China's 'Zero-COVID' Policy

 “Zero COVID” was a policy implemented by China to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus. As its name suggests, the policy’s aim was to keep the number of infections as close to zero as possible. The Zero COVID policy in China involved various measures, including strict border control, rigorous testing, contact tracing, large-scale lockdowns (spanning, in some cases, entire cities), and quarantine. While the Zero COVID policy was successful in reducing the number of infections in China for a time, it has been criticized for its heavy-handed approach and violation of civil liberties.

 

 

The Zero COVID policy has been criticized for its negative impact on China’s economy. The closure of manufacturing operations disrupted supply chains, and logistics and export channels were also affected, which had significant ramifications due to China’s substantial role in global manufacturing. On the consumption side, revenues for retail shops, restaurants, and entertainment venues plummeted, resulting in financial trouble and job losses for many. In addition, the unpredictability of the pandemic and the measures taken to control it have created uncertainty for businesses operating in China. Since businesses were unsure of what measures would be implemented next, many had difficulty planning operations and investments for the future. 

 

 

Furthermore, the Zero COVID policy entailed overly strict measures whose implementation constituted violations of civil liberties and human rights. Under the policy, many citizens were subjected to lockdowns spanning entire neighborhoods or cities and forced quarantines. Electronic seals were used to seal people into their homes, while some were forcibly taken to government-designated facilities that were overcrowded and, in some cases, lacked basic necessities like food and medical care. Thus, it can be said that some quarantine measures not only violated people’s freedom of movement but also deprived them of essential needs. The use of surveillance technology, such as face recognition and tracking apps, to closely monitor citizens’ movement and enforce quarantine measures was also criticized. The government’s actions raised questions about privacy violations and the potential abuse of obtained information. All in all, Zero COVID was problematic on multiple human rights counts. 

 

 

Lastly, the sustainability of the Zero COVID policy in the long term is uncertain. The policy entails stringent measures such as lockdowns and mass testing, which are economically and socially costly. There are concerns that the prolonged implementation of the Zero COVID policy could lead to social and political unrest, not to mention decreased public compliance with the measures. People may become fatigued with the strict restrictions and may begin to resist or disregard the measures altogether. Also, the economic consequences of the policy, namely the closure of numerous businesses and the sharp decline  in consumer demand, may persist long after the pandemic is brought under control. In these respects, it will not be easy to maintain the Zero COVID policy in the long term.

 

 

While it is true that the Zero COVID Policy has had considerable success in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in its initial stages, excessive restrictions can result in long-lasting social and economic consequences. It is reasonable for governments to request some sacrifices from citizens to tackle a pandemic of this magnitude. Nevertheless, a more sustainable approach may be to focus on vaccination and other measures to control the spread of the virus, while allowing for a degree of normalcy in daily life and economic activity.