china Jim Naureckas Pandemic

NYT Scolds China for Not ‘Learning to Live’—or Die—With Covid

COVID-19 testing kiosk at Jiandemen. N509FZ, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

By Jim Naureckas / FAIR

Four and a half million people.

That’s how many Chinese people would have died from Covid-19 had its government taken the same approach to the pandemic that the United States has taken, and gotten the same results.

Instead, China has had 15,000 deaths from Covid—most of these from an outbreak in the spring of 2022 in Hong Kong, which has its own healthcare system.

Meanwhile, the United States has lost more than a million people to Covid since the pandemic began. Deaths currently continue at the rate of about 450 a day, which would add up to roughly 160,000 a year if present trends continue.

Clearly China and the United States have very different systems, and what works in one place would not necessarily work in the other. But given the remarkable success that China has had in protecting its population from a deadly and pernicious virus, surely US-based journalists are examining what lessons China has to teach us?

No, not if you work for the New York Times. There you’ll be writing yet another in a series of articles about how China has had the enormous misfortune of avoiding mass death.

The New York Times (9/7/22) continues to present the Chinese government’s saving millions of lives as an unmitigated disaster.

“China’s ‘Zero Covid’ Bind: No Easy Way Out Despite the Cost,” is the headline of the latest iteration (9/7/22), written by Vivian Wang. The article begins:

Tens of millions of Chinese confined at home, schools closed, businesses in limbo and whole cities at a standstill. Once again, China is locking down enormous parts of society, trying to completely eradicate Covid in a campaign that grows more anomalous by the day as the rest of the world learns to live with the coronavirus.

But even as the costs of China’s zero-Covid strategy are mounting, Beijing faces a stark reality: It has backed itself into a corner. Three years of its uncompromising, heavy-handed approach of imposing lockdowns, quarantines and mass testing to isolate infections have left it little room, at least in the short term, to change course.

Nowhere in the article is any comparison of the respective death toll in China and the US. Or any hint that life expectancy in the US has now dropped below that of China—76.1 vs. 77.1 years, respectively (Quartz9/1/22)—an acknowledgment that would render ridiculous the Times‘ assertions that that China’s “government has pushed propaganda depicting the virus as having devastated Western countries,” and that President Xi Jinping “has prioritized nationalism over the guidance of scientists.”

The New York Times maintains it’s the country with the orange line, not the dark blue one, that has the Covid policy problem.

But it’s not just the Covid death toll that the Times has to hide in order to make its anti-China spin remotely credible. Much of the piece deals with the hardship supposedly caused by the zero-Covid policy: “The social and economic cost will continue to increase,” insists one of the article’s relatively few sources, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Yanzhong Huang (author of the New York Times op-ed “Has China Done Too Well Against Covid-19?”—12/29/20which argued that “China’s comparative success now risks hurting the country”).

Wang sure does make the economic situation in China sound grim:

Many Chinese have found ways to cope, even if reluctantly: putting in longer hours to scrape up more money, cutting back on spending. Complaints about a shortage of medical care or food often emerge, but some residents say they support the overarching goal….

Youth unemployment is soaring, small businesses are collapsing and overseas companies are shifting their supply chains elsewhere. A sustained slowdown would undermine the promise of economic growth, long the central pillar of the party’s legitimacy.

But what is the actual cost of China’s Covid success? In 2020, the first year of the pandemic, China’s GDP grew by 2.2%, while the US’s shrank by 3.4%. In 2021, the US economy bounced back, with 5.7% growth—but not as much as China, which grew 8.1%. Projections are for the US to grow by 1.3% in 2022, while China is expected (by Goldman Sachs) to grow 3.0%.

When you add it up, China is expected to be 13.8% richer at the beginning of 2023 than it was when the pandemic began—whereas the US will be just 3.4% better off. So which country’s belts need tightening as a result of its Covid strategy?

The New York Times (9/7/22) reported that China “suffered from low vaccination rates”—but a glance at the Times‘ own vaccination tracker shows that China in fact has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world.

The Times similarly had to suppress any comparative numbers to make it seem like China’s vaccination strategy was particularly dangerous:

Buoyed by its early success at containment, the party was slow at first to encourage vaccination, leaving many older Chinese vulnerable….

