Even as the country that gave Covid-19 to the world grapples with concerns surrounding its “dynamic zero” policy, questions are being raised on whether it is feasible, even in a totalitarian state, to meet every fresh outbreak of the virus with draconian restrictions.
On Sunday, Shenzhen, a city of 17 million, was locked up, following in the footsteps of other cities ~ and sometimes neighbourhoods ~ that have been sequestered sometimes at a moment’s notice. The measures, and China’s relative success in controlling the pandemic ~ about 115,000 cases overall and less than 5,000 deaths according to official data ~ feed into the narrative of President Xi Jinping being a leader who has kept the Chinese safe.
But questions are now being asked about the continuance of drastic measures being as much to keep President Xi safe from scrutiny as he approaches a crucial vote to ensure a third term in office as they are to ensure the safety of his fellow citizens.
Certainly, the harsh measures are neither popular, nor in consonance with countries around the world that have gradually but inexorably eased them. It doesn’t help that the actions of overzealous authorities have further angered the Chinese, as when they blocked medical access to a pregnant woman, or when they beat to death a corgi whose owners had been sent into quarantine.
These may seem like hiccups faced by the authorities, but the fact is that for every case of excess that comes to light there are several that do not. For the overriding narrative of the state is that officials in areas that report any fresh outbreak must be publicly shamed and castigated, to ensure that the message of the end mattering more than the means is adequately conveyed. This means there is incentive to either fudge data, or to react in an exaggerated fashion when a new case is detected.
Already, the Chinese are subject to elaborate, state-mandated tracking of their movements. In locked-down areas, they endure poor access to food, necessities, and medical help. In port cities and border areas, which have faced frequent shutdowns, there is great disruption of economic activity. Migrants have been left stranded at borders.
Two narratives are now in play. The Chinese scientific community, perhaps drawing a lesson from Hong Kong, has warned of a massive outbreak if controls on travel from the West are dispensed with. This section clearly believes that the dynamic zero formula must stay. But there are also those who say that the country must learn to co-exist with the virus.
In a bow in that direction, the Chinese authorities have for the first time recently allowed the use of home testing for Covid. In the ultimate analysis, the choice is between the political imperative of ensuring Mr Xi’s third term and the economic and social imperatives of continuing to be locked up. Insofar as the virus goes, China is not in a very good place.