The epidemic in Europe and the United States seems to be peaking, and China's zero-epidemic prevention model is under pressure. Following the discovery of the Omicron variant virus in Tianjin, major cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen fell one after another, and 14 provinces and cities across the country were shrouded in the shadow of the epidemic.

Omi Keron appeared in nearly half of China

After Xi'an achieved a "social zero" as planned at the beginning of the month, there has been no sign of closure so far, and Yuzhou and Anyang are still under strict lockdown.

The U.S. political risk consulting firm Eurasia Group announced the world's top ten risk forecasts for 2022, and the possible failure of China's new crown "clearing" policy is considered to be the world's biggest risk.

Why hasn't Xi'an lifted the lockdown? Why hasn't Tianjin closed the city for a long time? For the epidemic of respiratory system infection, is it possible and necessary to clear it? The economic cost of the zero-removal model is high and the human rights price is heavy. Will China adjust or give up in time?

Yang Jianli, the founder of the human rights organization "Citizen Power", believes that China's anti-epidemic model is entering a new stage, and Omicron will force the Chinese government to reconsider its closure model.

He said: "I don't think the Chinese government's epidemic prevention, in fact, was successful from the perspective of epidemic prevention in Wuhan. I personally think that China's public opinion control is actually involved. This is actually a very powerful means. Let go, I think if the public can reveal the injuries they suffered during the entire lockdown and the death toll from the secondary humanitarian disaster, people may not be sure that the lockdown model in Wuhan, China was a successful epidemic prevention. I feel that the real inside story may have been covered up. Such an approach has brought a very wrong template to the international community. Many countries have come back and adopted different levels of closure models one after another. In fact, the economic damage to each country is very great. Now the pressure on the Chinese government to clear up politics is even greater, and facing the arrival of the Winter Olympics, I think Tianjin has not entered a closed city right now, probably because I am afraid that if Tianjin is sealed like Xi'an, if it does happen The situation is difficult to control, and the impact on Beijing will be very large. So I think he is a little more cautious in this regard, and is not as extreme as Xi'an. But I think other (places) whether it is Guangzhou or Shanghai, there are many new When the Omicron case was reported, they were very clear. First, they canceled all flights to Beijing. The whole thing was to protect Beijing. How much should each place sacrifice? This is a process that local officials see. So on the whole, I don't think it is really effective in preventing the epidemic in public health. I think all its practices are still centered on political purposes. I saw some online articles that mentioned that the outside world seems to confuse the CCP. However, I don’t think that’s the case. If there is something absurd about the clearing policy itself, then there must be a lot of inhumanity in the implementation of the clearing policy. Bad consequences. I think it's both."

Yang Jianli, founder of "Citizen Power", said that with the continuation of the new crown epidemic, coupled with the characteristics of the Omicron strain, China's "zero policy" will face a test, and it is more and more likely to become a part of the Chinese government. heavy burden.

He said: "Although Xi Jinping is in power, if China has a comprehensive economic disaster and a comprehensive population loss disaster due to the epidemic, Xi Jinping's legitimacy can be said to be lost. He cannot say that I was chosen by you. , so I can do this. He does not have this condition, so he is more nervous than other leaders. Therefore, political stability maintenance and political epidemic prevention are certain. But on the other hand, after the outbreak of the epidemic, one thing is inevitable, everyone It is necessary to compare which country's system will do better for things like epidemic prevention. When dealing with such major disasters and crises, is a democratic system better or an autocratic system better? This comparison is inevitable, and everyone is still doing it today. This comparison. Since Wuhan closed the city some time ago, I am talking about the degree of epidemic prevention. From a simple point of view, physical isolation without a vaccine will definitely prevent the spread of the epidemic. From this perspective , was successful. So he (Xi Jinping) gained the confidence that 'my system is better than yours', and he wants to maintain this system, which has become a huge burden for him now."

Lin Xiaoxu also believes that how effective China's "zero policy" is will receive more scrutiny, especially the effectiveness of this policy and the social and economic costs it brings.

He said: "To a certain extent, this virus has its own law of transmission, and it is not entirely dependent on blockade. So I just mentioned that like Wuhan, China feels that it relies on extreme blockade measures to work, but in fact, maybe that one The wave is about three months. The Chinese government thinks that I have controlled the epidemic by relying on the advantages of this extreme so-called system, but it is not necessarily true. If such a practice is moved to South Africa, for example, South Africa said that I also adopted it. The extreme closure of the city, I also have three months, am I also using the extreme institutional advantages to defeat the virus? This is not the case. The spread of the virus has its own laws. You see, every country has its own wave after wave of epidemics People's epidemic prevention measures play a certain role, but the most important thing is that the waves have their own laws."

He said: "Looking back at China's epidemic prevention, it can be divided into several stages. The first stage is that the epidemic broke out in Wuhan, and only China knew about the situation. At that time, China covered up the truth, misled the world, suppressed speech, and caused losses to the world. You already know it today. And the first stage is basically an interaction with the WHO, and other countries have less role. During this period, China not only made mistakes, but I think committed crimes. As of today, there is no way to really investigate the source of the epidemic. The main reason is the obstacles set up by China. The second stage started with the closure of Wuhan. Everyone felt that the closure of Wuhan was a very strange move, and we also We have seen many human rights disasters and secondary crises. However, after a few months, Wuhan's city closure model should be successful from the perspective of epidemic prevention, only from the perspective of epidemic prevention. At this time, China has entered the second stage. He is very confident because of the results brought about by the closure of the city in Wuhan. Moreover, under the special political situation in China, that is, political stability is the main consideration for any natural disaster, it may not allow other epidemic prevention models. The model is today. The closure of Xi'an, I think, is the end of the second phase. Xi'an is still spreading delta (delta), and in Tianjin, it should be said that China has to enter the third phase of epidemic prevention. Scientists and public opinion in the world It is now believed that Omicron's spread is very wide and its lethality is not very strong, basically like a severe cold. If this is the case, China's previous second-stage epidemic prevention model, its benefits and human rights Comparing disasters and economic costs, if we analyze quantitatively, it can be said to be above this line. If China continues this model today, its human rights disasters, secondary crises, and economic costs will far exceed The benefits brought by this model of epidemic prevention. I think this may be a crossover, and the third phase may begin. And now the Chinese government has not made any clear signs to change this model of closing cities and clearing the model. But at present Tianjin The response is different from that of Xi'an. What I saw in Beijing was the beginning of partial blockade, the blockade of the community, and the other places did not have a full-scale closure like Xi'an. Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and other places did not respond immediately. Like Xi'an. So I think there may be some sign that both the local government and China's central government have felt the trouble with the current epidemic prevention model, and I think it is the beginning of the third stage."

Lin Xiaoxu, a former virology researcher at the Walter Reed Army Research Institute in the United States, said that the CCP's clearing and epidemic prevention mainly revolves around political purposes, which is political clearing.