While other countries prioritized vaccinating the elderly, China made older residents among the last to be eligible, citing concerns about side effects. And it never introduced vaccine passes, perhaps sensitive to public skepticism of its own vaccines.

In late July, about 67% of people aged 60 and above had received a third shot, compared to 72% of the entire population. Medical experts have warned that an uncontrolled outbreak could lead to high numbers of deaths among the elderly, as occurred during a wave this spring in Hong Kong, which also suffered from low vaccination rates.

Go to a helpful page of the New York Times website called “Tracking Coronavirus Vaccinations Around the World,” however, and you’ll find that China isn’t “suffer[ing] from low vaccination rates”; it actually has one of the highest rates of Covid vaccination in the world, with 93% receiving at least one dose and 91% “fully vaccinated.”  The latter number compares with 86% in Australia and South Korea, 84% in Canada, 81% in Japan and Brazil, 79% in France, 76% in Britain and Germany—and 67% in the US.

That last number, in China, is treated by the Times as a dangerously low percentage of the elderly to have received booster shots—but in the US, only 41% of those aged 65–74 have received booster shots, along with 42% of those 75 and over—and just 26% from 50–64. Isn’t the US booster rate much more ominous?

Well, yes—and that’s part of the reason that tens of thousands of elderly people will die this year as part of the US’s effort to “learn…to live with the coronavirus.”

Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas

Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org, and has edited FAIR’s print publication Extra! since 1990. He is the co-author of The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error, and co-editor of The FAIR Reader. He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere. Born in Libertyville, Illinois, he has a poli sci degree from Stanford. Since 1997 he has been married to Janine Jackson, FAIR’s program director.

10 comments

  1. The NYT has certainly distinguished itself as the absolute rubbish dispenser extraordinaire. With respect to geopolitics and the world situation, it trades in nothing but garbage, idiotic assertions like this one and outright whole-cloth lies.

    It would not be unreasonable to declare it an accomplice to war crimes and crimes against humanity, so loathsome and completely disreputable has become its “reporting.”

    1. The Times is capable of neither Ethical behavior or Critical thought.

      If you choose to read it’s mind poison you must first and always ask yourself, why they write what they write and who benefits.

      Personally I don’t waste my time.

    1. This article is well reasoned and coherent with facts and accounts of events clearly presented so as to be verifiable (or not). Good job!

  2. GENTEEL SOCIAL DARWINISM

    Were there any doubt about whom the NYT represents, this removes it. Revealed here the genteel Dem elite as having become cozy with their neighbors, the R corporate elite. Lib once meant concern with the common good. Now it means neolib, economic Social Darwinism.

    The few who benefit can certainly “learn to live”with more working class deaths. They were fine that the centrist Ds did for the Rust Belt what they did to the Wall Streeters causing the ’08 crash: NOTHING! So what that the Rust Belt became #1 in deaths of despair?

    How DARE the Chinese government impede corporate profit just to provide healthcare to unimportant people! Won’t someone pleeeeazzze think of the supply chains?

  3. naurekas is either an imbecile or a paid shill….the Chinese vaccine is the least effective excepting Pfizer….. most of China has never imposed lockdowns—only a few regions…true in many nations that are far less plagued by covid attributed deaths—measured differently in different nations and US states….comparisons with similarly populated nations Sweden, belarus—no covid fascism with Czechi Austria—draconian restrictions reveal that Sweden Belarus enjoy fewer cases, far fewer deaths….New Zealand where the witch Arden imposed the worst covid fascism and the entire population is poisoned by fake vaccines now reports double to quadruple the covid deaths than USA/UK—only this month have they relaxed restrictions

  4. naurakas paid by Pfizer—moderna—now 900 billion richer from covid poison sales—iteresting that in Europe/South America is is the freedom loving communists that oppose covid fascism lockdowns, masks, etc die like in Germany, communist party Russia….the most effective– sputnik has been distributed in nearly 50 nations at much lower cost than US UK “vaccines”…..in Denmark under 19 not permitted…in Sweden when covid fascism rejected the left wing approval increased 22%….Nicaragua/Uruguay rejected all restrictions—very few deaths attributed…the fewest deaths have been in Africa where few are vaccinated few restrictions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: