Opinion | Hong Kong and Mainland have got 'zero-COVID' policy right

By Tom Fowdy

Over the past few weeks, the world has been in a state of panic as the new "Omicron" variant of the COVID-19 was identified by the World Health Organization (WHO). The designation has set off a wave of new travel bans and restrictions around the world, has spooked markets and wiped away what was otherwise a growing ray of optimism towards a more managed pandemic through the impact of vaccines. It is not known at this stage just how much the new variant will set back immunity, but it is widely perceived to be more transmissible, and a reminder that a "no restrictions" approach to the disease, as advocated by the United Kingdom and the United States, is ultimately insufficient.

Just days of course before this development, the mainstream media had been sharpening its attacks on Mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for pursuing a longstanding policy of "zero COVID"- that is the usage of interventionist restrictions by the state to curb social activity with the view of cutting transmission to zero. This includes mass testing regimes, restrictions on gathering, tight curbs on inbound travel with flight limitations and strict quarantines and of course strict social lockdowns in impacted areas.

In arguing against the zero-covid approach, these outlets, as recently the Financial Times had done, have accused China at large as becoming "isolated" in terms of limiting the opportunities for inbound businesses. Both regions currently uphold a mandatory three-week quarantine upon entry. China as a whole has aggressively used micro regional lockdowns in 2020 and 20221 to crush local outbreaks, and bares only one covid death in the whole year, in contrast to the total of 800,000 in the United States. Despite this, the western media generated a hubris that their "live and let be" approach was the most successful, and China could only lose out by refusing to accept it.

The Omicron variant, however, has demonstrated the naivety of this western approach. Whilst the argument that "zero covid cannot go on forever" is not technically wrong and on a personal level most people would agree with it, nonetheless, the premise that a quick vaccination rush in the west was sufficient to achieve herd immunity with an immediate end to restrictions was a mistake which was motivated by economic and populist considerations, as opposed to scientific reasoning. Their actions were not wrong, but badly timed and pre-mature in the wake of widespread continuing transmission as well as the threat of newly evolving and more harmful variants.

As one study had set out to the international media recently, if China reverted its zero-covid policy and reassumed entry for travel, it could proliferate into an outbreak of an estimated 600,000 cases a day. China's policy has not only been vindicated by the new variant, of which has seen widespread U-turning and retreating on plans to reopen in various countries, but is also premised by the consideration of its population size and what a new variant would be capable of in these circumstances. Hong Kong for another, is also one of the most densely populated and crowded cities in the world. It is unthinkable that such a highly contagious and mutative variant should be allowed to roam freely in either instance.

But what should be done? Should this world of covid restrictions go on forever? Obviously not, yet the answer is clear that the development of immunity through vaccines must be matched by the level of effort the state is willing to pursue to reduce transmissions, in order to stop constant spread and more harmful evolutions. If idealistically speaking, every country adapted China's approach, the covid outbreak could be contained and managed globally, there would be no space for new variants to gain traction, and likewise, a vaccination process could succeed globally without countries hoarding and stockpiling vaccines, which itself has left poorer countries at a critical disadvantage and contributed to the "Never end" cycle.

The reason we face a "global pandemic" which one of the coming January, will be two months old, is precisely because some countries have not been willing to take the steps related to ending community transmission and have sought what people want, as opposed to what people truly need. China, for all the attacks hurled towards it, has been the exception and it in turn, cannot change its own rules until the world is safe enough to be on its level, of which it is not currently. The western ideology of catering to individuality has failed again and again to offset covid and do what needs to be done, letting lose a vicious cycle of constant repetition. In this case, China has shown it has nothing to lose by keeping its current and highly successful path as the world again faces a grim and dark winter scenario.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.