Een
flink aantal westerse reguliere mediaorganen wijzen meer en meer naar
de Chinese overheid als schuldig voor de uitbraak van het Coronavirus
en het ineffectief optreden tegen de verspreiding van het virus…..
Dat laatste is al helemaal belachelijk als je ziet dat China hele
steden, en bepaald geen kleine, op slot heeft gedaan…..
Uiteraard is de Chinese overheid niet schuldig aan de verspreiding
van het virus, immers dat zou ongelofelijk dom zijn, daar vooral
China wordt getroffen en de economie deels is platgelegd, me dunkt
bepaald geen zaak die je als regering wenst……..

K.J. Noh
heeft een uitgebreid artikel op CounterPunch geplaats (ik nam het over van Information Clearing House >> ICH), waarin hij op het besmeuren van de Chinese regering ingaat
en waarbij hij in een aantal punten aantoont dat de reguliere media, zoals de New
York Times (NYT), in feite anti-Chinese propaganda maken….. Zo wordt
gezegd over degene die het eerst in de gaten had dat er iets goed mis was en dat deze een klokkenluider zou
zijn, terwijl deze man, dr.
Li Wenliang, bij het ontdekken van vreemde ziektegevallen contact
zocht met 7 collega’s…… Een klokkenluider zou dit doen
als hij met zijn/haar hoofd tegen de muur loopt vanwege gemelde
misstanden waar niets mee wordt gedaan, of een dergelijk zwaar misdrijf dat onmiddellijke actie nodig is om de bevolking te waarschuwen, echter daar was in dit geval geen sprake van…. (zie wat Noh
daar verder over zegt in het artikel hieronder) Voorts stelt de NYT dat deze arts, dr.
Li Wenliang werd gearresteerd, ook dat is niet waar, hij moest
zich verantwoorden op een politiebureau en tekenen dat hij geen
geruchten zou verspreiden (ook al daar hij totaal niet is
gespecialiseerd in virusziekten…..). Daarna is dr. Wenliang direct
weer aan het werk gegaan….. Op 7  febreuari jl. overleed dr. Wenliang helaas zelf aan het Coronavirus…….

Des te
belangrijker is het schrijven van Noh, daar mensen met een Chinese
achtergrond meer en meer worden uitgescholden en bespuugd op straat
(ja, dit racisme vindt ook plaats in ons Nederland…), alsof zij het virus expres zouden
verspreiden….. China heeft gezien al het gebeurde m.i. goed gereageerd, ook al is er veel misgegaan en het is maar zeer de vraag of een westers land beter had gereageerd….. Weet je nog dat wij de Q-koorts hadden en de CDA ministers Klink en Verburg weigerden de namen van besmette bedrijven vrij te geven, waardoor doden vielen en een fiks aantal mensen de rest van het leven chronisch ziek is……. Deze 2 ploerten werden daar NB voor geaaarschuwd door een GGD arts uit Brabant, echter ook dat veranderde het totaal onverantwoordelijke, wat zeg ik: moorddadige beleid van deze 2 schoften niet…….. (ben nog steeds van mening dat Klink en Verburg moeten worden vervolgd voor moord en het toebrengen van ernstig letsel!)

Lees het
artikel van Noh en zegt het voort, we hebben al veel te veel racisme
en vormen van fascisme in de hedendaagse maatschappij, vervolging van
mensen met een Chinese achtergrond is een schande van formaat!!

Overigens
zijn er stemmen die stellen dat de VS wel erg veel baat heeft bij het
Corona virus, daarover zie je onder het artikel een link naar een
ander bericht op ICH.

How
to Yellow-Cake a Tragedy – The NY Times Spreads the Virus of Hatred,
Again

By
K.J. Noh

“In the
end, the plague touched us all…it was not confined….breeding in a
compost of greed and uselessness and murder…promising life and
delivering death…[serving] as furnished rooms for ideology.”

