{"id":233318,"date":"2021-08-27T12:46:24","date_gmt":"2021-08-27T19:46:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/?p=233318"},"modified":"2021-08-27T13:57:36","modified_gmt":"2021-08-27T20:57:36","slug":"pandemic-control-strategy-a-subject-for-debate-and-debate-suppression","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/2021\/08\/pandemic-control-strategy-a-subject-for-debate-and-debate-suppression\/","title":{"rendered":"Pandemic Control Strategy:\u00a0 A Subject for Debate, and Debate Suppression"},"content":{"rendered":"

In recent months, a spirited debate about COVID-19 pandemic control strategy has emerged online, but is actively being suppressed through post deletion and other censorship, intimidation, personal attacks, and retaliation for speaking out. Whether the commentator is an esteemed infectious disease specialist, a well-intentioned local teacher, or an attorney with qualms about the vaccine, there have been swift consequences for daring to question, debate, or even make suggestions regarding the government\u2019s \u201ctotal eradication\u201d pandemic control strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n

CDT Chinese has archived a number of posts and stories related to the debate. Below are summaries and translations drawn from a selection of this content.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Expert Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

After a July 10 international flight from Moscow to Nanjing <\/span>touched off an outbreak<\/span><\/a> of the highly infectious COVID-19 Delta variant, a local lockdown was imposed and millions of Nanjing residents underwent <\/span>numerous rounds of testing<\/span><\/a>. The rapid response succeeded in muting the worst of the outbreak, but was not sufficient to stop it from <\/span>spreading to 17 of China\u2019s 23 provinces<\/span><\/a>. The global spread of the Delta variant, the rise of other variants, and the possibility of waning immunity have led many experts to conclude that long-term coexistence with COVID-19 is an inevitable reality.<\/span><\/p>\n

On July 29, esteemed virologist <\/span>Dr. Zhang Wenhong<\/span><\/a> weighed in with a Weibo post in which he discussed<\/span> the Nanjing outbreak and its implications for coexistence and pandemic control policy:<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

The Nanjing outbreak has prompted a nationwide “stress test,” and given us much to ponder about future epidemic prevention and control.<\/strong> [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Will the outbreak in Nanjing worsen or spin out of control? [\u2026]<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. In the midst of the Nanjing outbreak, is it time to start paying more attention to the protective effect of vaccines? […]<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. What we’ve been through is not the hardest part: even harder is finding the wisdom to coexist with the virus in the long run.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    More and more people have come to believe that the epidemic will not end in the near future, nor even in the distant future. The vast majority of virologists now recognize that this is a longstanding virus, one that the world must learn to coexist with. The Nanjing epidemic has once again shown us the omnipresent nature of the virus. Like it or not, the future will always hold risk. As to how the world will coexist with the virus, each country will offer up its own answer. China once had a perfect answer to this question, but after the outbreak in Nanjing, we certainly have more to learn. China’s future choices must ensure a shared global future, intercommunication with the world, and a return to our normal way of life, while at the same time safeguarding our citizens from fear of the virus. China surely possesses the wisdom to do this.<\/span><\/p>\n

    We have already beaten the novel coronavirus once, and we will certainly find a way to triumph over it in the long run. [<\/span>Chinese<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Although the post was not deleted or censored, the mere mention of \u201ccoexistence\u201d with COVID-19 was enough to trigger <\/span>attacks by state media outlets<\/span><\/a> and some social media users, who accused Dr. Zhang of politicization, capitulation, and <\/span>even being a traitor to the nation<\/strong>:<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \"\"

    A skewed, unscientific online poll asking users to vote on whether Dr. Zhang is a traitor: 23% chose \u201cnot a traitor (already decided),\u201d 62% chose \u201cis a traitor,\u201d and 14% chose \u201clet history be the judge.\u201d [Chinese<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p><\/div>\n

    As the internet exploded with debate over the respective merits of zero-sum virus eradication versus long-term coexistence, economist and former Minister of Health Gao Qiang published <\/span>a strongly-worded op-ed<\/span><\/a>, via a People\u2019s Daily channel, in which he repudiated the notion of coexistence with COVID-19 and branded its supporters \u201ccapitulationists.\u201d Although he did not mention Zhang Wenhong by name, many <\/span>read it as a personal attack and an attempt to discredit Zhang\u2019s ideas<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The day after Gao\u2019s editorial appeared, news media outfit Mr. Middle (\u4e2d\u4ea7\u5148\u751f) mounted a <\/span>direct challenge to Gao and the zero-sum strategy<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> arguing for a \u201cmiddle-of-the road approach\u201d to managing COVID-19. The post was censored the next day, and Mr. Middle\u2019s WeChat public account was suspended until September 9. CDT has <\/span>archived a copy of the Chinese article<\/a> and <\/span>translated it in full<\/strong><\/a>. Here is a short excerpt from the translation:<\/span><\/p>\n

