The Demise of The China Project: The Erosion of the Middle

Today I learned that The China Project is shutting down. A post entitled "Some sad news" on their website explains why, as does a thread of tweets from Kaiser Kuo. 

The China Project was a media company that tried to provide balanced coverage of China for global English-speaking audiences. It was formerly known as SupChina, and began as a newsletter in 2016, expanding to include podcasts and events, and becoming a "news and business intelligence company focused on helping a global audience understand China." 

They reported on abuses in China, including on the horrible treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang, but also called out China-bashing in the US. As a result, as Goldkorn put it, "We have been accused many times in both countries of working for nefarious purposes for the government of the other."

There may have been many reasons for its closure. The "Some sad news" post refers to legal issues; apparently they were being sued by people or companies on both sides of the Pacific, though there are no specifics. I would like to know some examples because it seems bizarre, but this is a classic example of a "strategic secret": neither The China Project nor those who sue them have any interest in publicizing the suit, as it draws additional negative publicity to both of them.

It is clear that the main reason they are closing is that it is becoming dangerous to try to stand in the middle between the US and China. People both in China and in the US who understand both sides and try to explain the other side to their people are accused of being biased, or partial to the other side. In fact, despite the excellent work of The China Project/SupChina writers, when my wife was invited to speak at a one of their events last year, she was advised by her company's outside PR firm that she should not go because the organization was viewed as too pro-China, but she went anyway since she felt SupChina was quite balanced. One can see what effect this would have if everyone coming in contact with The China Project got similar advice.

Indeed, the trigger for the closing was a sponsorship not coming through as expected. Most companies are very cautious about associating with controversial groups. Nowadays, anything in the US having to do with China is controversial. And the reverse is also true.

The early colonists in 17th century Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts, were able to cooperate with the Native Americans by exchanging 10-year old boys who lived with a family of the other culture and would thus learn the other group's language and culture. These interpreters understood both cultures intimately. But in the lead-up to King Philip's War (1675-76), which is often considered the deadliest war in colonial America, these interpreters were distrusted by both sides, and were unable to prevent the conflagration. It is worrisome to see a similar pattern with The China Project. A voice of reason that understands and can explain both sides has been lost. Gradually, only shrill nationalistic voices will remain.

"Here is the China Exit Entry Administration"

For many months, I have received a SPAM phone message that is both in English and Chinese. This seems puzzling to me: why am I getting them, and in Chinese?

Here is the message I receive (I've gotten this five times in the past week):

Here is the China Exit Entry Administration. You have a new message. 你好！中国出入境管理局，你有一个新信息，请按九获取详细内容 

The Chinese says, "Hello! China Entry Exit Administration, you have a new message, please press nine for details." You can listen to my recording of the message here.

In the past, the message came as a call, but I've installed Google Call Screening so I never answer calls from numbers that I don't already know. But recently, the "calls" are coming straight into my phone as voicemail, without the phone ringing. 

This is a very strange message. First of all, who is it aimed at? As one online commenter noted, many "foreigners" (i.e. Americans) in the US are getting this message, and though it begins in English, it only has instructions in Chinese. The message seems to be bait for a scam of Chinese speakers. Spamming all of America to find a few gullible Chinese does not seem very efficient.

Since it is aimed at Chinese, why does the message start in English? It's almost as if the scammers feel that it's a high-class scam because it is bilingual. But I don't think the PRC government authorities send messages to their citizens in English and Chinese. 

And it's bad English at that! "Here is the..." is Chinese English. It should be, "This is the ...." 

At first I thought the "Exit Entry Administration" was fake, because the name sounds so funny in English. Apparently, it's a thing, or at least it was until 2018, when it was renamed the Immigration Department.

I've been curious as to why I'm getting these messages again, after many months of silence. Plus, the calls go straight to voicemail; my phone does not ring. Also puzzling is the fact that these calls are coming from different phone numbers from all over the US. And twice, recently, I got the messages two times within 10 minutes, same exact recording, but from phone numbers from different parts of the country.

I think this is an example of the cat and mouse game between spammers and phone companies. I recently heard on a podcast about AI that spammers also use AI and have gotten better at evading Google and Yahoo's spam identification. 

But my Google Call Screening is still doing it's job, because my phone does not ring. The spam call is going to voicemail, so I get the start of the recording, but I'm not getting interrupted, nor do I have a chance to push "9".

Next step is for Google to recognize the calls as spam and send them straight to the spam folder, which it is able to do for some calls. I'm going to start calling my spam folder the "Exit Entry Administration."

Election Day, 4 April 2023

I volunteer to serve as an election judge for elections because I think it is important to help assure election integrity. We get paid, but no one works the 15-hour-day plus travel time for the $240. I also do it because it gives me a chance to get out of my social bubble and to meet other people. Sometimes, however, I end up feeling like I should have stayed in my bubble.

This week’s local election in St Louis County had very few items on the ballot. Voters can vote anywhere in the county, so everyone’s ballot can be a bit different, depending on where they live. A few places had mayor’s elections, or school board election, but the ballot for many people only had one question: 

Proposition M

Shall St. Louis County impose an additional sales tax of three percent (3%) on all tangible property retail sales of adult use marihuana sold in St. Louis County, Missouri?

□ YES

□ NO

I served in a small town called Black Jack, which is a fairly prosperous African American suburban town in “North County.” We were set up in a school gym. Only 68 voters came during the 13 hours the polls were open, which meant we had a lot of time to sit and wait. That means it cost over $30 per vote just for the cost of election judges at that polling location. Sixty voters voted absentee, so turnout from my polling place was nine percent, half the overall county turnout of 18 percent. 

The low turnout is understandable; why bother to vote if there are so few items on the ballot? It is absurd that we have so many elections (often four per year, counting primaries), but it is impossible to change because politicians know that certain items are easier to pass on elections like this, when few people vote, or on presidential elections, when many more people vote, so different groups have an interest in keeping the status quo.

