As the number of coronavirus cases has risen to a staggering 79,000 worldwide, China has enforced a partial or total lockdown on 780 million of its residents. Called the “people’s war” against the spread of Covid-19, quarantine measures include travel restrictions, the banning of non-essential vehicles on local roadways, and financial rewards for reporting those who fail to comply to quarantine orders. In Hubei, the 60 million-populated province said to be the epicenter of the Novel Coronavirus outbreak, strict measures have been imposed, particularly in the cities of Wuhan, Huanggang, Shiyan, and Xiaogan. There, residents are banned from the private use of cars, leaving their house without permission, and purchasing cold medicine without the disclosure of their temperature, address, and identification number, causing residents to struggle with shortages of food and medical supplies. 

Other Chinese cities have implemented far less extreme controls, utilising a monitoring scheme whereby officials, known as grid workers, screen the temperatures of those who enter their designated complexes or areas, noting if they have recently travelled to a different city. Zhejiang, the province with the highest rates of virus cases outside of Hubei, has 330,000 grid workers circulating households and neighbourhoods. In practice, however, these control measures can be ineffective as travel records primarily rely on self-reporting. 

Some neighbourhoods have distributed residence permits, allowing only those living there entrance. Additionally, organisations and officials such as the local government of Shijiazhuang have promised its citizens up to RMB2,000 (US$290) for reporting anyone returning from Wuhan, essentially shutting their doors to travellers from the area. This was not before roughly five million people from Wuhan left the city in January. The financial reward coupled with the permits, however, only adds to the growing discrimination or “anti-Hubeiness” faced by residents and workers from the region. With Hubei providing more than five million blue-collar workers to other Chinese provinces last year, it is likely that many will be discriminated against as increased security and travel permits make it increasingly difficult to hide one’s identity. Many employed by factories have already been forced to take unpaid leave. 

In addition to local travel restrictions, more than a dozen airlines, including those of New Zealand, Finland, and the United Arab Emirates, have cancelled flights or scaled back services to China. Some countries, such as the United States, Australia, Singapore, Russia, and Mongolia, have barred all foreign nationals who have been in China in the previous fortnight entry into their nations, through visa refusals and quarantine – a Category I restriction as noted by China’s foreign affairs ministry. With China being the world’s second-largest aviation market after the U.S., these international travel restrictions may incur serious repercussions. James Liang, Co-founder and Executive Chairman of China’s largest travel agency, Trip.com Group, wrote: “In the short term, these nations will have ostensibly safeguarded their security, but in the long term, they will adversely affect cooperation with China across all areas.”

In part, the “aggressive containment mode” (Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. CDC) many countries are pursuing can be attributed to the unknown. As cases worldwide surge drastically, particularly in South Korea, Japan, and Iran, researchers are beginning to question the virus’s initial date of discovery. Not only have officials in Hubei faced scrutiny over beliefs that they downplayed reports of the emergence of the virus late last year, but that President Xi Jinping himself was involved. A study conducted by Imperial College researchers led by Christl A. Donnelly, estimated that over 1,700 people could have been affected by the virus by mid-January, as compared to China’s 41 cases reported at the time. Though the margin of error in this and other similar studies remain high, particularly due to other factors including human-to-human transmission confirmed overseas, it raises questions for the World Health Organisation (WHO) who previously praised China for its “transparency.” 

It is important to note, however, that the Imperial College’s analysis was not aimed at criticising Beijing’s efforts, with Donnelly noting that the study could instead paint a clearer image of what countries can expect from the virus. She continued, “It’s difficult for any country if a new disease starts in your country…when you first start you really don’t know what the potential is.” Furthermore, Beijing said it has been actively cooperating with international experts, with experts from the WHO, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan being invited to Wuhan to inspect current prevention and control measures in place. 

Though it took two weeks for the agency to gain permission from Beijing to send a group of experts to China, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, “China is doing many good things to slow the virus, and this has to be recognised.” China has already spent $800 million, deployed thousands of medical staff, and built two field hospitals to treat those infected. Although there are increasing signs of transmission outside China, indicating that “the window of opportunity we have for containing the virus is narrowing,” said Ghebreyesus, it is important to acknowledge the humanity behind the virus in an effort to deepen collaboration between people and nations.