    One faction advocates total eradication of the virus; the other advocates coexistence with it.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The internet has already erupted into arguments about these two different approaches.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The divide was made especially clear in a statement issued yesterday [August 9] by Gao Qiang, the former health minister:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cCoexistence\u201d is completely unacceptable. Humankind and the virus are locked in a life-and-death struggle. Ultimately, victory will rely on medicines that can kill the virus. At this stage, we cannot relax, and in fact must increase our efforts. We must \u201ccast the virus from our borders\u201d and drown it in the vast ocean of the People\u2019s War.<\/span><\/p>\n

    This statement has emboldened the \u201ceradication faction.\u201d The original proponent of \u201ccoexistence,\u201d <\/span>Zhang Wenhong<\/span><\/a> (a top infectious disease expert), was savaged and tarred with accusations by a bunch of Weibo users with little more than a middle school education. [<\/span>Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Social media users who mocked or criticized Gao Qiang\u2019s statement found their posts quickly deleted. One such post,<\/span> \u201c<\/strong>An Open Letter to Comrade Gao Qiang<\/strong><\/a>,\u201d <\/strong>was deleted from WeChat:<\/span><\/p>\n

    Greetings, Comrade Gao Qiang!<\/span><\/p>\n

    I have read, with great respect, the highly influential article you published in recent days. […]<\/span> I felt it might be best if I wrote you a letter. Even with my limited knowledge and proficiency, I can tell that this article of yours is very likely to bring disaster upon the scientific community.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Firstly, I don’t know why you take this attitude toward our nation’s doctors. It stands to reason that you and these doctors are a part of the same system: if you have opinions or suggestions for a certain doctor, surely there are channels through which you can communicate with him. […] Yet you chose to publish a broadside like this in the official media. If I’m honest, your article has some literary merit\u2014each word a gem, dripping with dispassion, bombarding the mind, yet leaving no trace behind. And though you name no names, we all know exactly who you mean. Given your immense stature and power, how could a humble doctor withstand your barrage?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    To the best of my knowledge, the doctor you refer to is a scientific researcher. His statement that “the world must learn to coexist with this virus” was simply his professional opinion: whether it was right or wrong is a matter for debate. However, you elevated his statement to the level of politics, to the level of individualism, and instantly transformed an academic difference of opinion into a conflict between enemies, a clash between systems. In doing so, you made that doctor a target of criticism by lumping him in with the governments of Western countries you criticize, such as the U.S. and the U.K. If we were to turn the clock back a few decades, an article such as yours would be enough to condemn that doctor as a counterrevolutionary or a traitor in service of a foreign power. He’d be flayed alive, and lucky if he survived.<\/span><\/p>\n

    “The master sergeant kills with the stroke of a pen,\u201d as the saying goes. Your article is bound to bring disaster upon the scientific community. Based on your argument, who would dare to engage in scientific research in the future? Who would dare to come up with innovative scientific ideas? How would it even be possible to continue normal academic exchange, write about popular science, or attract foreign researchers to China? Most importantly, that doctor won’t have fallen fighting on the front lines of the pandemic, nor cowered before the ravages of the virus, but will have been destroyed by your pen, taken down by the article you wrote. [<\/span>Chinese<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    On August 15, Dr. Zhang\u2019s alma mater, Shanghai\u2019s Fudan University, announced that it was <\/span>launching an investigation into his doctoral dissertation<\/span><\/a>, published in 2000, after a recent plagiarism complaint. As the AFP reports, the investigation was widely viewed as being politically motivated, <\/span>a form of retaliation for his comments on coexistence<\/strong><\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    […] [His] thesis, published in 1998 in the Chinese Journal of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, had a review with a total of about 3,700 words, according to Changanjie Zhishi, a social media account operated by Beijing Daily.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Professor Yan Feng, from Fudan University\u2019s Chinese literature department, said the accusers had deliberately confused a review and the main body of research, and also deliberately did not talk about the difference between academic norms 20 years ago and today.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cUsing this as a tool for the attack, then who will dare to speak out and act according to their professional judgment in the future?\u201d Yan said on his microblogging account. [<\/span>Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The academic retaliation and personal attacks inspired many people, ranging from esteemed doctors to ordinary citizens, to defend China\u2019s most prominent virologist\u2019s <\/span>right to express his informed medical opinion on the pandemic, described here by CNN\u2019s\u00a0 Nectar Gan and Steve George:<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

