Under COVID-19-pandemien gennemf\u00f8rte Kina et omfattende eksperiment for at se, om det var muligt at begr\u00e6nse overf\u00f8rslen af denne virus inden for landet og forhindre, at den blev bragt ind i landet af rejsende fra udlandet. Efterh\u00e5nden som begivenhederne udviklede sig, blev denne fremgangsm\u00e5de kendt som \"nul COVID-strategien\". Virkede den? Svaret er p\u00e5 en m\u00e5de, men den m\u00e5tte opgives p\u00e5 grund af konsekvenser, som ikke kunne forudses, da strategien blev iv\u00e6rksat.<\/p>\n
Men lad os f\u00f8rst se p\u00e5 de specifikke foranstaltninger, der indg\u00e5r i \"nul COVID-strategien\". For at g\u00f8re det skal vi helt tilbage til januar 2020, da Kina inds\u00e5, at de skulle indberette 40 us\u00e6dvanlige tilf\u00e6lde af alvorlig lungebet\u00e6ndelse i byen Wuhan. Det var de f\u00f8rste officielt rapporterede tilf\u00e6lde af COVID-19-pandemien, og meget hurtigt blev sygdommen overf\u00f8rt af rejsende til andre lande. Et nyt og nyt coronavirus blev ret hurtigt identificeret som \u00e5rsagen, men man vidste kun lidt om, hvordan dette virus ville p\u00e5virke befolkningen. Det var klart, at det blev overf\u00f8rt fra person til person, men hvilke foranstaltninger kunne man tr\u00e6ffe for at forhindre, at det spredte sig?<\/p>\n
Da de enkelte lande inds\u00e5, at internationale rejsende spredte sygdommen fra land til land, indf\u00f8rte de enkelte lande foranstaltninger for at forhindre eller begr\u00e6nse indrejsen af mennesker til deres lande. Foranstaltninger som f.eks. indrejseforbud, krav om COVID-testning f\u00f8r ombordstigning p\u00e5 fly eller indf\u00f8relse af obligatorisk karant\u00e6ne for rejsende, der kom ind i landet, blev indf\u00f8rt i n\u00e6sten alle lande.<\/p>\n
I mellemtiden, da en test for virussen var tilg\u00e6ngelig, iv\u00e6rksatte landene foranstaltninger for at stoppe intern overf\u00f8rsel, f.eks. ved at kr\u00e6ve social afstandtagen, lukning af offentlige institutioner, krav om at b\u00e6re maske og isolere sig selv, hvis man er syg, og ved at opfordre folk til at blive testet.<\/p>\n
Indf\u00f8relsen af effektive vacciner og nye behandlinger, der drastisk reducerede komplikationer som hospitalsindl\u00e6ggelse, intensivbehandling og d\u00f8d, \u00e6ndrede tingene. Pandemien blev mere h\u00e5ndterbar, og behovet for dramatiske foranstaltninger for at forhindre rejsende i at rejse ind i landet og for at standse den lokale smitte blev mindre.<\/p>\n
I midten af 2022, da store dele af befolkningen var vaccineret, var der en vis tolerance over for et lavt niveau af overf\u00f8rsel af virus, hospitalsindl\u00e6ggelse og d\u00f8dsfald, og n\u00e6sten alle de tidlige bek\u00e6mpelsesforanstaltninger kunne derfor oph\u00f8re.<\/p>\n
Hvordan klarede Kina sig s\u00e5 i alt dette?<\/p>\n
Der blev tidligt taget skridt til n\u00e6sten at eliminere internationale flyrejser og indenlandske rejser med alle transportmidler. De folkesundhedsm\u00e6ssige foranstaltninger s\u00e5som social distancering, begr\u00e6nsning af befolkningens bev\u00e6gelser, karant\u00e6ne og omfattende COVID-testning blev gennemf\u00f8rt med en intensitet, som ikke er set i andre lande. Det erkl\u00e6rede m\u00e5l var at stoppe al overf\u00f8rsel af virus overalt. Der blev ofte anvendt et \"lockdown\"-koncept for hele samfund eller endog byer, s\u00e5ledes at alle bev\u00e6gelser og interaktioner blev standset. N\u00e5r der blev mulighed for testning, blev hele byer underkastet COVID-testning og efterf\u00f8lgende karant\u00e6ne.<\/p>\n
Hvis folk blev testet positive, var der en risiko for, at de ville blive sat i karant\u00e6ne i flere uger p\u00e5 et hospitalsv\u00e6relse. Hvis man gik i en butik eller p\u00e5 en restaurant, der havde haft bes\u00f8g af en COVID-positiv person, kunne man blive tvunget til at opholde sig p\u00e5 et karant\u00e6necenter med sparsomme indkvarteringsmuligheder i lang tid. Eller du kan blive l\u00e5st inde i dit eget hjem uden tilladelse til at forlade det, selv for at skaffe mad. Det samme resultat kunne ske, hvis du bare passerer en smittet person p\u00e5 gaden.<\/p>\n
Hvis man var blevet sp\u00e6rret inde i karant\u00e6ne, blev man ofte udsat for diskrimination efter sin l\u00f8sladelse.<\/p>\n