One of the rules for election judges is that we are not supposed to discuss politics. The trainers at the Election Board remind us of this before every election, and yet, people can’t keep their mouths shut. Early in the day, someone started saying something political and our Republican manager commented that we should not talk about politics. Everyone agreed, though Bob, another Republicans poll judge, commented that though we can’t talk here, we SHOULD talk more, because people mostly agree, at least 80%, he said. Mary, a white Republican poll judge, agreed, and added that we are all God’s children, so are basically alike. (I said nothing, and could not help but wonder if my Black fellow election judges agreed, but they also said nothing). Later, as I was standing with him near the scanner, a young Black judge who is Republican said about Proposition M, “Why would anyone vote to give politicians more money so they can just waste it?!” I did not know how to reply without getting political so I just ignored him and said nothing.

Interestingly, two voters commented, when they saw that their ballot only had Proposition M on it, “Of course I’m going to vote “Yes”! I don’t use it, so let those who do pay the  taxes!” So even this seemingly innocuous proposition elicited partisan polarization, with conservatives against taxes and liberals in favor of taxes.

In case you were wondering, Proposition M passed, with 65 percent voting "Yes."

We were 8 poll judges, four Republicans and four Democrats, present for nearly 15 hours, and since only 68 people voted, we had a lot of free time. It was a bit like we were characters in the movie The Breakfast Club (except that we weren't all friends at the end), or maybe more like the characters of Murder on the Orient Express, which was being performed as a play this week.  

There was Mary, who talked the entire time. She was insufferable. She was from the western rural part of the county, and mentioned that she had lived many years in Mississippi, as perhaps we could tell from her accent. She told us she ran a mission and sold Mary Kay products, and had been in India for 26 days. No one asked why she went to India, but she proceeded to tell us she was there saving people. The last two hours, she literally read the manual and asked us "pop questions" as she read along. "Did you know ‘wearing apparel specific to a candidate or issue’ counts as electioneering?" And 30 seconds later, "What is the correct order for setting up the poll pad?" I made a point of working the scanner, which was at the other end of the gym, so I could be far away from her, where I could only hear her in the background and could read my book.

Then there was Bob, originally from the Bronx, a graduate of the Merchant Marine Academy recently retired after working 40 years in insurance. Hearing I was an anthropologist, he said social scientists will probably be studying the pandemic for decades. I replied that, actually, after the 1918 Flu, people mostly forgot about it, and that there is evidence people are now also ready to move on. He somehow started saying that there was no way Covid came from the market in Wuhan, and that Covid was genetically created in a lab in Wuhan because it was too precisely designed. I did not know how to reply, since he was so vehement, so I cut the conversation off abruptly by telling him he was misinformed and went back to reading my book. 

Then there was Republican manager, a white woman about 65 years old, who was very competent and in charge. She managed to make everyone stick to the rule that we not start packing up until AFTER polls close at 7:00 pm. (In previous cases, some people always want to start packing early.) The Democratic manager was a nice Black woman, perhaps 10 years older, who for some reason gave each election judge some cream. She gave me a small vial of Dove face cream for men. Then she asked, “Mr. Joe, do you have bad joints or arthritis?” She said she had some cream from her church that worked very well. I told her I did not need it (yet).

One pair of judges were a kind couple. The husband seemed a bit addled; it took him a while to remember the process for checking people in and producing ballots. He had brought a box of donuts, but they were dated “made March 26, sell by March 28,” so were a week old and stale. Only two of the six were eaten by the end of the day. His wife greeted every voter with a loud, “Welcome to the poll judge sweepstakes! Come on down!” followed by a bellowing laugh. Most people coming in seemed to be amused.

And then we had the young Black Republican, who spent most of the day listing to his iPods, and then suddenly announced two hours before the end of the election that he had to leave. (Hm; I wonder if he’ll get paid.)

At the risk of seeming to be a misanthrope, I have to say the experience was not uplifting. The low turnout, the inability to avoid politics, and the confrontation with partisanship and China-bashing all left me discouraged. Tired after the long day, I came home to make dinner and watch a baseball game. To make matters worse, the Cardinals lost 2-5, losing the third game in the series and thus getting swept by the Braves.

The Science and Culture of (Medical) Masks

There have been reports the CDC is reconsidering its recommendation that people not wear a surgical mask when they go out (see WaPo story here and NY Times story here, for example). As it has become clear that asymptomatic people can transmit the coronavirus, more and more Americans have been wondering whether it would not be a good idea for ordinary people to wear masks all the time.

Scientists have long said that wearing surgical masks to protect against SARS and Covid-19 is not effective. The scientific view is that surgical masks help prevent someone who is infected from spreading the virus, but wearing a mask does not protect against becoming infected. (Here is an adamant position against non-sick people wearing masks, from 29 Feb.)  As this NPR story from 2015 notes, masks are good if you are sick so you don’t spread germs to others, but it is better to just stay home. The CDC, as of today, only recommends wearing a facemask around other people if you are sick, or if you are in the same room as someone with coronavirus who cannot wear the mask (e.g. because of difficulty breathing). 

The Hong Kong health authorities during SARS essentially agreed with this viewpoint, and said that people should wear masks to avoid stigmatizing anyone who had to wear a mask. The thinking was that if only sick people wear masks, then they would be discriminated against; people who should wear one would not do so to avoid being shunned.

Actually, most Hong Kong residents felt that wearing a mask would help at least a little, and even if they had doubts, “it’s better to be on the safe side” and “it can’t hurt.” It has gradually become common sense that wearing a mask protects the wearer. And this approach predominates with the coronavirus; the Hong Kong government encourages people to wear a mask when they go out. This is contrary to the WHO, which only recommends wearing a mask if caring for an infected person.

An opinion piece in the NY Times by the medical anthropologist Christos Lynteris argues that though there is little evidence that wearing a surgical mask is a good prophylactic against the coronavirus, in Asia wearing a mask is a sign of being modern, of taking hygiene seriously, and of concern for others because wearing it prevents the spread of the virus if the wearer is asymptomatic. Chinese first wore masks in 1910, when the Cambridge-educated doctor Wu Liande recommended the use of gauze masks to fight the pneumonic plague. He was right, and his success, in contrast to European doctors at the time who disagreed with him, was a source of pride for Chinese and began the custom of wearing masks against contagion, Lynteris argues.