    Ning Yi, a public health expert, <\/span>posted<\/span><\/a> on Weibo a photo of himself and Zhang in support, commenting: “If we can’t protect an expert as selfless as Zhang Wenhong, then our society is doomed.”<\/span><\/p>\n

    Yan Feng, a Chinese literature professor at Fudan University, <\/span>warned<\/span><\/a> of the potential chilling effect of the political witch hunt against Zhang. “Who will dare to speak out, who will dare to take responsibility, who will act according to their professional judgment in the future?” he asked.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Some Weibo users said the attacks on Zhang are reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, during which scientists \u2014 along with intellectuals and artists \u2014 were subject to public humiliation and savage attacks by the Red Guards for their perceived political unreliability. [<\/span>Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    CDT has reprinted and archived a Weibo essay by <\/span>news blogger Wei Zhou (\u7ef4\u821f)<\/span><\/a> titled\u00a0 <\/span>\u201cIf Zhang Wenhong Can No Longer Speak Out\u201d:<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

    […] In this society, we all know how frightening such defamatory accusations can be: they are more than harmless nonsense; they have the potential to cause serious harm. While someone of Zhang Wenhong’s stature might emerge unscathed, many others, witnessing this cacophony of attacks, will stay silent out of fear. To be honest, it even frightens me.<\/span><\/p>\n

    We can’t expect everyone to be a saint\u2014unblemished, eternally correct, unerring in their personal convictions\u2014which makes it all the more essential that everyone have the right to speak. Zhang Wenhong is one of the very few public figures who can still express a differing opinion. As to whether his opinion is correct or not, I fear that the majority of people are in no position to judge, but one thing is certain: he can offer an expert perspective.<\/span><\/p>\n

    If someday he is no longer able to speak out, some will consider it a victory, but it will be a loss for all of us. [<\/span>Chinese<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    On August 18, Dr. Zhang resurfaced after several weeks of media silence to post <\/span>an update on his Weibo account<\/span><\/a>, reassuring the public that he was fine and had simply been busy with his medical responsibilities. He also walked back his previous post a bit, averring that China\u2019s current \u201ctotal eradication\u201d efforts were \u201cthe most suitable\u201d policy. On August 23, as SCMP reported, Fudan University announced that it had concluded its investigation, <\/span>clearing Dr. Zhang of any academic misconduct:<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    […] In a brief statement on Monday, Shanghai\u2019s Fudan University said it found no evidence of academic misconduct in the doctoral thesis of <\/span>Zhang Wenhong<\/span><\/a>, who became a household name in China for his advice on <\/span>the coronavirus pandemic<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The university said it did not find any malpractice, only some minor irregularities in the review section of the thesis, which did not affect the quality of the research or amount to academic misconduct.<\/span><\/p>\n

    […] His reappearance in social media was read as a sign that the controversy over his \u201ccoexistence\u201d remarks was over. Some of his supporters left messages online saying his critics owed the doctor an apology. <\/span>[Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    CDT has also republished an article titled <\/span>\u201c<\/span>Zhang Wenhong is saved; Zhang Wenhong has lost<\/strong>,\u201d<\/span><\/a> that explores the chilling effect this saga might have on future debate. Below is a partial translation:<\/span><\/p>\n

    […] But this wave of personal attacks has still been effective, because it proves that Dr. Zhang is not perfect. Now that he has “a stain” on his record, will people still find his opinions credible?<\/span><\/p>\n

    My attitude is that Dr. Zhang’s opinions are as credible as ever, and all too rare. It’s just unfortunate that he may not feel free to make these “off-the-cuff remarks” in the future.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Zhang Wenhong posted an update on Weibo a few days ago about what he’s been doing during the media firestorm: treating patients at the outpatient clinic, participating in a pandemic prevention conference in Shanghai, and fulfilling his duties and obligations as the leader of the Shanghai Medical Treatment Experts Group. It was also a way to let everyone know that he was safe. Although he mentioned nothing about the personal attacks against him or complaints about his thesis, the public still felt a sense of relief to know that Dr. Zhang was “well.”<\/span><\/p>\n