—Pete
Hamill, liner notes to Blood on the Tracks

February 15, 2020
“Information
Clearing House”
– 
 The 2019 Novel Coronavirus, first detected late last year in
the hub city of Wuhan, China is a rapidly-spreading viral disease,
often characterized by a cluster of acute respiratory symptoms. The
virulence of this outbreak has put most of China under a lockdown:
over 50 million people have been quarantined in the immediate region;
40,000 people have been infected, and over 900–and
counting–have died. Many neighboring Chinese cities also have
restrictions on travel and movement to stem the tide of infection;
and across the country, all of China is facing restrictions and
hardship. In the face of this sudden and tragic crisis–and the
extraordinary social distancing measures the Chinese government has
taken to safeguard public health and prevent infection,–the western
media has made a highly political choice on how to report about it.

Instead
of voicing support or encouraging solidarity–“We are
Wuhan”—western corporate media have chosen to go all out to
criticize and demonize China, sparing no effort to recycle and
rekindle ugly, racist, orientalist, and dehumanizing
tropes, using any perceived misstep, pretext, and shortcoming to tar China
and the Chinese. One virulent narrative is that this is deliberate
Chinese
bioweapon to reduce population, another narrative, no less toxic
and virulent, alleges that the Chinese leadership, out of a “fear
of political embarrassment”, suppressed free speech and silenced
the flow of information “at critical moments”, “allowing the
virus to gain a tenacious hold”, thus creating the conditions for a
lethal epidemic that has led to the deaths of hundreds and the
infection of thousands.

The
NY Times takes the [yellow] cake for sowing this toxic, racist
disinformation, alleging in numerous articles and opinion pieces of a
“cover up”: that “China’s old habits put secrecy and order
ahead of openly confronting the crisis”; that “they played down
dangers to the public, leaving the city’s 11 million residents
unaware that they should protect themselves”, and presenting this
as proof dispositive that the Chinese system is fatally flawed. All
this while reveling in and boosting on its website, unseemly
schadenfreude that suppression of information and free speech
has led to condign and expected catastrophe.

The
most recent iteration of this propaganda concerns a Dr Li Wenliang,
recently deceased. Dr Li spoke of the disease at an early moment in
the outbreak (December 30th) to a group of colleagues. He was later
reprimanded by the police for “spreading rumors”. After going
back to work, he himself contracted the virus, and despite being
young and seemingly healthy, he tragically passed away. Latching onto
this unexpected fatality like a virus itself, the NY Times grafted
onto his death, the “authoritarian suppression of the truth”
meme, thus exploiting tragedy to circulate a political myth: that Dr.
Li was a valiant, dissenting whistleblower who had “tried to sound
a warning that a troubling cluster of…infections…could grow out
of control”. In other words, he had tried to warn the public early
on about the virus, but had been brutally silenced and suppressed.

In
particular, the Times claims that Dr Li was arrested by the
government, “in the middle of the night”, no less; and suggests
that had he not been silenced, 100’s, perhaps thousands of lives
would have been saved, and countless infections prevented. In other
words, the Chinese communists, because of their obsession with
political appearances, their mendacious secrecy, and totalitarian
control, instigated a cover up that has had a nightmarish
consequences for global health.

This
disclosure would be truly extraordinary, heroic, award-meriting
journalism. Except for one small problem: none of the assertions are
supported by the facts, and none of the interpretations bear
scrutiny.

In
order to peddle this toxic canard, the NY Times–as it did with its
gutter journalism justifying the Iraq War–has had to yellow-cake
up a foul brew of innuendo, half-truths, misrepresentations,
outright lies, spiked fiercely with stereotypes, racial hatred, and
red-baiting, while torturing the English language, eliding logic,
ignoring science, and shredding the credibility of the fourth
estate–yet again.

These
are the facts:

1.Not a whistle blower:

 

The
NY Times suggests that Dr Li was a whistle blower, “sounding a
warning”. But Dr. Li was not a whistle blower, by any usual
definition of the word. He didn’t notify the Chinese CDC or any
public health organ. He did not notify the hospital authorities. He
did not warn the public of wrongdoing, danger, or cover up. What he
did do is share information with 7 school colleagues on 12/30 on a
private messaging group. (He also shared a photo of a confidential
medical record). How that constitutes “whistle blowing” is not
explained by the NY Times.

2.
Fraudulent Timeline:

The
NY Times claims that the sanctioning and silencing led to suppression
of timely and important information–a cover up of a dangerous but
necessary truth. This assertion is not borne out by the facts. The
“whistle”–if we can call it that–had already
been blown by
others. For example, doctor, Zhang Jixian, the director of
respiratory and critical care medicine at Hubei Provincial Hospital,
had
officially notified the
hospital on December 27th of an unusual cluster of viral cases, and
the hospital had notified the city’s’ disease control center. 

After further consultation on the 29th, the regional CDC was notified
and had started full scale research and investigation. The government
was already actively investigating and doing their due diligence with
other cases long before the NY Times allegations (constructed as
always from anonymous sources). Zhang herself, contrary to the
suppression and punishment narrative, was recognized and commended by
the government.

3.
Wrong Claim:
 

The
doctor had claimed it was SARS, a related, but different coronavirus.
However, it was not SARS. Why is this important? Given the panic that
spread during the prior 2003 SARS epidemic, spreading this incorrect
information would be a understandable reason to try to restrict
inaccurate, and possibly panic-inducing information.

4.
No Evidence:
 

Well
what’s in a name? SARS or no SARS, it was still dangerous, and
shouldn’t have been suppressed, no?

In
making its claims of cover up, the NY Times suggests that the
authorities recognized and knew that the disease was dangerous, but
covered it up anyway. This is far from the truth at the time: there
was little clear evidence that this was a dangerous or severe
epidemic at the time of the outbreak.

In
particular:

a)
there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission at
that time (the first case happened two weeks later, on 1/14)

b)
there had been no fatalities (the first fatality was 1/09/20,
ten days later), and there were only a handful of cases.

c)
even later, as more casualties started to appear, most of the
casualties were older people with serious existing pathology or
co-morbidity.

In
other words, it was unclear how serious this was, and whether and how
serious actions should be taken: commonsense tells us in winter,
colds, flu and pneumonia are not uncommon; discerning a novel,
serious outbreak is not a simple task. The mere fact that the Chinese
authorities were able to identify and take action on this so rapidly
is indicates how competent, effective, and conscientious many of them
were.

5.
No Expertise or Qualification:

The
NY Times claims the “doctor tried to sound a warning”, but it’s
important to note that Dr Li had no expertise in the subject matter,
was not familiar with the situation, was not treating affected
patients, and had no expertise to make any such claims: he was a
ophthalmologist (not an epidemiologist, virologist, infectious
disease specialist, internist, ICU specialist, or even a GP or
X-ray/CT technician). There’s no proof that he was privy to any
specialized insider information that was being covered up; and the
hospital was already taking all known precautions with patients at
the time.

6.
Not arrested:

Dr
Li was not arrested , as the NY Times claims.
The doctor was called in, lightly reprimanded (talked to, and signed
a document not to spread rumors) and went straight back to work. This
begs the question, if a non-specialist (for example, a podiatrist) at
a public General Hospital had claimed that there was an outbreak of
infectious disease (for example, bubonic plague (and released
HIPAA-protected documents (like Dr. Li did)), how credible is it that
they would have escaped some sort of official sanction?

7.
Understandable Reasons for Acting Methodically:

The
government had reasonable, and defensible reasons to act prudently
and methodically. While the jury is still out, and the timeline bears
elaborating, there’s still little evidence that this was a
deliberate attempt to “stifle criticism” and “silence” to
avoid “embarrassment”. 

Based on the evidence available at the
time, we can reasonably surmise that:

a)
The authorities didn’t know how serious this was at the
time—a reasonable assumption given the known evidence at the time.

b)
The “nocebo” effect (negative placebo) is real–people
can take any ambiguous symptoms (that are always present in the body)
and think they are sick.

c)
Panicked, mass
hysterical responses are not uncommon, and themselves can
constitute a public health
hazard. Either of these effects, caused by premature or careless
disclosure could have resulted in:
i) People thinking themselves
sick

ii)
People crowding hospitals, stretching resources, while spreading the
infection faster, as well as preventing genuinely sick people from
getting care (all at a time when public services are winding down)

iii)
Mass exodus, spreading the infection outside of Wuhan much faster

iv)
Hoarding & scarcity of masks and other supplies, vigilante
quarantines, and other hysterical, dangerous, and unproductive
behavior.

It’s
important to note also that this was the period of the Spring
Festival, the busiest and most important holiday of the year. While
it’s easy to criticize the cautious, tentative responses in
hindsight, It’s understandable that authorities might not want to
take extreme measures if it was a false alarm.

8.
Upfront Transparency:

 

The
NY Times alleges “cover up” and “secrecy”: however, the Wuhan
authorities publicized that the doctor had been sanctioned. In
this way, they actually spread information about his “whistleblowing”
and the fact of the disease symptoms. As a matter of fact, they have
publicized all the people sanctioned for similar actions. This would
seem to indicate that:

a)
at the time, they genuinely believed they were taking correct
actions–actions that would be justifiable and vindicated—and they
did not know that this disease was as serious as it turned out to be
(and it’s not clear how could they have known)

b)
it’s unlikely they were trying to hide or cover up anything. If
they had been trying to silence or cover up something, this incident
would most likely have gone unannounced.

9.
Not Ahead of the Government:

The
NY Times claims that Dr. Li sounded an alarm in a context where the
governments “initial handling” was slow, negligent, or reluctant.
The facts belie this:

Dr.
Li was not ahead of the government. As we noted above regarding the
timeline, the government (Wuhan disease authorities) had already been
informed, and they delivered their own public warning the same
day as Dr Li’s sharing with his friends. There is little evidence
to show that this was “forced” or “compelled” by the
ophthalmologist’s message (as the NYTimes has claimed).
 

In fact,
as is usually the case with public announcements, the health
department had likely been discussing, drafting, and planning their
statement prior to release on that day.
 

Note, also that this
information was released before Dr. Li was called to the police for
reprimand on 1/03 (in other words, the information was already out,
and the reprimand can be interpreted as a critique of the
speculation, as well as the how, why, and who of sharing than an
attempt at erasure). Whether the reprimand was judiciously or
skillfully delivered is another matter, but the facts remain that no
coverup can be asserted from this incident.

10.
“Yellow-Caking” the Experts, Again:

The
NY Times implies that the Chinese government knew the outbreak was
serious, but covered it up and delayed notification anyway to avoid
political embarrassment. But again, it seems that the facts belie the
assertion:
 

The WHO was also notified on 12/31 (the following day)
of an “unknown virus” but did not consider it serious. The WHO
did not suggest any quarantine or extreme public health measures. On
1/05, they advised against a travel restriction. 1/15, they again
indicated there was no human-to-human transmission. 1/23, they
indicated it was not a public health emergency. Only on 1/30 did they
declare an emergency–fully 30 days after the so-called
NYTimes-imputed “whistleblowing”.

11.
Communist Catastrophe, really?:
 

The NYTimes, in
particular, along with its ideological cousin the CFR, has been
avidly red-baiting, pumping up the narrative of
“whistleblower-cover-up” and “weak governance” endemic to
“authoritarian-dictatorships-that-create-catastrophes-like-Chernobyl”
trope. 

“Undemocratic Governance is dangerous for your health”
claim the ideologues. But freedom-loving capitalist America easily
outdoes any modern socialist state in its negligence and damage to
public health and wellbeing. A casual point of comparison is the 2009
H1N1 A “San Diego” virus. This took the US To 6 months to declare
an emergency and take active measures. Because of this inaction,
150k-575K people died all over the world. 80% were under 65 years
old. Or last year’s flu (61,000 deaths in the US). Or this year’s
flu (8-10,000 dead since October), 1400 dying in a single week. Oh,
and let’s not forget the AIDS crisis. The opiate crisis. The lead
crises. The homelessness crisis. The list is endless, repetitious,
atrocious.