But it was SARS in 2003 that made mask-wearing ubiquitous in recent times. I was in Hong Kong at the time, and no one went out without a mask. However, it has never been shown that the wearing of masks was significant in winning the battle against SARS.

The PRC government position is that before hospital personnel realized there was a coronavirus outbreak, many hospital workers contracted the disease and dozens died. The government then mobilized 20,000 doctors and nurses from the rest of the country to go to Wuhan to deal with the epidemic, and all used masks, eye shields and gowns, and none of them were infected. George Gao, a leading Chinese researcher, says it is a mistake that people in the West are not wearing masks, because asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases can spread the virus.

There are three issues with having everyone wear masks. First, the medical effectiveness of ordinary people using masks and N-95 respirators is not clear. This MedpageToday article from 2009 shows how contradictory the evidence has been, with many tests showing no benefit to wearing a surgical mask to avoid contagion.  A recent Lancet article includes a box that shows most countries agree there is no benefit to the public from wearing masks.

But then you have non-medical commentators, like this AI entrepreneur, who think the argument for wearing masks is clear, and who calls for everyone to wear masks. (It's funny how people successful in one field, especially rich people, show no hesitation about propounding on other areas outside their area of expertise.) The problem with masks is that if they are not worn, removed and disposed of correctly, they are of little use. The “best” masks, the N-95 respirator, makes it very difficult to breath if it is worn properly, with edges sealed. (And one cannot have facial hair and seal the edges.) Some have said (and I know from experience) that even walking is difficult when wearing the N-95, if it is worn properly.

The second issue is the shortage of masks in the US. When Covid-19 struck, the government stockpile of N-95 and surgical masks was way down because of a failure to restock after the 2009 Avian Flu epidemic (blame for this can be spread widely). The CDC and other authorities’ recommendation was that the general public NOT wear masks, and that they leave them for the health professionals who really needed them. There are horrifying reports of many hospitals and nursing homes where staff have to reuse masks. By comparison, during SARS, we were told in Hong Kong that we should replace the mask once it became wet from our breath, roughly every two hours. So one can’t help wonder whether the calls for the public not to wear masks are because of a kind of rationing, giving priority to those who benefit the most, rather than that the masks do not help at all. But of course the argument that they do not help long precedes the coronavirus crisis.

Third, there is the issue of the image of masks. Americans have been giggling about Asians wearing masks for years, and I’ve noticed that in a number of cases of reported anti-Asian incidents, the victim was wearing a mask (on 'maskphobia' see here). A number of Chinese friends have been shocked at Americans’ reluctance to wear masks. This humorous video sums up American’s views on the wearing of masks. 

The lyrics say:

Don’t wear masks
They don’t work
(and plus you look like a jerk)
You might think you’ll help a billion
but you scare the little children!

While in Asia, wearing a mask is seen as pro-social, protecting others from one’s own possible infection, in the US it is a sign of being sick. Americans have a strong antipathy towards medical masks, which is surprising because everyone wore a mask during the 1918 pandemic (see here and here). This crisis may well change American attitudes.

The anthropologist Gideon Lasco has noted: 

People’s motivation for wearing these masks goes far beyond simple considerations of medical efficacy. Cultural values, perceptions of control, social pressure, civic duty, family concerns, self-expression, beliefs about public institutions, and even politics are all wrapped up in the “symbolic efficacy” of face masks.

Which leads me to wonder if libertarian and other Americans skeptical of the government will not resist and even refuse to wear a mask. The same people who think Covid-19 is "political" will see wearing a mask as some sort of government plot. Already skeptical of science, they will wonder why the establishment has changed its mind on masks.

Interestingly, US hospitals have rules against medical personnel wearing masks that seem to focus primarily on not scaring other patients and avoiding the impression the hospital is germ-filled. Several doctors who insisted on wearing a mask in hospital hallways have been disciplined and fired, though it seems some hospitals have reversed themselves. As this NYTimes article today puts it: 

Amid the confusion, furious and terrified, doctors and nurses say they must trust their own judgment. Administrators counter that doctors and nurses, motivated by fear, are writing their own rules.

As the article notes, some hospitals are insisting that masks are not necessary, and are insisting on all staff sticking to the rules. Other hospitals are allowing, or even recommending, that caregivers wear surgical masks at all times at work.

This article from WebMD yesterday (30 March) says that wearing even a homemade mask might help, but hand washing and keeping distance from others are more important. Many reading that article will think, “Better safe than sorry,” and decide to wear a mask.

Since we will not eliminate the virus but can only try to control it, i.e. prevent its rapid spread, I can’t help but wonder, after the “stay at home” rules end on April 30, will the mask will become required when in public? We face many months of continuing, albeit hopefully low level infection, until a vaccine is developed or sufficient immunity in the population allows the epidemic to burn out. Already an article from 20 March in The Lancet argues for widespread use of masks, calling it a “rational recommendation”:

“As evidence suggests COVID-19 could be transmitted before symptom onset, community transmission might be reduced if everyone, including people who have been infected but are asymptomatic and contagious, wear face masks.”

Interestingly, of the six co-authors, two are based in Hong Kong (the rest in the UK) and five have Chinese names (the one Anglo name is based in Hong Kong). One wonders how much Asian attitudes towards masks influenced their recommendation. Conversely, one wonders what cultural attitudes make Western medical researchers resistant to the generalized wearing of masks. This really shows how cultural attitudes can influence scientists' judgement.

It seems we are close to a tipping point where everyone in the US will be allowed, or even encouraged, to wear a mask. But it will be hard to know if it is medically advantageous and appropriate, or is being done primarily to make people feel protected and more in control. But first the country needs a supply of masks.

