Showing posts with label Forbes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Forbes. Show all posts

Saturday, 5 March 2022

China The Global Power And Renminbi The Global Reserve Currency

 

Ukraine-Russia War: Chinese Momentum To Become The Global Power And Renminbi The Global Reserve Currency

I teach Finance-related courses at Middlebury College in Vermont.

In his book "On War," the Prussian General Carl Von Clausewitz surmised that "Peace is maintained by the equilibrium of forces and will continue just as long as this equilibrium exists, and no longer." By invading Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Russia brought that truth home to Europe. The Russian invasion exposes the weakness of Europe's strategic policies pursued since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Concurrently, it allows China to put the foundations of Western global hegemony in check, using Russia as a delusional pawn on the international chessboard.

Origins of China providing tacit support to Russia

February 24, 2022 will find its way into the history books next to November 9, 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. More interestingly is the link with another date, September 15, 2008, the day of the demise of Lehman Brothers and the onset of the Great Financial Crisis.

The 2008 financial meltdown resulted from an unbridled U.S. financial system, which refused to regulate derivatives (a policy endorsed by Larry Summers and Hank Paulson), was unable to contain the insatiable risk appetite of the banks, and which left insufficient capital buffers and highly leveraged positions unattended. The undoing started under the Clinton and Rubin administration with the promulgation of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, which dismantled the foundational 1934 Glass-Steagall Act. The Glass-Steagall Act ensured stable segregation between predictable retail banking and more risk-prone investment banking.

The crisis triggered a global housing price bubble burst, brought on by too lenient global monetary policies, irresponsible U.S. banking practice, outright fraud, and unsustainable global financial leverage.

Part of the global fault line was reflected in the substantial trade imbalance between China and the U.S. China benefited enormously from the globalization trend triggered by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the relocation of global production capacity towards its lower cost base. China became the global production house. This position was further bolstered by China joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2011. However, China was left unchallenged in managing its exchange rate, which is usually a "quid pro quo" for WTO membership. China recycled its excess U.S. dollars by building up a $1 Tr position of Treasury Securities. The move allowed China to keep its cost base (artificially) low by not selling the export generated $ revenue on the foreign exchange rate market.

The 2008 financial crisis revealed to China the vulnerability of the U.S. financial system. China saw the "safe haven" status of its abundant Treasury position unravel during the 2008 crisis. After an animated meeting between U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his Chinese counterpart during the 2008 Peking Summer Olympics China started taking its fate into its own hands: first through seeking global dominance, to be followed by the global reserve currency status.

Since the Ukraine invasion, China has been silent about sanctions (as was India), and it abstained at the March 2 U.N. General Assembly vote denouncing the attack. Remarkably, half of the 35 nations, representing 4 billion citizens overall, which abstained were African (amongst others Mozambique, Senegal, Uganda, South Africa, Zimbabwe,...). It would be insightful to review if the Mozambique U.N. vote was directed by the Chinese write-off of its debt in March 2021? Would there be similar U.N. voting patterns in relation to African sovereign debt extended or restructured by China?

The invasion and its broader ramifications were probably discussed during Putin's visit to China's Winter Olympics, where the "No Limits" partnership was inaugurated on February 4. Under the partnership, both countries announced mutual support over standoffs on Ukraine and Taiwan. Furthermore, both countries committed to collaborate more against the West on issues as diverse as climate change, artificial intelligence, and space.

Artyom Lukin, Professor of International Relations at the Far Eastern and Federal University in Vladivostok, explains that the China-Russia relationship is part of a "Post-West" world construct several years in the making. Ukraine seems to have been an opportunity too good to miss for both countries.

"The decision-makers in Moscow understand that without Chinese assistance, without the backing of China, Russia would be unable to withstand confrontation with the West."

Russia has been for many years an ardent and reliable ally supporting China's global ambitions to erode the Western world's power base. The Russian invasion is, in fact, part of a string of proxy wars between the U.S. and China. The aim is for China to take over world hegemony.

Russia's performance on the world scene (2008 – 2022)

Early in the first decade of this century, the Russian invasions of Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014) tested NATO's response mode and resolve. The July 2014 shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight 17 over Ukraine, killing 297, mostly Dutch passengers, was perpetrated by Russian soldiers in the Donbas region also tested NATO's willpower.

In September 2015, the sudden appearance of Russian troops in Syria at the request of the Syrian regime jolted Russia back onto the global power scene. Russian airpower proved critical in preventing the collapse of the Iranian-backed Assad regime. Assad, a member of the Shia minority, is still in power today. Through this intervention, Russia proved its mettle by strategically positioning itself in the Middle East. Its position has an even greater pull in the face of a potential U.S. withdrawal from the region.

