Impressive for a week's work....
Import from China: 1
Import from Italy:. 50+
I don't think asymptomatic Chinese carriers were the problem. Some may have carried the virus overseas as in a case in Bavaria Germany, but in that case it was actually China that notified Germany when she returned to China. In other words, the tracing was done by China. The EU failed in that regard.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
Dr Aylward said Chinese health officials did not want to refer to the pathogen as “dangerous” as they regarded such terminology as reserved for diseases with higher mortality rates.
Chinese health officials also refused to include any reference to avoiding a “second wave” of coronavirus in the report, he said, so they compromised on “a surge” or “resurgence”.
Dale Fisher, an infectious disease specialist at the National University of Singapore, said the team’s Chinese counterparts requested the report not make reference to a “dangerous pathogen”
I think you’re misunderstanding his point, which was not about asymptomatic travellers from China being a source of infection at this stage in March/April. His point was about understanding the potential scale of asymptomatic patients as a proportion of potential spreaders since even at this stage there doesn’t seem to be a firm consensus about their contribution to the spread of the disease. Not providing those numbers has not helped in terms of gauging the appropriate response seems to be the main point.
If you can't find the answer then can you give me the proportion of asymptomatic cases just for one EU member?
All I can find is numbers coming out of non-EU members such as Iceland at 50%, Korea and China at 30%, and a Japanese study of Wuhan returnees that puts it also at 30%.
You were also anxious to defend their superior logic in excluding their number from the confirmed case count, but then came back happily announcing they report the numbers now, so which is the correct approach in your book, for the record?
Plus I (and others) have not defended the EU approach, but I note you never accepted my challenge of proving you are not a wumao/apologist by saying anything at all critical of China/the CCP and implicitly conceding the point.
I generally try to listen to different viewpoints, even those I don’t necessarily agree with, but you really don’t have to make the case so strongly that it’s not worth listening to what you say.
I never claimed they didn't have the numbers.I think the straightforward interpretation here is that the EU didn’t/doesn’t have the numbers, and therefore China did not have the numbers to provide, and that was the reason you ignored his main point and went off on the tangent that asymptomatic carriers (now) aren’t from China, according to your Swedish data point. It’s a bit late to realise exactly how large a threat now though, isn’t it, which was his point about having an additional data point to analyse early which might have made a difference (you certainly don’t seem opposed to the EU making available all its data now).Can you state the number of asymptomatic carriers in the EU? If you're asking something of China which they didn't provide at that time, then clearly the EU with their superior institutions should have that number by now in order for them to take appropriate measures.
Is this what you call a straw man argument? Nobody here said asymptomatic people in China are now a greater threat than the hundreds of thousands infected globally. Seems increasingly that this is more of your narrative to distract from the point that suppressing the data about asymptomatic patients was not helpful. How do you even detect the asymptomatic patients without testing, and given the limited resources, wouldn’t their detection come when testing clusters anyway when the need is indicated, and not otherwise?Again you're making weird claims. I said asymptomatic patients do get isolated. Hence I counter the narrative that there are a ton of hidden carriers walking around in China. There are some, but not to a level that's it's not containable via testing, tracing, and tracking. The correct approach is containing this disease, which China has done. Whether asymptomatic patients are part of the official count is irrelevant to me. What's the proportion of asymptomatic people in Hong Kong? 95% of the population doesn't care as long as they're isolated.
The bolded portion is a contrast to your first and second paragraphs and previous posts. Here you suddenly seem to realise (or maybe knew all along) that the argument was exactly about not providing information about the proportion of asymptomatic patients and not this false notion that East_coast was talking about asymptomatic people running about China. If you were talking about the facts, then yes, I would in fact agree with you that it’s not highly likely based on the evidence we have seen so far that the EU might have better tackled test and trace. However, given you’re defending this notion so strongly, I stopped to think, and any alert policymaker would or should probably have more strongly considered barring travellers from China or at least mandatory quarantines/isolation if the problem of significant asymptomatic transmission was made clear. That’s obviously the only effective tactic if symptomatic screening doesn’t work, and is the same one adopted by Singapore, which you mentioned. I don’t think the fact that they (possibly) would not have means they could not have, and anyway, again, why are you arguing having less complete and accurate information would lead to a better result, unless you have a specific narrative you wish to support?People provide a false narrative that if China had only done such and such then none of this would've happened. I counter that argument. The EU would've not acted differently had they known the proportion of asymptomatic cases. If they cared and it was part of their strategy to contain it then they would have tested for asymptomatic cases themselves. I see no such evidence. Neither would've the WHO declaring this a pandemic earlier changed a thing. The only thing that changed something was China's, Singapore, and Korea's response. They provided critical insight of how to manage this pandemic and how both rapid testing, tracking and tracing, and the application of lockdowns may help us manage this crisis in the short-term without overburdening our health care system. China also taught EU members that they need to cooperate on an EU level. In the medium-term we all need to work together to fight this virus.
You have not countered the argument that China had major failings in its response. Just because others failed downstream doesn’t mean the problems weren’t arrested upstream.
Also noted is you have continue to fail to criticise China in any fashion whatsoever.