Still no need to panic, but need to be cautious

Re-reading my previous blog post, I feel that my emphasis was wrong. While there are no incorrect facts, the takeaway message now seems wrong. I did not sufficiently emphasize that the peak of infections can easily overwhelm hospitals. Currently, a doctor friend told me St Louis University hospital has only 10 vacant beds out of 65 ICU beds. There are only1888 ICU beds in the entire state of Missouri (population about 6.1 million). The number is low because of cost-cutting, especially since 2008, because having empty beds is “wasteful.” But reducing the number of beds so they are mostly being used reduces our capacity to deal with crises. As a doctor friend put it, “Hospitals in the US are already always running at 110 percent.” The additional serious cases of COVID-19, even if they are only 1 of 100 who get sick, can still easily be too many for the hospital to cope, and doctors will have to decide who gets the ventilator and who dies.

Three articles this past week, a piece in Medium by TomasPueyo, an article on Vox, and an article in the NY Times byNicholas Kristof and Stuart Thompson, make the point that the problem is not treating the disease itself, but is going to be treating the sick at the peak of the epidemic when hospitals are overwhelmed. I highly recommend these articles. The Times article also has a table that shows that the peak of the epidemic is likely to be in July, which means Americans' current “social distancing” is going to have massive economic effects.

It seems everyone I speak to has seen the Tomas Pueyo article, and I see now that it has been viewed 35 million times in 6 days. It gives me hope that ideas can, in fact, sometimes change people's ideas and behavior!

In the US, everything changed this week. Universities started closing on Tuesday, March 10, and the NBA suspended the season the next day. That was when everyone knew it was really serious. I don’t know all the factors that have gone into closing universities, but I’m told a major issue is uncertainty over a university's liability if they stayed open and someone got sick and died. It is easier to close. This is disturbing, because it is not clear what foreign students are supposed to do, and the extra travel this causes is precisely what we don’t want if we’re trying to prevent the spread of disease. I would have thought isolating the campus from outside visitors would have been more effective, in public health terms. But, I’m not aware of all the considerations. And I’m grateful I did not have to make these difficult decisions.

One thing I did not anticipate in my earlier blog was that Americans would take no precautions at all. I did not realize how unscathed the US was from SARS. Many friends who lived through SARS in Asia have commented on how blithely Americans have been taking the epidemic. I have not been panicking, but I have certainly been washing my hands a lot and avoiding crowds. I open doors with my back (to avoid touching the door with my hands), and push elevator buttons with my knuckle--all skills learned during SARS in Hong Kong. But a combination of lack of focus, and the fiasco with the US insisting on developing its own test for the COVID-19 virus and flubbing it, has led to serious problems. As late as yesterday, March 15, we’ve been reading reports in our local paper and on social media (see for example here) of people displaying coronavirus symptoms but not being tested because they do not meet some criterion. They perhaps came from Toronto, but not Italy, so are not eligible for the test. The problem is that from a public health point of view, we need to test everyone with symptoms so we can contact others who might have been infected. And there does not seem to be much contact tracing here in the US.

Taiwan is getting some attention for its success in limiting the epidemic, though it would be getting a lot more attention if it were part of the WHO. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Associationonline notes first, how early authorities moved to test visitors and suspected cases. 

On December 31, 2019, when the World Health Organization was notified of pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan, China, Taiwanese officials began to board planes and assess passengers on direct flights from Wuhan for fever and pneumonia symptoms before passengers could deplane. As early as January 5, 2020, notification was expanded to include any individual who had traveled to Wuhan in the past 14 days and had a fever or symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection at the point of entry; suspected cases were screened for 26 viruses including SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Passengers displaying symptoms of fever and coughing were quarantined at home and assessed whether medical attention at a hospital was necessary.

China only began to take action by classing COVID-19 as a notifiable disease on Jan. 20, and shutting down Wuhan on Jan. 23.

Taiwan’s quick and effective reaction was possible because they have highly centralized immigration records and a National Health Insurance Administration (AKA "universal healthcare"), and were able to link the two databases. Though 850,000 Taiwanese live and work in China, and many came back to Taiwan for the Lunar New Year on Jan. 25, the health authorities could identify who had traveled from China within the previous 14 days and could contact them for testing. Taiwan’s household registration system also allows authorities to locate residents; the US has no such system. In Taiwan, and Hong Kong, they have the data and the will to trace contacts; this does not seem to be the case in the US. In Hong Kong and Taiwan, they also monitor people by tracking their cell phone, something that will probably not be politically possible in the US. But I had assumed tracking contacts of people who come down with COVID-19 would be standard procedure in the US, as it was in Asia for SARS in 2003, and is currently the case in Asia. But as I mentioned, they are not even testing many of the people who show coronavirus-like symptoms, let alone tracing contacts. The first case in Missouri was a student who took the train from Chicago on March 4, and came down with symptoms on March 6th. They did disinfect the entire train.

Many people are expecting the epidemic to end with warmer weather, as happens with the flu season. Unfortunately, the fact that there are coronavirus cases in Singapore, which is on the equator, and that the Spanish Flu actually first emerged in June-July of 1918, make this unlikely. (The seasonality of the flu is actually an interesting scientific puzzle.)

Frozen food section at Trader Joe's 

 The panic in the US really hit on Thursday March 12, when there were runs on supermarkets. The panic buying of toilet paper has been widely reported, and my local supermarket had empty shelves; even paper dinner napkins were all gone. Especially surprising was the fact that all the white vinegar was gone! Back in January 2003, Hong Kong newspapers carried stories that mocked Guangzhou people for clearing stores of vinegar, because “superstitious” people were boiling vinegar to prevent what later was known as SARS. Just two months later, there was also a run on vinegar in Hong Kong, as the illness spread to the region. So it is a bit surprising that I see vinegar also gone from my local supermarket.

