China Research

I get puzzled every day about China’s numbers for new corona infections. They are extremely low and very even – mainly between 30 and 60 new cases on a daily basis (but with a very limited increase to around 100 people since two days ago). This accuracy may remind China observers of all the even GDP-increases from quarter to quarter in the past years.

To me, Chinese corona statistics still appears as a conundrum. This feeling of mine can be seen as a result of long-lasting shortcomings in transparency and statistical quality. However, I would appreciate to read soon at least some illuminating or clarifying (partial) answers to the following ten questions:

1) What is the explanation for the reported stability of new infection cases, since several weeks ago daily at very low levels?

2) When making comparisons to other – also very advanced – countries: Why are the Chinese numbers for recovered infected people and total deaths so extremely low?

3)  What about the risk for a second corona wave, particularly in Wuhan – and what is done to prevent China from new wave infections in other parts of the country?

4)  What can be said more exactly about the geographical distribution of corona infections?

5)  Are there – though very uncertain – any statistical indicators available, like the time for doubling infections or the so-called reproduction value (i.e. the number of new infections caused by one already infected person)? Are there any statistical improvements worth mentioning?

6)  How big – or rather small – is the fraction of the Chinese population that has been tested?

7)  What is the age distribution for corona-infected people so far? What about the elderly?

8)  How is the official position as regards wildlife markets? Are there strict limitations now?

9)  Are there statistical numbers for people who have returned to their corona-affected jobs?

10) How will the statistical, i.e. political strategy look like for GDP growth in the first quarter? (Are there official hints for interpretation: down more sharply and looking for a good recovery – or a more moderate fall for preserving the face and, consequently, a more modest recovery?). To be published on April 17.

More questions could be raised. Of course, I know that certain questions cannot be answered right now or in the best case only partly – as it is the case in certain corona issues in our part of the world. But I also know that the Chinese could give us a lot of experience and conclusions from the most terrible days in Wuhan, about current conditions there and in the rest of their large country.

An opportunity for China

Since the corona virus indeed is a very global phenomenon, I feel sure that the whole world could benefit from sharing more Chinese openness and transparency in the whole corona issue – and so could China benefit itself.

For example, it seems to be the case – when following debates on TV or comments in the press – that many or even most Western virologists have no clou about how the Chinese system is functioning. How could they? But they do need better information about China as country and about the characteristics of the ongoing corona crisis to come to important conclusions for the future.

Wouldn’t it be a good idea for China to contribute actively to this badly needed improvement of international understanding and research? This could be beneficial for the whole world – and certainly for China as well, also when it comes to the creation of good will outside China.

Hubert Fromlet
Affiliate Professor at the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University
Editorial board

Back to Start Page

I have written before that China in recent weeks had low numbers of new corona cases, currently around 50-75 people on a daily basis – extremely low compared to other strongly affected countries. Consequently, the question shows up regularly whether China really has been successful in combatting the corona virus, i.e. whether the curve for corona infections really has been flattening out or even has started to go down.

My own long-lasting experience from application of Chinese statistical numbers is not really positive because of obvious qualitative shortcomings and lagging transparency. This is a historical burden for China also these days. It takes such a long time to create, improve or restore credibility in these respects. And if improvements finally really occur, they may not reach or convince previously doubtful (foreign) analysts.

Some weeks ago, I suggested in this blog that China unexpectedly could achieve  quite some gain in credibility once statistics on corona developments appear more reliable. However, doubts still seem to be motivated if such a change already has  happened yet or is intended to happen any time soon. As mentioned above, current numbers from China on new corona cases look by far too low compared to other countries (but I am no virologist). For example, it seems to have a negative impact on corona numbers that local authorities so far were not obliged to register those infections publicly that had no obvious symptoms of the disease. One can imagine that such organizational problems or downsizing attitudes also exist in other countries.

Things do not look encouraging either when watching the Chinese press and their positive reports on international recognition of Chinese corona efforts. However, I certainly would refrain from recommending Western virologists and other researchers to stop listening to Chinese experts about their fight against the corona virus. However, foreign analysts should be careful about directly using Chinese numbers in their studies. Learning about non-numerical Chinese corona experience may be very useful all the same.

And why shouldn’t strongly affected countries in Europe and other parts of the world resist to accept Chinese deliveries of corona-protective equipment to their hospitals? Even if China tries to use such support for gathering sympathy points from abroad?

We all live in a global community. All countries should assist and help each other whenever possible when human touch is needed.

Hubert Fromlet
Affiliate Professor at the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University
Editorial board

Back to Start Page

I had my doubts for years about the accuracy of Chinese statistics – a view that I also expressed many times on this page. I also used to add that real progress in accuracy and transparency will take long time to be acknowledged by neutral analysts. This may be the case also right now if we just assume that reported low numbers of new corona infections in China really should be true https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. Anyway, one has to wonder how reality will look like when Wuhan now gradually returns to normality.

Obvious strategy dilemma
In my view, Chinese political leaders right now struggle with two possible strategies – or even a combination of these two strategies. One strategy is to show the superiority and efficiency of the Chinese system compared to the Western world, aiming at least at finding strong support by the Chinese people. Another strategical priority may be to relatively smoothly turn back GDP growth to acceptable levels in order to present China’s economy as strong and clearly recovering during the Communist Party’s 100^th anniversary year of 2021. Of course, one may suggest that these two strategies are linked to each other.

The first test in this respect will be the statistical outcome of national GDP accounts for Q1 this year. Will it be a very weak number in order to allow for a relatively good recovery later this year? Or prefer the highest decision-makers a still quite moderate slowdown in order to achieve rather a smooth downsizing of the Chinese economy during 2020 -with the objective to avoid an uncomfortable statistical slowdown of average GDP growth this year?

Compromise?
My own belief is that China’s political leadership will compromise between these two strategic approaches. However, it seems to be impossible to have an idea about the preferred bias. Thus, it can be recommended to follow developments in China and political statements from there as closely as possible.

Hubert Fromlet
Affiliate Professor at the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University
Editorial board

Back to Start Page