The thesis of this article is that China has not actually controlled the spread of the coronavirus, and instead claimed it had while it continued to spread. The article hypothesises that the reason this lie has not been uncovered is coronavirus is mostly not harmful to 99.9% of the population, and hence small negative effects can be concealed.<p>I believe the logic in this article to be false. The negative effects on hospital overload of well characterised in the west. The sudden peak in number of people with an acute infection as a product of exponential spread leads to clear peaks of hospital need and associated reduced capacity. While this is most significant in nations with a significant number of elderly, it is also visible in the younger population.
I therefore find it unlikely to be feasible to conceal this level of spread, although I concede Chinese control over the media may allow it to do even this.<p>We will find out eventually with the presence of Covid antibody studies in the Chinese populace compared to say the USA.
I don't see the value or point of these articles. They always seem like point scoring exercises or agenda-driven based on personal opinions and subjective assessments. In this case it's not even clear who the author is...<p>China (and they are not alone) has done relatively well against the virus, so far certainly better than the West in general. It's just intellectual honesty to recognise this whatever we might think of the Chinese government.<p>Can we trust all the Chinese government reports? No. But when they lift most restrictions and life is mostly back to normal this is not fake. They cannot hide serious outbreaks. Case in point they still enforce local lockdowns here and there as cases arise.<p>I think there are two main aspects in what they are doing:<p>1. Strict lockdowns, strictly enforced but with people also complying by themselves.<p>2. Comprehensive monitoring, and track and trace systems in place after lockdowns.