Paper products at local supermarket

But there are notable differences in cultural ideas of how to quarantine. In Hong Kong, people were encouraged to keep windows open at home, and go out in country parks to get fresh air. (Many people do not realize that Hong Kong is actually 70% country parks and nature reserves.) In California, starting tomorrow, people are required to stay in their homes. It seems to me that it is very safe to go outside as long as there are no crowds, but that is not the advice we are being given in St Louis. We are expected to stay indoors; in Hong Kong, fresh air was believed to be healthy.

The most notable difference in how COVID10 is dealt with is with masks. In Hong Kong, everyone is expected to wear a mask when outside. In the US and Singapore, one is only to wear a mask if ill. The argument is that a surgical mask does not help much in preventing catching the virus. (Here is a brief and insightful anthropological analysis of the different beliefs surrounding masks.) Of course, most people operate on the “better safe than sorry” principle, so would wear masks if they could. But they have been unavailable in St Louis since late January. And now we learn from the NY Times and Wired that there are people who have been buying up masks and hand sanitizers since January, to sell them on eBay and Amazon at a steep markup. This should be the topic of a future (economic anthropology) blog posting, but for now, I'll just say that it adds to the chaos and distrust.

My 90-year mother-in-law lives near Seattle in a retirement home. When asked how she was doing, with all this worry about coronavirus, she said that she has seen so many things in her life, this does not scare her that much. After all, she lived through the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong during WWII, the Cold War and "Red Scare." Yes, this is serious. But with organization and care, societies can get through this.

The Coronavirus Panic

I have been interested in “risk” for my research on pesticides, and as part of my work on magic and the supernatural. I therefore look at the world response to the new coronavirus that emerged in Wuhan with a slightly different perspective. While I understand the fear of a novel illness (having lived through SARS in Hong Kong), I also see that a lot of the fear is unnecessary and irrational, if understandable.

Every year, influenza kills thousands of people in the US and around the world, and people accept that as somehow normal. Pneumonia is the 2nd leading cause of death in HK (8032 people in 2017, causing 17.5% of deaths). And the death-rate from pneumonia shoots up for people over 74. In the US, 55,672 people died of influenza and pneumonia in 2017. The press regularly mentions large numbers of infected and dead (14,300 and 305 as I write) which seem like large numbers, but in comparison to the overall population of China is small. For the US, the NY Times reports: 

For perspective: The flu kills roughly 35,000 Americans every year. This season, it has already sickened an estimated 15 million Americans and killed 8,200, according to C.D.C. estimates.

• Influenza kills more Americans every year than any other virus, Dr. Peter Hotez, a professor at Baylor College of Medicine, told Liz Sabo at Kaiser Health News. But the flu is rarely paid such attention, and fewer than half of adults get a vaccine.

• “When we think about the relative danger of this new coronavirus and influenza, there’s just no comparison,” Dr. William Schaffner, a professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told Ms. Sabo. “Coronavirus will be a blip on the horizon in comparison.”

As Elizabeth Rosenthal (a physician and NY Times journalistwho lived in Beijing through SARS) says, “Remember, by all indications SARS, which killed about 10 percent of those infected, was a deadlier virus than the new coronavirus circulating now. So keep things in perspective.” As you can see from the table below, influenza regularly kills between 0.2 and 0.4% of patients who see a doctor for the flu, and 7-13% of those who are hospitalized for the flu. It is estimated that 10% of those affected by the Spanish flu of 1918 died. The main reason for the fear today is that the coronavirus is new, so we don’t know everything about it. But much about it is already quite clear: the mortality rate appears to be at most 2-4%, and it spreads through heavy water droplets (i.e. sneezing and direct contact). This is not Ebola.

The media tend to emphasize the risk because fear attracts viewers. Readers are much more likely to forward and make viral an article that warns about the virus and emphasizes the danger. The NY Times had a photo essayentitled “China’s Battle with a Deadly Corona Virus” and “The Test a Deadly Coronavirus Outbreak Poses to China’s Leadership” but it was already clear on Jan. 21 that this virus is not as deadly as SARS or Ebola. And though we don’t know some things about the new coronavirus, we do know a lot, and it is misleading to call it “mysterious” (as Fox News did here). 

Lest I be considered distant and unaffected by the virus, let me add that my wife has a colleague in China whose father-in-law is among the dead, so I fully understand how serious and tragic influenza can be. But we need to take reasonable precautions and not panic. Often, panic causes more problems than the problem that sparked the fear. The point is, as Ian Johnsonputs it, “This outbreak is serious but not catastrophic.” (His essay on the government's Aksionismus or "actionism" is excellent, like most of his writing.)

There has been a run on masks, but as Rosenthal notes, masks are not that effective. They help in crowded places, but they have to be replaced frequently, because if they work and get viruses on them, they are contaminated. It is basic hygiene, like washing your hands frequently, and staying home if sick, that helps prevent the spread of viruses. There are many draconian measures undertaken in China that are pointless (like shutting gates to apartment complexes at night). Lest Americans think they are more “rational,” I hasten to point out that our local drug stores have sold out of masks. We tried to buy some for a friend who wanted to send them to Hong Kong, but even in St Louis, there has already been a run on masks!

Many of the bans being put in place are informed as much by xenophobia as by public health concerns. Particularly worrying are bans on all Chinese (like in Singapore), as if being Chinese was a marker of likely being ill. Stories that focus on Chinese eating wild animals have gone viral (pun unintended) but have nothing to do with the cause or spread of the disease (see the weird case of “bat soup”here). Jason Oliver Chang, Associate Professor of History and Asian American Studies at the University of Connecticut, has created a Googledoc with resources to teach about “Yellow Peril” to try to counteract these racist and xenophobic narratives that unfortunately fit into Trumpian anti-foreign sentiments.

It is natural to be cautious and afraid. I remember from the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong, and Emily Feng of NPR in Beijing said the same thing last week, you can know the chance of getting sick is small and not worry about yourself, but you worry more about transmitting it to others. You think, “What if I’m the person that spreads the disease to my workplace?”

