcefulness. That’s what makes the official response distinctly Chinese.
Unsurprisingly, anti-China critics and politicians seize on information suppression and social control, and conclude from their confirmation bias that China caused the global pandemic for which it is now trying to deny responsibility.
However, scientific and medical researchers, because they need to work out what happened – and what worked and what didn’t – must focus on how effective China’s containment efforts were, that is, by examining the response itself and its effectiveness.