By J.B.Browne
As the Hong Kong government races to take "all necessary measures" to control the territory's worsening Omicron outbreak, I thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast two vastly different approaches to managing COVID-19 from two countries with distinct ideological roots.
American mainstream media outlets such as The Washington Post and Bloomberg have praised China's zero covid policies in recent weeks. The Post declared that though China had made zero covid work on the mainland, the Winter Olympics being a resounding success, Hong Kong lacked the authoritarian controls necessary to make such policies effective. On top of that, its economy depends on opening up, which would explain why the Hong Kong government has been indecisive in its commitment to handling the virus from the outset.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg, traditionally a bastion of anti-China soapboxing, yielded a rare compliment at China's "dynamic zero-COVID" policy, stating that it had mitigated the virus exceptionally. The same report predicted that if China had adopted anything close to the libertarian US-style approach to the virus, its average daily cases would be over 637,155. True to form, the Bloomberg article refocused on more anti-China talking points without elaborating on any of the reasons that went into China's COVID-19 success.
Perhaps the details don't matter because, in short, what it boils down to is how each country views the welfare of its citizens through the mandate of its social contract. To collectivist China, a single death is one too many. To the US, the American dream of max autonomy and political freedom, well, you're on your own, buddy, unless you can afford it *shrugs shoulders with indifference.*
In China, zero-covid is the power of the people because life itself is the ultimate goal. In the US and other ultra-liberal "democratic" societies, covid-living is the power of capital where government serves the interests of money over the public.
China and the US are great examples for Hong Kong because they offer a glimpse into its potential future as a city at a crossroads as it reevaluates its commitment to its people by managing Omicron effectively.
As of January 2022, COVID case statistics, as provided by the WHO, read as follows: in the US, 57.5 million people have contracted the disease, roughly 20% of the entire population, or one out of five persons. In China, a country almost four times as big as population-wise, the total number of cases is 133,000.
That's cases; what about deaths?
According to the WHO statistics, these are reported deaths from medical personnel taken from this January. The US has had roughly 826,000 covid-related deaths. In China, the number of fatalities amounts to 5,700. A staggering gulf considering the difference in population size.
Also, 60% are fully-vaccinated in the US, and 83% are fully vaccinated in China. Again, there is no comparison because of the gulf in population size.
Here's some cognitive dissonance. Why does Western media constantly frame narratives of Asian peoples and governments as "backward" and "authoritarian" with less respect for human life when the statistics say differently?
Remember, the US has so far allowed 826,000 innocent people to die. Allow me some drama as I go against the grain of accepted discourse, but the scale of the death toll in the United States is on par with the Rwandan genocide, which ranged from 500,000 and one million victims (UN 1994).
Unintentional? Perhaps.
Negligent and unforgivable? Definitely.
If the US coronavirus response could ever be reframed as a crime against humanity, then maybe US citizens would start to question the capitalist system of governance they blindly defend as the supreme enlightenment of "freedom" they perceive it to be.
Economists such as Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute have often cited Hong Kong's economic policy as a shining example of "laissez-faire capitalism," attributing the city's past successes — pre-riots, pre-pandemic — to "Milton's paradise."
As one of the freest market economies in the world, Hong Kong is highly dependent on international trade and finance. As residents scramble for supplies in empty supermarkets and small businesses continue to hemorrhage cash, the government continues to protect the stock exchange, with all of us needing to suffer for it.
Neoliberalism as a policy model, where the central government has little intervention or planning, has, in my opinion, like the US, caused this snowballing outbreak. As the city logs an unimaginable 57,000 new cases, there are still no plans for the 'wholesale city lockdown' we needed back in December. Instead, we're getting vague universal testing beginning on March 26, lasting nineish days. That's quite a way off, considering we're all under unofficial lockdown already.
Some people take the easy analysis and blame the government. But I blame this chaos on capitalism and the social consequences of Milton's neoliberal policies, which have been disastrous for the local populace. Worrying about too much freedom in Hong Kong markets and not enough appetite for government control has led to all this.
Shenzhen's recent spike of 96 imported cases driven by Hong Kong's fifth wave draws comparisons to both economic systems, and the results couldn't be starker. This evening I will look at old photos and remember what life was like in the good times.
As he would refer himself, J.B. Browne is a half "foreign devil" living with anxiety relieved by purchase. HK-born Writer/Musician/Tinkerer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by J.B.Browne:
Opinion | Ukraine is just a game of Russian roulette between East and West
Opinion | Greenest Olympics in modern history proves resilient to US-led smear campaign
Comment