Those of us who lived through SARS in Asia changed our habits, as Rosenthal notes. In addition to washing our hands more often, we push elevator buttons with our knuckles and not our fingertip, and we stay home if we are sick. I’m struck that many people with a cold or flu symptoms in the US do not quarantine themselves, but continue going to work and social events. And how many people who are worried about the coronavirus did not get their flu vaccine this year?

It is not that we don’t have to be vigilant. In fact, Laurie Garrett (Pulitzer-prize winning author of books on epidemics and public health) notes that the US is totally unprepared for an epidemic because: “In 2018, the Trump administration fired the government’s entire pandemic response chain of command, including the White House management infrastructure. In numerous phone calls and emails with key agencies across the U.S. government, the only consistent response I encountered was distressed confusion.” Not that is alarming.

Another thing is also clear: governments are under tremendous pressure to "do something" even if it is not necessary; no one wants to be blamed for not doing enough. And the weird thing is, if public health efforts succeed and there is no pandemic, or the virus burns out naturally before becoming a pandemic, both health and political officials will be accused of overreacting! It is not easy to make the calls right now. But we individually can at least avoid panicking.

PS: Here is a good NPR Morning Edition story from Monday Feb. 3rd that argues there is no need to panic. 

Observations on the Hong Kong Protests in Early December

I was in Hong Kong for ten days at the end of November and early December, and though I had been following the protests fairly closely from afar, there were several things that struck me once I was there. I arrived the morning after the election, and since I had no idea how the election would turn out (Would a “silent majority” turn out to support the government? Had protester violence alienated the public?), I quickly checked the results on my phone as the airplane taxied to the exit. I was surprised to see how strongly the pro-democracy candidates had won. It was an unprecedented repudiation of the pro-establishment parties and the government, and of Beijing. There could be no doubt that the protesters represented the anger and frustration of a large segment of the public.

Kowloon Tong MTR

I should mention that many in the US seemed worried for me, but this was ridiculous. The protests are usually announced in advance, and are very localized. Most people go on living their life. Images on TV focus on the "action" but that occurs in small pockets, and it is fairly easy to avoid the protests. There can be traffic jams caused by protests, and the MTR did close early for a while. But Hong Kong's protests are not a civil war. I was not worried for my safety in going on this visit. I just hoped the wedding I was planning to attend would not have to be canceled because of protests. But everything went well. There was in fact a lull in the protests following the election. The odd thing, actually, was the lack of response from the government or Beijing.

There are many reasons for the high level of anger and frustration in Hong Kong, and it is wrong to try to identify the single or primary cause. Thus, the government’s strategy (pushed by Beijing) of focusing on economic and livelihood issues is not likely to resolve the protests. There can be no doubt that the high cost of housing, rising inequality, and limited prospects for many young people are contributing factors, but they are not the “material base” on which all other elements rest, to use Marxist theory. There are identity issues, and ideas of justice, that are harder to address. And we have to be frank that a layer of anti-Mainlander bigotry also adds emotional power for some of the protesters.

Graffiti, Hong Kong Island

Another explanation that Beijing has for the protests, aside from economic issues, is “foreign interference.” The assumption that foreign “black hands” are behind the protests might seem plausible from afar, and the CIA has certainly promoted and organized protests and coups in the past (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Bay of Pigs 1961, etc.). But it surely is an exaggeration of American power to think the CIA can mobilize the thousands of protesters who have repeatedly come out on the streets to protest. It is, of course, also an insult to them, assuming they are being manipulated. But this belief in “black hands” is probably not insincere; communists believe in organizing protests, and it is hard for them to believe that people would spontaneously and of their own individual will come out to protest. Pro-Beijing protests on campuses overseas, and the flag-waving crowds greeting Chinese leaders at various venues in China and overseas, are all organized by the party, so it is only natural, in their minds, that protesters against the Party must also be organized but some secretive forces.

Instead, what I heard from many people I spoke to was how ordinary people felt compelled to donate supplies (masks, umbrellas, clothes, etc) to support the protesters. People leave change and single-trip MTR cards on subway vending machines to help protesters leave without leaving a trace on their Octopus cards that would record their travel. People with cars have driven protesters away from police action. I suppose it would be naïve to think foreign agencies are not supporting the protests, but that is hardly an explanation for what is going on.

Graffiti against police violence

The degree to which ordinary members of the public are involved is striking. Several friends commented with awe and surprise that on the Monday when a general transportation strike occurred (Nov. 11), and buses were stuck for hours on Nathan Road, passengers who got out to walk were not angry, but said things like “Yes, this is inconvenient for me, but I understand why the protesters need to do this.” This was surprising because during the Umbrella Movement in 2014, much of the public complained about the inconvenience caused by the protests.

A sociologist in Hong Kong who studies protest movements made two interesting observations. He noted that the protests may seem to have erupted suddenly from nowhere, but there are protesters who have over a decade of experience in battling the police. From battles over Queen’s Pier, the Kwu Tong redevelopment  and the high speed train station, protesters and police have years of experience in fighting with each other (my retired police office friends refer to them as “professional protesters”). Indeed, at the outbreak of the Umbrella Movement, the very first day when tear gas was first used (to the shock of Hong Kong society not used to such methods), we saw protesters with defensive equipment from masks to plastic wrap arrive prepared for battle. So these tensions have been simmering for years. Each side has learned from the other, and escalated in their tactics, but their attacks also have a ritualized quality.

The sociologist’s other observation was that the protesters have deliberately and successfully provoked a violent police response. In fact, the protesters and police engage in verbal sparring and name-calling during protests. It seems the protesters calculated that the public would support the protesters if they saw the police using violence against them. Though this has indeed occurred, it is hard to know how deliberate this was. Another argument claims that the police withdrew and allowed the protesters to enter and vandalize the Legislative Council chamber, believing that this would turn the public against the protesters. Indeed, many are puzzled as to why the police retreated and allowed the protesters to enter the chamber. In any case, if it was deliberate, it did not work, but only further polarized society, with pro-establishment people horrified by the anarchy and defacing of national symbols, and protesters emphasizing the symbolic nature of the damage (e.g. that the protesters did not touch the library and that they left money for the drinks they took).