In February 2022, President Macron's decided to withdraw French troops from Mali after they had encountered severe backlash, including from the private Wagner military group sponsored by Russia. Significantly, Mali is the third-largest producer of gold and has considerable uranium supplies.

The French troops had been deployed since 2013 as part of Operation Barkhane, the code name for the anti-jihadist operation covering Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. The efforts are now centered around Niger. As the sixth global producer of uranium, Niger is a critical purveyor of uranium to France, running 56 nuclear power plants. Ukraine is the ninth largest global producer of uranium.

These transgressions, all to seek influence and access to essential primary resources, occurred with no hard-hitting price to be paid by Russia. Russia had only green lights. Russia performed tasks that benefited China for which the payback is, at minimum, tacit support and, at best, from the Russian point of view, accommodation and compensation through the Chinese barter and financial system.

Europe, the indulgent facilitator

Since 1989, Europe has misread Putin's and his KGB entourage's intent to reinstall the grandeur of the Russian empire. In the eyes of a despotic Putin, Europe didn't deserve the expansion it was afforded at the expense of the lost Russian imperial eminence. Europe shuffled along on at least five strategic axes: energy policy, defense spending, cyber-security, illicit political party financing, and financial regulation.

1. Energy policy and the flawed decarbonization imperative

Nowhere has Europe positioned itself so vulnerably as in its energy policy.

Since the first oil crisis hit Europe in 1973, Europe has reduced its fossil fuel dependency by only a paltry amount, generating only 11% of its overall energy needs from renewables and a similar amount from nuclear energy. As of 2022, Europe is still reliant for almost 75% of its primary energy sources on fossil-based oil (39%), gas (25%), and coal (11%). Regarding natural gas dependency, Germany relies on Russia for 50% of its natural gas, Italy for 33%, and the Netherlands for 25%.

Combined with the urgent climate change adaptation recommendations articulated in the latest IPCC report, Europe no longer has an excuse to delay the geostrategic imperative to decarbonize 75% of its primary energy resources into renewables.

The behind-the-scenes pressures exercised by Gazprom and other energy lobbyists to classify natural gas as a green energy source during the E.U. Green Taxonomy review should be made public. Pressure from the E.U. commission to modify the E.U. Green Taxonomy should also be brought into the limelight. The Gazprom-managed Nordstrom P2 pipeline aims to delay the essential decarbonization process and, geo-politically, is nothing else than a Trojan horse.

2. Defense spending

Europe has been betting for too long on the peace dividend emanating from the fall of the Berlin Wall. Military spending as a percentage of GDP dropped from 2.4% in 1989 to 1.5% in 2020. (Germany reversed this trend by announcing on February 27, 2022, a surge in military spending of Euro 100 bn ($112 bn) bringing their expenditure to 2% of their GDP.) Earlier indications floated by the Trump administration of a less U.S. dominant NATO alliance also projected fissures within the Western front. Low defense spending in Europe and the diminished U.S. support for NATO under Trump let Putin believe that rebuke and resolve would be weak in case of another incursion.

3. Cyber-intelligence

A cyberattack in February 2022, disrupting several European oil refining hubs within the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) area, was only the latest of a string of ransomware strikes aimed at impairing crucial infrastructure and supply chain architecture.

The attacks exposed the need to secure legacy systems, especially in the energy and communications sectors, which have been outpaced in design due to accelerated digitalization and vulnerable connectivity to the internet. This is a major challenge both for Europe and the U.S.

Through the Digital Europe Programme, Europe decided to invest €1.6 billion into cybersecurity capacity for the period 2021-2027. This wholly inadequate amount is testimony to the seriously flawed understanding of this strategic military challenge.

4. Illicit political party financing

Russia has secretly funded European political parties with a staunch anti-EU stance. Russia is indiscriminate about financing parties both from the left and the right of the electoral spectrum, so long as they promote an anti-EU narrative. One example: In June 2020, the French far-right National Front party settled a controversial $10 MM loan dispute with a Russian aircraft parts company.

Furthermore, there are suspicions that Russia, through hacking and disinformation, meddled in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum and the 2016 Brexit referendum. The U.K. leaving the European Union caused a severe dent in the Western bloc.

Similar tactics were deployed when Russian operatives leaked internal emails from Democrats during the 2016 U.S. election. The 2019 Mueller report provides precise detail of Russian interference in U.S. politics.

Ingenious fiscal constructions make it more difficult to "follow the money." According to the Tax Justice Network, the Netherlands ranks fourth in locations that facilitate tax evasion by multinational corporations, behind the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, and Bermuda.