12.
New Standards in Crisis Response:

Contrary
to NYTimes claims of incompetence, “weakness”, and slowness, it
seems that the Chinese have been setting new, groundbreaking
standards and practices in outbreak
detection and
response. Examination of the facts shows that the Chinese were
actually
well prepared and well coordinated in their response–this
has been acknowledged and commended by the WHO, and other public
health agencies and experts
of repute. They had a centralized database and control tower,
which is why they were able to react so quickly to isolate, identify,
sequence, and take public action on this. Let’s not forget, they
also built two full-functioning, state-of-the-art isolation hospitals
in a matter of days.

13.
Monday MorningSchadenfreude:
 

The
NYTimes has been willfully ignoring all of that is positive: skilled,
coordinated mobilization; technical and medical tour-de-forces; mass
acts of solidarity, generosity, and kindness across the country; and
valiant, extraordinary medical and medical worker competence and
heroism. Instead the Monday-morning epidemiological quarterbacking of
the NY Times (and derivative media) has been savage and odious in
exploiting every perceived mishap as a pretext to pile on and attack
the Chinese people and the Chinese system: for example, the NY
Times article on 2/01/20–
insinuates cover-up, and “systemic weakness” (but it has to
exclude the specific timeline* in order to make its case).Nicholas
Kristof,
taking a sabbatical from his paternalistic, prurient,misguided,
and misleading
reportage on
child sex trafficking, is especially toxic in his offensive,
red-baiting misrepresentation:

“Xi
used his tight rule to control information rather than to stop an
epidemic”. “China makes poor decisions because it squelches
independent voices…[it listens only to] flattery and optimism.. Xi
is a preening dictator, some citizens are paying a price”.

In
times of crisis, for western nations, the normal response is “We
are Paris, NY, etc”. When it comes to Asia and China, the measured
response is: “You deserve this because of your dirtiness,
immorality, and bat-eating communist dictatorship”; “You would
rather control your citizens than save lives”. This is often
followed up by some variant of “nuke China”. Kristof and his
ideological teammates can be isolated here, patients zero with their
null set of facts, turning up the dials to 10 in this toxic wind
tunnel of Sinophobia and hate speech.

14.
Bashing China on “Free Speech”:

Running
lapdog parallel to Kristof, taking the baton/bone from the NY Times,
the Guardian
also says
“if China valued free speech, there would be no coronavirus”.
This is
the offensive viral meme cultured and replicated from the death Dr.
Li. Of course, even cursory reflection might lead one to consider–in
the capital of “Free Speech”–lead poisoning in Flint Michigan,
the AIDS crisis, H1N1 A pandemic, mass shootings, not to mention
Global Warming. It also bears emphasizing that the HK rioters–and
their media backers–have a strong track record of opposing any
“Free Speech” that doesn’t agree with theirs, by burning,
beating, lynching, threatening, and doxxing everyone who disagrees
with them.

Of
course, fetishizing “Free speech” is not a panacea to all
political or social ills. Certainly in a public health crisis, it
cannot be assumed that unbridled “Free speech” is factually
correct, or even beneficial
(cf. “yelling fire in a crowded theater”). Underlying this
fetishized concept is the liberal/anarcho-capitalist conceit that “in
the marketplace of ideas” the correct one will naturally emerge to
benefit all of society. Of course, history has shown, time and time
again, that this is hardly the case. The “free speech” of the
“anti-vax” movement is a case in point: it increases the chances
that the US will be subject to a deadly pandemic. Various local
epidemics, as well as the US (San Diego) H1N1 A Pandemic of 2009 with
280K dead (150-575K dead) signal to us this potential risk.