V for Vendetta sign in Mong Kok 

Another surprising aspect of the protest is how deep the frustration of the protesters is. Many are willing to tear down all of Hong Kong if their demands are not met. One of the slogans spray-painted on walls and on the streets says “If we burn, you burn with us” (a famous line from The Hunger Games). The common Cantonese expression is 攬炒 lam chau (or in Jyutping romanization, laam5 caau2)  See article on the term here. Lam literally means to grasp or to pull something into one’s arms; chau means to stir fry, and by extension to speculate (e.g. in stocks), as well as to fire (sack) someone. But here the expression means to go down together, taken from a poker strategy. This nihilistic attitude of course alarms many people. The circle with a letter V on it, from “V for Vendetta,” is a common graffiti around Hong Kong, expressing the anarchistic idea that a chaotic interim period is necessary before a functioning society can emerge.

Protesters use many leftist quotes from Mao and from the communist party, but also anti-globalization ideas from the far right. The Hong Kong protesters mimic a segment of Trump supporters in the US, but the idea many protesters have that they have to “blow it all up” is similar to the “drain the swamp” and anti-establishment ideas of many Trump supporters. Thus, while it may seem odd that pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong have Pepe the Frog dolls and masks (see "Know-your-Meme" that does not see the meaning here and NY Times article here), these protesters identify with the anti-establishment ethos that the Alt-Right has created for the frog (much to the dismay of the frog’s creator; see a Reply All podcast and transcript here). The protesters do not see Pepe as a symbol of hate, but they correctly identify it as a symbol of protest, and some of the anti-Mainlander bigotry (as noted in the excellent This American Life episode) also fits with the Alt-Right's use of Pepe as a symbol of hate. So, many pro-establishment people are probably right when they say that Americans and Europeans would not be so sympathetic to the protesters if they were protesting like this in their countries.

On the other hand, a European friend in Hong Kong said that only now, with the protests, does Hong Kong feel like home. Before, with everyone worrying about making money and about brand-name clothes, she felt alienated from Hong Kong society, but now that people are political in a way that she understands and recognizes from her youth back home, she feels much more of a connection and bond with Hong Kong. She cares much more about the society now that she knows others care about society’s future too.

But most people are more negative. One friend has begun the process of emigrating to Malaysia (which for a Chinese person seems, at least superficially, to be like "out of the frying pan into the fire"). Several other recently retired friends who are strongly anti-protester are now planning on moving to England, though they had planned to remain in Hong Kong. They say they do not recognize their city any more.

CUHK graffiti: "would rather be dead than not free"

It is not clear how things will end. The protesters are unorganized by design, to prevent the government from arresting the leadership like they did vindictively several years after Umbrella Movement had ended. It is hard to imagine Beijing yielding on direct elections of the Chief Executive. Indeed, all pro-Beijing figures keep talking about how Hong Kong people need to be educated to be more patriotic, which, of course, is precisely the attitude that mobilizes people to go out on the street in the first place. Even the protesters’ demand of an independent commission to investigate police violence seems impossible, because the government is simply hiding behind the police. If the government were to announce an independent commission, the police would feel they were being thrown under the bus and would refuse to prop up the government. It seems clear that it is not in the interest of Beijing to send in the PLA. It is also not clear what the PLA could do to quell the protests that the police has not tried, short of shooting hundreds of people, which would have huge international repercussions. It is said that some protesters are hoping to provoke just such a response by Beijing to put more pressure on the authorities. Most people see this as a mad fantasy.

It seems the government intends to simply wait out the protesters, hoping they will tire. In the meantime, the reputation of the police, until recently touted as “Asia’s finest,” is in tatters. Stories of summary arrests and beatings by police, even of innocent bystanders, are common. And a surprising number of people believe that the police has killed protesters at the Prince Edward MTR station and disposed of the bodies. Rumors about the toxic chemicals in the tear gas and blue dye shot from the water cannon are rife. There is no trust in the government. The government claims to have foiled two recent bomb plots. Such an escalation would be tragic, and probably self-defeating. But it is hard to predict anything about these protests, given how unpredictable they have been thus far.

Anti-Mainlander Rumors in Hong Kong

The level of anti-mainlander sentiment in Hong Kong has gotten close to the danger level. In the past two weeks, since the government announced a scheme to allow Hong Kong cars to drive in the mainland and mainlander cars to come to Hong Kong, people have been furious about this, more angry than at the number of mainlander women coming to Hong Kong to give birth. Even though the number of cars would be small (50 per day for a maximum of 7 days, so a total maximum of 350 cars in HK at any one time), people are up in arms. People comment on how dangerous it will be with mainlanders driving on the left side, but in cars designed for the right side, and how mainlanders don't follow the rules. There are even photos of the few mainland cars that do now have licenses to enter HK (which are placed below their Guangdong Province license plates) making illegal turns.

A sign of a new dangerous level in tension comes from rumors circulating on the web and a story on Yahoo News that a "gang" of mainlanders tried to kidnap a 3-year old girl. The story is illogical and vague, claiming that a man and a woman and 13-year old boy tried to walk away with a 3-year old girl who was crying loudly, but they somehow got away. A mother then appeared with a stroller saying the girl was hers. The story has all the marks of a moral panic type rumor, including lack of any evidence, or witnesses.

With worries about the world economy, about who is going to be the next Chief Executive (and with the two leading candidates embroiled in scandal accusations, and our current CE embarrassed and humiliated and being found running around with tycoons and Macau gambling moguls), there is plenty to be worried about. Hong Kongers keep waiting to see who Beijing will give the nod to; so far they have not indicated a preference, which is actually good, and allows "HK people to run HK."  But the uncertainty is leading to all sorts of conspiracy theories.

