China's Progress Against Coronavirus Used Draconian Tactics Not Deployed in the West

[question everything]

BEIJING—U. S. and European leaders are looking at China’s progress in curbing the coronavirus pandemic to guide them on how to beat the virus within their own borders. They may be drawing the wrong lessons, doctors and health experts say. The cordon sanitaire that began around Wuhan and two nearby cities on Jan. 23 helped slow the virus’s transmission to other parts of China, but didn’t really stop it in Wuhan itself, these experts say. Instead, the virus kept spreading among family members in homes, in large part because hospitals were too overwhelmed to handle all the patients, according to doctors and patients there.

What really turned the tide in Wuhan was a shift after Feb. 2 to a more aggressive and systematic quarantine regime whereby suspected or mild cases—and even healthy close contacts of confirmed cases—were sent to makeshift hospitals and temporary quarantine centers. The tactics required turning hundreds of hotels, schools and other places into quarantine centers, as well as building two new hospitals and creating 14 temporary ones in public buildings. It also underscored the importance of coronavirus testing capacity, which local authorities say was expanded from 200 tests a day in late January to 7,000 daily by mid-February

The steps went beyond what’s envisioned in many hard-hit Western cities. As a result, many doctors and experts say the recent lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe may slow the rise in new infections—if properly enforced—but still won’t be enough to stop it or prevent many hospitals from being overwhelmed, as they were initially in Wuhan.

“A lot of the lessons have been lost,” said Devi Sridhar, professor of global public health at the University of Edinburgh. “A lockdown helps buy time: The only way it will work is if you actually backtrack and start figuring out who has the virus.” The U.S., Britain and some European countries will ultimately, like Wuhan, have to establish multiple makeshift hospitals and quarantine centers to isolate more cases if they are to bring the virus under control, she said.

(snip)

Mike Ryan, the World Health Organization’s emergencies head, warned on Sunday that lockdowns wouldn’t be enough to control the pandemic and urged governments to focus on identifying and isolating infected people and their contacts. “It’s not just about physical distancing, it’s not just about locking down,” he said. “In China, and in Singapore, in Korea, they really focused on having that comprehensive strategy.”

More..

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-west-is-misinterpreting-wuhans-coronavirus-progressand-drawing-the-wrong-lessons-11585074966 (subscription)

[comradebillyboy]

1. Authoritarian socialist regimes can apply coercive

measures that are not acceptable in a democratic republic like the US. The Chinese Communist Party is all powerful in China.

[pat_k]

2. "The only way it will work is if you actually backtrack and start figuring out who has the virus."

I fear it is taking far to long for too many states to even begin to get testing "ramped up" to a level that can inform more effective quarantine/containment efforts.

WA and NY are up to around 40-50 per 10,000 tested, and adding about 5 per 10,000 per day, but even those rates (well ahead of other states) seem to me to be waaaayyy too low.

When, if ever, will we see testing en mass of the people who have to be out there working -- particularly those with "front line" customer contact like grocery workers, pharmacies, etc.? Is it even feasible to think we could get there?

I haven't even heard of any plans for this sort of testing, but if we want to minimize exposure, we must identify and quarantine any "essential" worker who poses a risk. If we wait for symptoms prior to testing, you probably have 10 days of undetected exposure of fellow workers and customers. That sounds a lot to me like completely uncontrolled spread.

[Igel]

3. Even if they did, the rest of the program wouldn't be accepted.

And without the rest of the program, the first part's not particularly useful.

You test positive, you're taken to a holding facility. That's it, you don't go home.

You have a fever, you're taken to a holding facility. And you take your temperature entering and leaving buildings. No, it's not negotiable, the nice militiaman that's there has his orders and so do you.

You're possibly infected? Not something we're going to risk.

Now, what happens if you're found to be infected? Do you go home to your family? And how would you know?

And what if you're 10 years old? No, you don't go back home.

Keep in mind that overall, 1/4 of those tested, and most of those tested are ill, are ill with COVID-19. That means 3/4 aren't ill with that--but since most are ill, they'd be housed with COVID folk until the test results comes back. They had no fast tests.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[pat_k]

4. I guess it's just wishful thinking.

I thought that at least if we could identify positives among the "front line" essentials earlier, and had them self-quarantine, it would help reduce spread. But perhaps you're right -- that without the more draconian steps, the effect might be too modest.