[The Epoch Times, May 18, 2022](Comprehensive report by The Epoch Times reporter Ning Haizhong) The CCP’s blockade, control and epidemic prevention policies have become popular among the people, and there are also rebounds within the system. Even an official of the epidemic prevention department expressed dissatisfaction to the media without anonymity, saying that the new crown (COVID-19) has become a highly politicized disease in China, and medical experts are ashamed of it. Analysis means the event is unusual.
The Lancet, a well-known medical journal, recently titled “China Zero Virus: What’s Next?”, explaining how the CCP authorities have forced themselves into a dead end where it is difficult to sustain an epidemic prevention strategy.
For more than two years, “zeroing out” has been at the heart of the CCP’s anti-epidemic policy, and the authorities have been touting the CCP’s great success in containing the virus, the report said. The official death toll from the virus has been questioned by outsiders.
In addition to the shortage of food supplies, the damage to the economy and medical services has become more and more obvious during Shanghai’s lockdown of the city since the end of March, and secondary disasters have been accused of surpassing the virus itself.
Many are beginning to seriously doubt the effectiveness of the authorities’ lockdown policies in curbing the spread of the virus, the report said.
Two provincial health commission officials, who did not want to be named, told The Lancet that they were both skeptical of the zero-clearing policy. An official said bluntly that COVID-19 has become a highly politicized disease in China, and any voices who advocate deviation from the current zero policy will be punished.
The official said that no one at the top really listens to the experts anymore, which is a real shame for us medical experts.
Another official expressed a similar sentiment, saying that the damage from zero outweighed the benefits, “It’s not worth it at all, we all know it.”
The closure of the city in Shanghai has sparked a dispute over the CCP’s line of epidemic prevention. The people have been opposed to the zero-clearing policy characterized by the closure of the city, but the government has constantly emphasized insisting on clearing.
At the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on May 5, Xi continued to defend the government’s dynamic zero prevention and control policy, saying that “it can stand the test of history” and “is scientific and effective.” At the same time, it is required to resolutely fight against all words and deeds that distort, doubt and deny the CCP’s epidemic prevention policy.
On May 17, Yokogawa, an expert on China, said in a self-media program that provincial health officials dared to be interviewed by The Lancet and expressed their dissatisfaction with the clearing, which is very unusual. In the current political environment in China, it is impossible to express any objection to the current policy, which is a very serious political mistake.
Yokogawa said that it sounds like these two are experts. This is a debate between politics and science, and it is also a debate between political leaders and experts. In fact, it is a long-standing debate about whether laymen can lead experts. And it reflects that the opposing opinions are so common and strong that they even hesitate to accept interviews with foreign professional journals.
He believes that the “Lancet”, which has been excusing and covering up the CCP in the early days, has turned to criticize the CCP just like WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Considering that the CCP’s recent new regulations stipulate that retired officials cannot arbitrarily discuss the central government, it seems that there is a lot of opposition within the party, and it is not easy to insist on clearing it.
Previously, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who has been closely related to the CCP, criticized the CCP’s zero policy on May 10, saying that this approach was unsustainable.
Responsible editor: Li Muen#