Coronavirus: could China’s lockdowns to contain Covid-19 be the best choice for every country?

The swift and aggressive lockdown strategy of cities including Wuhan may have worked for China but studies suggest the strategy might not be the best choice for other nations

Studies show school closures could lead to higher death rates if medical workers have to stay at home to care for their children

Reading Time:5 minutes

China is citing its mass closures as a key part of its success in bringing the coronavirus under control, and further evidence of the strength of an authoritarian system in handling a crisis. Photo: AP

Published: 6:30am, 16 Apr 2020Updated: 7:32am, 16 Apr 2020

China’s unprecedented and, at the time, controversial decision to lockdown the city of Wuhan at the end of January was quickly rolled out across the country, turning cites into ghost towns as businesses not deemed essential to daily life were closed.

The mandatory closures of restaurants, pubs, bookstores, hairdressers, and nail shops across a city at short notice proved successful in curbing the spread of the coronavirus, and last week, the lockdown was removed, with many other cities across China also returning to normal.

But the debate over whether such draconian emergency measures to contain the virus are necessary, or even desirable, in other countries is far from over.

China is citing its mass closures as a key part of its success in bringing the coronavirus under control, and further evidence of the strength of an authoritarian system in handling a crisis.

President Xi Jinping said in a visit to Hangzhou earlier this month that the rapid implementation of such strong measures is a sign of Beijing’s “governance capability” in being able to tighten or relax control over the nation’s social life.

But while China’s one-size-fits-all closure policy has a valid scientific point in reducing social contact, and therefore the spread of the disease, it could also lead to huge social and economic costs, analysts have warned.