Testning blev allestedsn\u00e6rv\u00e6rende. I storbyer som Beijing, Shanghai og Shenzhen med en befolkning p\u00e5 flere millioner mennesker skulle folk testes hver anden eller tredje dag ved en stand p\u00e5 fortovet. Overholdelsen af reglerne blev overv\u00e5get via sundhedskoder p\u00e5 ens mobiltelefon.<\/p>\n
Der blev indf\u00f8rt kinesisk producerede COVID-vacciner, og der blev givet mere end 3 milliarder doser. Unders\u00f8gelser viste imidlertid, at de mest anvendte vacciner havde en effektivitet p\u00e5 51% (CoronaVac) og 79% (Sinopharm), hvilket er betydeligt lavere end de vacciner fra Moderna og Pfizer, der anvendes i mange andre lande.<\/p>\n
Tilbage til det oprindelige sp\u00f8rgsm\u00e5l: virkede alle disse h\u00e5rde foranstaltninger?<\/p>\n
Svaret er, at der ikke var nogen v\u00e6sentlige udbrud eller \"b\u00f8lger\" af infektion i 2020 og 2021. Se denne tabel:<\/p>\n I alt har Kina rapporteret om ca. 10,5 millioner tilf\u00e6lde og 32 700 d\u00f8dsfald frem til den 5. januar 2023. I samme periode registrerede USA 101 millioner tilf\u00e6lde og 1,1 millioner d\u00f8dsfald.<\/p>\n Selv om der ofte s\u00e6ttes sp\u00f8rgsm\u00e5lstegn ved de kinesiske datas p\u00e5lidelighed og n\u00f8jagtighed, er forskellene mellem de to lande og resultaterne af deres forskellige strategier betydeligt forskellige.<\/p>\n Men er Kinas nul-strategi b\u00e6redygtig? Den er lige g\u00e5et i stykker. For flere uger siden blev 10 mennesker dr\u00e6bt af en brand i en afl\u00e5st og i karant\u00e6ne st\u00e5ende lejlighedskompleks i byen Xinjiang. Den ophobede frustration i befolkningen over de restriktive kontrolforanstaltninger kogte over. Der var offentlige demonstrationer i mange byer, hvor der blev sat sp\u00f8rgsm\u00e5lstegn ved behovet for fortsatte afsp\u00e6rringer og omfattende testning og karant\u00e6ne. Befolkningen kr\u00e6vede, at regeringens nul COVID-strategi blev bragt til oph\u00f8r. De \u00f8konomiske omkostninger ved de strenge restriktioner (f.eks. lukkede virksomheder, arbejdsl\u00f8shed osv.) er ogs\u00e5 blevet ub\u00e6rlige.<\/p>\n I begyndelsen af december 2021 \u00e6ndrede Kina sin nul COVID-strategi med dramatiske konsekvenser. N\u00e6sten alle foranstaltningerne i nulstrategien blev suspenderet n\u00e6sten fra den ene dag til den anden. Som f\u00f8lge heraf oplever Kina en hidtil uset stigning i antallet af sager. Selv om dataene er tvivlsomme, er der rapporter om en stigning p\u00e5 n\u00e6sten 50%, fra 15 161 nye hospitalsindl\u00e6ggelser p\u00e5 det kinesiske fastland i den uge, der sluttede den 25. december, til 22 416 i den uge, der sluttede den 1. januar. Det officielle d\u00f8dstal er underrapporteret, men krematorierne rapporterer, at de er oversv\u00f8mmet med lig.<\/p>\n Hvorfor skete det? Vi kan spekulere i, at en kombination af faktorer har bidraget til denne eksplosion af COVID. P\u00e5 den ene side f\u00f8rte den pludselige oph\u00e6velse af de meget restriktive foranstaltninger til en \u00f8jeblikkelig blanding af smittede og ikke-smittede mennesker, f.eks. familiesammenf\u00f8ring, rejser til andre byer, offentlige forsamlinger osv. - hvilket alt sammen \u00f8gede risikoen for overf\u00f8rsel af virus. Desuden var store dele af befolkningen ikke beskyttet p\u00e5 grund af vacciner med lav effektivitet.<\/p>\n Endelig, hvad betyder den nuv\u00e6rende situation i Kina for alle de andre lande? P\u00e5 den ene side vil en enorm b\u00f8lge af nye COVID-19-tilf\u00e6lde sprede eventuelle nye virusvarianter, n\u00e5r den kinesiske befolkning rejser internationalt. Desuden giver et stort antal virusoverf\u00f8rsler viruset mulighed for at udvikle nye varianter. Men lige nu fors\u00f8ger Verdenssundhedsorganisationen og sundheds- og regeringsembedsm\u00e6nd verden over at vurdere den eller de risici, som Kinas COVID-19-problem medf\u00f8rer.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column] Under COVID-19-pandemien gennemf\u00f8rte Kina et massivt eksperiment for at se, om det var muligt at begr\u00e6nse overf\u00f8rslen af denne virus i landet og forhindre, at den kom ind i landet via rejsende fra udlandet. Som begivenhederne udviklede sig, blev tilgangen kendt som \"nul COVID-strategien\". Virkede den? Svaret er lidt [...]