Mainlanders used to be looked down upon as "A-Chan" bumpkins; now they come in the thousands to shop in Hong Kong's cheaper, duty-free stores, especially in luxury goods stores, which are so popular with tourists that one must line up to enter.  Resentment is rising, and many see mainlanders as driven by money. In their moral condemnation of mainlanders, they are willing to believe a rather illogical rumor of an attempted kidnapping. (As one poster noted in an online forum, if mainlanders wanted to kidnap a child, it would be a lot easier to do it in the mainland rather than in HK). But the rumor does provide evidence that all is not well in HK; there  is a lot of anxiety and resentment.

Living in Mainland China

A debate has been swirling in cyberspace about the relative benefits of moving to China to seek work. It prominently includes a NY Times Op-Ed piece by Jonathan Levine who is teaching at Tsing Hua University in Beijing, who raves about the benefits he's gained since moving there a year ago.  On the other side is a website called dontmovetochina.com that argues that despite the exceptional cases of success, most people in Beijing are spinning their wheels.  The author argues correctly that there are many more Chinese with better cultural knowledge and equivalent skills willing to do the job at a lower wage, which is largely true (there is more commentary here). But he also argues that part of the reason China is not a good destination for foreigners is that China is not used to immigrants and is not open to immigrants.  Well, what nation is, really, all that open to immigrants? If an immigrant to the US does not speak English, and speak it very well, can they really "succeed"?  I think he underestimates the ease of success for foreigners in the US.  Americans who speak with an accent, and who don't know sports, also have trouble "integrating" into American culture and making friends.  (My Taiwanese friends who went to the US all commented on this--and how insincere Americans were for saying "Let's have lunch!" and never following up.)  Cross-cultural communication is complicated.

The author also speaks of the cost of replicating a "Western lifestyle."  Maybe it is because I'm an anthropologist, but why would one want to replicate a Western lifestyle in Beijing?  Some of the items he  mentions (e.g. elbow-shaped smell traps in sewage pipes) are pretty useful, but others (e.g. ovens) are nice, but not essential. It is also true that it will be hard to make local friends in a cosmopolitan city like Beijing. Anthropologists have an easier time making local friends when they are in small towns or even villages, where they are novelties. Even then it is not easy, and people in modern times are busy and have other concerns, but a foreigner in a village is novel enough that she/he is sure to find people who want to be their friend. If you are trying to learn the language and culture, that is the place to go.

One question not addressed by the articles is how well do these foreigners really learn Chinese.  It is not that Chinese is inherently difficult, but that it is so different from English (or other European languages) that one cannot really "pick it up" but needs to study it.  Many foreigners who hope to learn Chinese go to China and make a living by teaching English, and then have no time remaining to learn Chinese. They also spend their free time in clubs and bars--not where you'll meet many locals.  I have interviewed a number of foreigners as candidates for our graduate program and I'm often surprised at how poor their Chinese is after even three years in China. If you can't speak fluently, it is of course going to be hard to make Chinese friends. I find his whining about the difficulty of meeting locals less than convincing, but I have not had his experiences. In my own cases, I've been lucky to have introductions, and my wife's work contacts, to add to my network when we lived in Taiwan.

Money as Gifts

Princeton sociologist Viviana Zeilizer has an interesting Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes in which she argues that "Nostalgic traditionalists and hard-nosed realists" are both wrong when they argue that money is or is not suitable for gifts. "For over a century, Americans have been demonstrating remarkable ingenuity in turning money into meaningful personal gifts." She has interesting examples from the early 20th century issues of The Ladies' Home Journal of ways that people hide money in cards, artwork, or in boxes and small gifts. Very interesting, but she this tension is strictly American, or "Western." Chinese have no problem giving money as gifts. It is the major form of gifts at the Lunar New Year holiday. There is something about money being dirty, be it from religious or feudal traditions, that still requires it to be hidden or laundered in the West, while it can be used "rationally" or "realistically" in China.

Why China is in a bubble

It is not a popular view here (in Hong Kong), but it seems to me that we are in the midst of a bubble. Some simple signs:

• Soaring property prices
• Inflation rising rapidly (just announced at 5.1% for November, up from 4.4% in October and including an 11.7% rate for food), such that it has already caused riots (one in a school in Yunnan, over the rise in lunchbox prices, made the front page of the SCMP)
• Repeated attempts by the government in China, and in Hong Kong, to rein in speculation by raising bank deposit requirements and the property sales tax
• The growing difficulty people are having finding a job, especially the young new graduates (see the NY Times article on this here)
• The smug conceit one often hears that "China is different" (where have we heard that before...)

Hard to figure out how and when this is going to end, however. But it will not be pretty.

News Stories That Make Chinese Students Feel China Is Better Than the USA #1

This type of story, which shows the importance of money in US politics, convinces many Chinese students that US democracy is a sham. Americans are used to it so dismiss it, but it undermines the image of democracy (to say nothing about what the money does to democracy).

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/10/25/toxic-brew/

The Tea Parties didn’t arise spontaneously: they were boiled up by big business.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 26th October 2010

Why I'll never be a good journalist

BBC Radio had a story about a week ago that was very clever, but wrong. It noted that the central government in Beijing has decided to end the "Golden Week" holiday over Labor Day, leaving only one day off for May 1st and adding other traditional "Confucian" holidays like Qing Ming and Dragon Boat day (Duanwu Jie). The correspondent noted that Marx is out, and Confucianism is in, as China plunges further into capitalism. Great hook: Marxism is fading, China is becoming capitalist and returning to its traditions. The problem is, the Labour Day Golden Week has only been a holiday since the 1990s, when the government got the idea of having a long holiday in order to increase travel and spending. The Labor Day Golden Week was not a Communist holiday, but was created to boost consumer spending. They are abandoning the Golden Week because they have been too successful; travel is impossible at that time, and most venues are overrun with tourists. By spacing out the holidays, they will spread out the travelers (in time). So this change is not from some socialist holiday to a capitalist/Confucian holiday (which is itself an odd juxtaposition, since Confucius was contemptuous of business), but from a consumerist holiday to an advanced consumerist holiday. But that story would not have had a hook. The correspondent must have known this, but he knew how to present his story so it would get on the news.