Another
point of comparison: 11,435
people died in
the 1st 2 weeks of August of 2003 in the free-speech capital of
France. This was from heatstroke, dehydration and their sequelae–all
easily preventable and predictable deaths for a government with a
commitment to public health.

French
capitalism/governance was not raked through the coals for this, nor
considered to have lost fundamental legitimacy because of this
tragedy–nor charged with covering it up or underreporting (although
they did)–although to prevent these deaths required no special
treatments, hospitals, protective equipment, medicine, research, or
technology, It just required, some extra water, some common sense,
and perhaps a few public shelters. And political will and care. Can
you say “politique
dedeux
poids, deux mesures”?

15.
Amateurism Trumps Experts:

In
order to bolster their trumped-up case, the NY Times, along with
others (the rabid anti-China newssite DemocracyNow!, the CFR/FP) has
trolled out a shadowy truck-load of ideological scientific amateurs
to bolster and backstop their case. Of course, it’s convenient to
overlook the fact that epidemiology is a complex science–and that
predicting the course, virulence, and lethality of an outbreak is not
unlike predicting the strength, path, and effects of a hurricane.
Trotting out amateurs from the NYTimes to troll the epidemiologists
and the WHO is like getting amateur bloggers to attack atmospheric
scientists (for getting a detail of global warming wrong).

16.
Was the Chinese response fast enough?

There’s
a perpetual insinuation by the NY Times and its ideological allies
that hide-bound, “authoritarian” bureaucracies cannot respond
appropriately, quickly, or effectively to such outbreaks: “Weak,
undemocratic governance is dangerous for your health”.

This
question really begs others: fast relative to what? These responses
were some of the fastest institutional response seen in modern
epidemiological history.
 

Appropriate relative to what? This was
the period of the Spring Festival, with the largest mass migration in
history (billions of trips taken) with all the conflicting demands,
uncertainties and strains that that entailed.

Effective
relative to what? Modern responses under neoliberal order (MERS,
Ebola, H1N1) have been an endless catalog of global catastrophes.

When
the investigations are completed–and the Chinese government is
ruthlessly investigating itself—and the history written, the record
may judge that these were the best possible actions of an organized,
conscientious government, trying to do the best under difficult,
almost impossible circumstances. Were the responses perfect? Most
certainly not. 

Were there gaps and lapsus? Absolutely, yes. Did the
central and local government work hand-in-hand perfectly? Most
certainly not. Was there discontent expressed on Weibo and other
public fora? Most certainly. But given the extraordinary complexities
and challenges of responding to the outbreak, its timing, its
conflicting priorities, the size of the population, its stresses,
strains and demands, we can be sure that this response will be
written up in the Public Health text books, and when the final
judgement call is made, it will be largely favorable to the Chinese
government, bloviating ideologues and racists be damned.

*Brief
Timeline of Outbreak and Responses:

12/8
First suspected case

12/8-12/18
investigations started by authorities of 7 cases of suspicious
pneumonia; 2 linked to seafood market

12/21
First cluster of patients identified with “an unknown pneumonia”
(reported 1/01)

12/25
Report of medical workers possibly infected

12/27
Dr. Zhang Jixian, the director of respiratory and critical care
medicine at Hubei Provincial Hospital, notifies
the
hospital of an unusual cluster of viral cases; the hospital notifies
the city’s’ disease control center.

12/29
Hubei Provincial hospital convenes and consults with a group of
experts, and then notifies the regional CDC.

12/30
An Ophthalmologist , Dr Li Wenliang, in Wuhan, China, posts a warning
about a cluster of patients diagnosed with SARS to colleagues.
patients quarantined. (This doctor is censured by authorities for
spreading unconfirmed rumors; This is the incident is characterized
by the western media as “suppression”; however, it’s important
to note 1) he’s not a virologist or epidemiologist, 2) he was not
treating these patients 3) it wasn’t SARS 4) the nature of the
disease was being investigated, but was still unknown at the time 5)
most importantly, all of the patients were quarantined).

Notice
issued and public health announcement made by Wuhan Municipal Health
Committee of an unknown viral illness.