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":83478,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"\n During the COVID-19 pandemic, China conducted a massive experiment to see if it were possible to contain transmission of this virus within the country and keep it from getting into the country by travellers from abroad. As events unfolded, the approach became known as the \u201czero COVID strategy\u201d. Did it work? The answer is sort of but it had to be abandoned due to consequences that could not be predicted when the strategy was started.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But first, let\u2019s look at the specific measures that made up the \u201czero COVID strategy\u201d. For that, we have to go way back to January 2020 when China realized that they had to report the occurrence of 40 unusual cases of severe pneumonia in the city of Wuhan. They were the first officially reported cases of the COVID-19 pandemic, and very shortly, the disease was carried by travellers to other countries. A new and novel coronavirus was identified rather rapidly as the cause, but little was known about how this virus would affect the population. Clearly, it was transmitted from person-to-person, but what measures could be taken to stop it from spreading?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Realizing that international travellers were spreading the disease from county to country, individual countries instituted measures to stop or limit people from entering their countries. Measures such as banning entry, or requiring COVID testing before boarding aeroplanes, or establishing mandatory quarantine for entering travellers were established in nearly all countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, once a test for the virus was available, countries initiated measures to stop internal transmission, e.g., mandating social distancing, closing public establishments, mandating mask-wearing, self-isolation if ill, and urging people to get tested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The introduction of effective vaccines and new treatments that dramatically reduced complications such as hospitalization, intensive care and death changed things. The pandemic became more manageable and the need for dramatic measures to restrict travellers from entering and for stopping local transmission was reduced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By mid-2022, with large segments of the population immunized through vaccination, a certain level of tolerance for low levels of transmission of the virus, hospitalization and death allowed for the discontinuance of almost all the early control measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So how did China fare in all of this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Early on, steps were taken to nearly eliminate international air travel as well as domestic travel by any means of transportation. The public health measures such as social distancing, limitations on population movement, quarantine and extensive COVID testing were implemented with an intensity not seen in other countries. The stated goal was to stop all transmission of the virus everywhere. A \u201clockdown\u201d concept was often applied to entire communities or even cities, such that all movement and interactions were stopped. When testing became available, entire cities were submitted to COVID testing and subsequent quarantine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If people tested positive, there was a risk that they would be quarantined for weeks in a hospital room. If you went to a store or restaurant that had been visited by a COVID-positive person, you could be required to stay at a quarantine centre with sparse accommodations for a long time. Or you might be locked up in your own home without permission to leave, even to secure food. The same result could happen if you just passed an infected person on the street.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you had been locked up in quarantine, you were often subjected to discrimination after your release.