Such fiscal structures, in the slipstream, benefit oligarchs and despots from around the world.

Which are the financial institutions facilitating these transactions, and on whose behalf? Under which regulatory regime do they operate? And who in Europe is controlling these hidden money flows?

5. Financial regulation

The E.U. is only as strong as its weakest links. Since joining the European Union in 2007, Malta and Cyprus have offered E.U. citizenship for foreign cash.

This policy allows foreigners to gain E.U. passports and access to visa-free travel across the E.U. In the case of Cyprus, total bank deposits ($58 bn) are now a multiple of its Gross Domestic Product ($24 bn).

On the day of the Ukraine invasion, the Russian state-owned VTB Bank, which faced both European and U.S. sanctions, transferred its stake in Cyprus' Russian Commercial Bank to the two remaining shareholders, both of which are companies registered in Cyprus.

How are the Cyprus Central Bank and the European Central Bank overseeing these developments?

In addition, far too accommodating listing requirements have offered Russian companies straight access to primary markets in Europe.

There are 23 Russian companies listed on the London Stock Exchange, even after the suspension of VTB capital. The German stock exchange hosts 61 listed Russian companies. However, the operator of Deutsche Börse's Qontigo indices, Stoxx, decided to ax all Russian companies from its indices as of March 18.

Both NYSE and NASDAQ have now halted trading of about ten Russia-based companies.

The recent data leak at Credit Suisse exposed the hidden wealth of clients involved in torture, drug trafficking, money laundering, corruption, and other serious crimes. The 30,000 accounts represent $105bn of hidden assets. Switzerland has abandoned its neutrality and joined the E.U. sanctions against Russia with the invasion.

Can we rest assured that no other European and American financial institutions are abetting similar clients even after years of anti-money laundering and know-your-customer practices?

What is next?

The slew of sanctions imposed on Russia has led to severe financial damage:

  • The Ruble declined to 102 from 80 against the Dollar.
  • The Russian Central Bank doubled interest rates to about 20%.
  • The same Central Bank is precluded from accessing $630 billion in mostly dollar reserves.

In contrast, two major sources of export revenue are skyrocketing. Oil is quoted at $110 per barrel, and the Dutch April gas contract hit a new record high of €185 per megawatt-hour. Though SWIFT banned Russian banks from its messaging system, European and U.S. banks are still clearing Euro and $ denominated payments as part of sanction exemptions. This represents about $550 MM in daily revenue for Russia's state-controlled energy companies.

At current rates, oil and gas generate about $200 bn in annual revenue. Russia spent about $70 bn on its military capacity in 2021.

Europe has received a tragic wake-up call. Now it needs the resolve to tackle its main strategic challenges. The immediate priority for Europe should be to reduce the reliance on Russian energy and fossil fuel altogether.

Diplomatically and militarily, Europe should remember that the current "axis of evil" is run by Putin and some 50 of his acolytes. The post-Putin era should be envisioned with a Moscow alternative power base in mind which could quickly take over the reins. Ultimately, a decarbonized industrial and military alliance ranging from San Francisco to Vladivostok could be mapped. It would be a formidable bloc to balance out the global ambitions of China.

In the meantime, the critical question remains, what role is China playing behind the scenes?

Will BP's sale of its 20% Rosneft stake, at a loss of $25 bn, end up in the hands of Sinopec on the cheap? Will China National Offshore Oil Corporation take over Shell's LNG Sakhalin joint venture position with Gazprom?

What are the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) and the People's Bank of China facilitating on behalf of Russia during this crisis? Are they supporting the Ruble, as one would expect, given that the Ruble should have fallen much further because of the magnitude of sanctions applied? Will People's Bank of China intermediate any gold sale residing on the Russian Central Bank balance sheet to the tune of about 20% of its reserves?

Given the potential of Chinese intervention behind the scenes, China can also influence the reach of Putin's military moves.

Jimmy Carter famously remarked that China, since its 1979 Vietnam invasion, has been at peace with its neighbors and the world. Over and above crimes committed against its Uyghurs minority population, China knows exceptionally well how to entice other nations to engage on the battlefield on its behalf.

The time has come to call out China and end the human tragedy in Ukraine, as Russia overplayed its hand under China's watch. Yet, it will demand some astute chess play as China still sits on $1 Tr of Treasury securities, which could find their way on the market some day on a most inopportune moment for Western markets. It would be just another Chinese steppingstone, next to its Central Bank digital currency initiative, it its bid for global dominance and Renminbi to become the global reserve currency.