    But some people may have carelessly overlooked the last part of his Weibo post.<\/span><\/p>\n

    My interpretation is that the sentence, “We must remain staunch in our convictions,” is his response to former Minister of Health Gao Qiang’s criticism of “capitulationism.” In this passage, Zhang Wenhong agrees that China’s current “eradicationist” pandemic prevention policy is ideal, appropriate and should be staunchly maintained.<\/span><\/p>\n

    At the same time, he also claims that he rarely posts on Weibo, and that it is typical for him not to post: it would be easy to interpret this to mean that he will not be making any more off-the-cuff remarks on Weibo in the future.<\/span><\/p>\n

    […] It appears that this whole long process\u2014the huge controversy touched off by Zhang Wenhong and the clamour of accusations against him\u2014may soon be coming to an end. If this is true, there is one final risk: that we will have lost something of inestimable public value. In the process of “saving” Zhang Wenhong, the people may ultimately have “lost” him\u2014that is, if he retreats to his consulting rooms and does not speak out anymore. [<\/span>Chinese<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The Well-intentioned Suggestion<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Lesser-known individuals and ordinary citizens have also faced retaliation for posting opinions, criticisms or suggestions that diverge from the government\u2019s preferred pandemic-control policies.<\/span><\/p>\n

    CDT has archived a deleted WeChat post from Zhu Xuedong about a teacher in Jiangxi province <\/span>detained by police for 15 days for posting an innocuous comment in an online discussion thread<\/strong><\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Excuse me, Fengcheng Police: Is Talking About “Coexisting With the Virus” Just Cause for Arrest?<\/p>\n

    In Fengcheng city, Jiangxi province, a teacher named Zhang has been detained for 15 days for posting a humbly-worded online comment suggesting that the government ease up on strict pandemic prevention measures and try to “coexist with the virus.”<\/span><\/p>\n

    This is such a bizarre story.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The story came to my attention on August 11, when I noticed a brief item in the @\u4e30\u57ce\u53d1\u5e03 [Fengcheng Announcements] official WeChat account:<\/span><\/p>\n

    On August 10, a teacher with the surname Zhang\u2014under the user name @\u65e0\u7ebf\u89c2\u5bdf [Online Inspection]\u2014posted an inappropriate comment related to the pandemic on a news story, causing an adverse social impact. Our municipal Public Security Bureau responded promptly, placing Zhang under a 15-day period of administrative detention in accordance with the law. After posting the offending comment, the teacher deeply regretted his mistake, voluntarily deleted the comment and posted an apology from the same account to his fellow netizens.<\/span><\/p>\n

    […] Zhang has already deleted the content, but if the screenshots of other netizens are accurate, his “inappropriate comment” was as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

    Yangzhou is not that large or populous. Couldn’t we try easing up on strict pandemic prevention measures and coexisting with the virus, then see what results are? That way, the whole country could benefit and learn from Yangzhou’s experiment. This is just a suggestion, so don’t attack me.<\/span><\/p>\n

    […] Government power overstepping its boundaries is a terrible thing. […] [E]ven if this teacher Zhang from Fengcheng did post a comment that was sarcastic or problematic, what law did he break? If there isn’t even space for that kind of speech, what kind of future do we have to look forward to? [<\/span>Chinese<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The story of the teacher\u2019s 15-day detention garnered a lot of attention and posts on WeChat, Weibo, Twitter and other social media, with many commenters dismayed by the overreaction of the police:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n

    \u6c5f\u897f\u4e30\u57ce\u5e02\u4e00\u540d\u6559\u5e08\u5f20\u67d0\u826f\uff0c\u56e0\u5728\u4eca\u65e5\u5934\u6761\u53d1\u8868\u8a00\u8bba\uff0c\u4ee5\u6781\u5176\u8c26\u5351\u7684\u8bed\u6c14\u63d0\u8bae\u653f\u5e9c\u5141\u8bb8\u626c\u5dde\u653e\u5f03\u4e25\u9632\u6b7b\u5b88\u7684\u9632\u75ab\u601d\u8def\uff0c\u8bd5\u884c\u201c\u4e0e\u75c5\u6bd2\u5171\u5b58\u201d\uff0c\u88ab\u5904\u62d8\u755915\u65e5\u3002 pic.twitter.com\/nOIz1lX4DW<\/a><\/p>\n

    — \u4e2d\u56fd\u6587\u5b57\u72f1\u4e8b\u4ef6\u76d8\u70b9 (@SpeechFreedomCN) August 12, 2021<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n