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Testing became ubiquitous. In large cities such as Beijing, Shanghai or Shenzhen with populations of tens of millions of people, people were required to be tested every two or three days at sidewalk booths. Compliance was tracked through health codes on your cell phone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chinese-produced COVID vaccines were introduced and more than 3 billion doses were administered. However, studies showed that the most commonly used vaccines were 51% effective (CoronaVac) and 79% effective (Sinopharm) which is considerably lower than the commonly used Moderna and Pfizer vaccines in many other countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Back to the original question: did all these harsh measures work?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The answer is that there were no significant outbreaks or \u201cwaves\u201d of infection throughout 2020 and 2021. Check out this table:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, China reported approximately 10.5 million cases and 32,700 deaths through 5 January 2023. In the same time period, the USA recorded 101 million cases and 1.1 million deaths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the reliability and accuracy of Chinese data are often questioned, differences between the two countries and the results of their different strategies are considerably different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But is China\u2019s zero strategy sustainable? It just broke. Several weeks ago, in the city of Xinjiang, a fire in a locked quarantined apartment building killed 10 people. Accumulated frustration in the population with the restrictive control measures boiled over. There were public demonstrations in many cities questioning the need for ongoing lockdowns and extensive testing and quarantine. The population demanded the end to the government\u2019s zero COVID strategy. The economic costs of severe restrictions (e.g., closed businesses, unemployment, etc.) also have become unbearable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In early December 2021, China reversed its zero COVID strategy with dramatic repercussions. Nearly all of the measures in the zero strategy were suspended almost overnight. As a result, China is experiencing an unprecedented surge in cases. Although the data are questionable, there are reports of almost a 50% increase, from 15,161 new hospitalizations for mainland China during the week ending December 25 to 22,416 for the week ending January 1. The official death count is underreported but crematoria report that they are inundated with bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why did this happen? We can speculate that a combination of factors contributed to this explosion of COVID. On one hand, the sudden lifting of very restrictive measures led to an immediate mixing of infected and uninfected people, e.g., the reunification of families, travel to other cities, public gatherings, etc. \u2013 all of which increased the risk of transmission of the virus. In addition, large portions of the population were not protected due to vaccines with low levels of effectiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, what does the current China situation mean for all the other countries? On one hand, a huge wave of new COVID-19 cases will spread any new virus variants as the Chinese population travels internationally. In addition, large numbers of virus transmission provide the virus with opportunities to develop new variants. But right now, the World Health Organization and health and government officials worldwide are trying to assess the risk(s) created by China\u2019s COVID-19 problem.<\/p>\n","_et_gb_content_width":"","inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[155,156,20],"tags":[108,109,145,112,113,22,229],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n
\n Land<\/td>\n Antal tilf\u00e6lde pr. 100.000 personer<\/td>\n Antal d\u00f8dsfald pr. 100.000 personer<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Kina<\/td>\n 75<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n USA<\/td>\n 30,400<\/td>\n 331<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t[\/et_pb_row]
\n\t\t[\/et_pb_section]<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Country<\/td> Number of Cases per100,000 People<\/td> Number of Deaths peer100,000 people<\/td><\/tr> China<\/td> 75<\/td> 2<\/td><\/tr> USA<\/td> 30,400<\/td> 331<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n