12/31
Chinese government informs WHO of existence of a new unknown
virus; emergency symposium held on treatment; experts dispatched to
investigate

1/1
Seafood market shut down as potential cause of outbreak. Chinese
researchers at the CCDC publish an article on suspected outbreak.

1/2
41 patients confirmed with nCoV 2019

1/05
WHO advises against travel restrictions; no human to human
transmission found at this time

1/7
Mayor’s Party meeting (didn’t mention virus, human transmission
unclear at this time)

1/9
First casualty of outbreak (61 yr old with co-morbid
symptoms–liver disease and stomach cancer)–death publicly
reported on 1/11 after autopsy. To note–no one knew that the
disease was fatal until this case, nearly one month after the
initial case, and this person was already seriously sick.

1/10
First genetic blueprint sequenced and posted of nCoV 2019 (this
is a medical accomplishment)

1/12
“Surge in chest illnesses” reported; Dr. Li Wenliang
hospitalized.

1/13-1/15
Japan and Thailiand confirm first infections outside of China (based
on publicly released blueprint)–transparency assisted
identification

1/14
first suspected human to human transmission (wife of 1st
casualty). This is the first time that it’s suspected that human
transmission is involved.

1/15
WHO indicates no sustained human to human transmission

1/18
Community “potluck” in Baibuting, Wuhan with 40,000 attendees
(severely criticized afterwards, however human-human transmission was
still unclear at this point); 312 cases

1/20
Premier Li Keqiang urges decisive and effective actions

1/22
People in Wuhan told to wear masks

1/23
Quarantine announced of Wuhan; all outbound traffic frozen, WHO
states this is not Public Health Emergency of
Global concern

1/24
13 Hubei cities quarantined; 7 provinces declare public emergency; 26
dead, 830 infected
Lancet article published.

1/25
10 provinces declare public emergency; NY Events cancelled around
China; 5 other cities quarantined in Hubei; 56M affected; Xi
declares “grave situation”.
1/26 All wildlife trade
banned; 56 dead 2000 cases

1/27
106 dead 4515 cases

1/30
WHO declares Global Emergency (170 dead, 7,711 cases)

2/01
1st death outside of China (Chinese man in Philippines); 304
dead, 14280 cases

2/02
Huoshenshan hospital, dedicated to treatment of nCov 2019 opened; new
mask factory commences production in Beijing

2/03
361 dead, 17,205 cases (however infection rates outside of Wuhan are
flattening or diminishing)

2/04
2^nd death outside of China (Chinese man
from Wuhan in Hong Kong). 427 dead, 20,000+infected.

2/07
Dr. Li Wenliang dies from 2019 nCoV.

2/10
910 dead, 40,000+infected.

==================================

Zie ook:

‘Coronavirus: Rutte heeft de regie…. ‘God zij dank!’ Deel 2‘ 

‘Coronavirus: Iran extra getroffen vanwege illegale VS sancties‘ 

‘Coronavirus en WOIII‘   

‘Coronavirus: Rutte heeft de regie, ‘god zij dank……’‘

‘Corona antivirusbescherming‘

‘Coronavirus, Bruno Bruins (minister Medische Zorg): geen reden om grote evenementen te verbieden‘

‘Coronavirus en carnaval: ‘een gouden combinatie’ en BBC W.S. verslaggever voor Iran hekelt de aanpak van het virus in dat land‘ 

‘Coronavirus sensatie op Radio1: een thema-uitzending……‘ 

‘Coronavirus: ‘een probaat middel’ tegen de klimaatverandering en de luchtvervuiling…..‘

‘A Most Convenient Virus‘ (een ICH artikel, waarin de stelling dat dit virus uit een VS laboratorium komt)

‘Coronavirus: Bruno Bruins (VVD ‘minister’ Volksgezondheid) slaat rood uit‘ (ja ik weet het, Bruins is minister ‘Medische Zorg’)

‘Coronavirus hysterie: Corona vs. griep‘