Follow me on LinkedInCheck out my website

I acquired more than 30 years of global senior executive experience within the corporate finance and capital markets fields at Fortis and BNPP. 

At Middlebury College, I teach as Professor of the Practice “Capital Markets”, “Investment Management”, “Carbonomics and Renewable Energy” and “Introduction to Finance”. I mentor through our entrepreneurial program and act as faculty advisor to the Student Investment Committee.


I also board advise early-stage companies and NGOs on the nexus of sustainable development and fintech. In 2020, I co-established the Sustainable Finance Unconference series, a quarterly platform where prominent sustainable finance peers present their recent contributions in the space.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankvangansbeke/2022/03/04/ukraine-russia-war-chinese-move-to-become-the-global-power-and-renminbi-the-global-reserve-currency/?sh=51861f0deb49

Tuesday, 18 January 2022

Beijing Olympics App Could Expose Athletes’ Personal Data, Researchers Warn

Last week, team USA athletes were advised to use “burner” phones during the event.

TOPLINE

 An app that athletes, spectators and media attending the Beijing Olympic Games must download and use for daily Covid-19 monitoring has security flaws that could expose users’ personal information, cybersecurity researchers at the University of Toronto warned Tuesday.

KEY FACTS

The app My2022 has a “simple but devastating” flaw, which at times failed to encrypt user data, leaving personal information exposed, the report by Citizen Lab said.

Attendees of the Winter Games use the app to upload information such as passport details, travel plans and medical histories before they arrive in China, and have to continue using it during the event for daily Covid-19 monitoring.

The app could censor some 2,400 keywords related to politics, but the feature appeared to be inactive, the report said.

The app’s security issues most likely violate Google and Apple’s policies, the report said.

Google and Apple did not immediately respond to a Forbes request for comment.

The security flaws are “not particularly surprising” for apps running in China, as similar issues have been found in most of the popular Chinese Web browsers, the report said.

KEY BACKGROUND

This is not the first time concerns have been raised about cyber security at the Winter Games. Last week, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee advised athletes, coaches and staff to refrain from using their personal electronic devices during the event due to surveillance concerns. It recommended attendees use “burner” phones instead of their cell phones. Athletes in the Netherlands, U.K, Australia and Canada have received similar recommendations, USA Today reported.

TANGENT

Surveillance cameras have been installed outside people’s doors and sometimes even inside people’s homes, CNN reported. There are at least 567 million surveillance cameras installed across China, CNN said. That is six times the number of cameras in the United States. 

FURTHER READING

Official Beijing 2022 Olympics Mobile App Is Marred by Security Flaws, Researchers Say (Wall Street Journal)

My2022: Beijing Olympics app vulnerable to data breaches, analysts warn (BBC)

Follow me on TwitterSend me a secure tip

I am a Greece-born reporter covering breaking news. Email me at lkim@forbes.com

Source

Sunday, 2 January 2022

Beijing Is Intentionally Underreporting China’s Covid Death Rate

Part 1: Beijing Is Intentionally Underreporting China’s Covid Death Rate

“The official figures do not reflect the true death toll, particularly in China…” - Newsweek

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2022/01/02/beijing-is-intentionally-underreporting-chinas-covid-death-rate-part-1/?sh=7db5d3644352

Coronavirus Pneumonia Outbreaks In China

GETTY IMAGES

The Covid pandemic — its ups and downs, waves and variants – has been the main driver of economic events, and financial market reactions, for the past two years. Positive news like the Pfizer/Moderna vaccine announcements in November 2020 have spurred major market rallies, and worries over new mutations of the virus have provoked sell-offs. We are now entering the phase (we are told) where the pandemic will become endemic – which means we will have to “live with it” and with the countermeasures that will be necessary. The debate is shifting from the medical aspects of Covid to the economic aspect – what price society will have to pay to “live with it” going forward.

This focuses attention on the trade-offs between economic and medical outcomes. And this in turn raises the question of which public health policies are optimal for balancing these concerns. Roughly speaking, the debate is shaping up between “open” policies and “closed” policies – with the U.S. and some other Western societies in the “open” camp, and China notably in the “closed” camp.

Which is best? The answer depends in part on measures of economic performance. The financial markets provide a window on this issue, signaling some level of distress in China. The Hang Seng Index is down 34% against the S&P 500 in the last 6 months, and Shanghai’s CSI 300 is off about 18% against the U.S. benchmark.


S&P 500 vs CSI 300 vs Hang Seng

One emerging conclusion is that China’s hard lockdowns and other aspects of its “zero covid” policy are imposing an economic penalty on the country and the companies that operate there. There is some evidence of an economic slowdown.

The other aspect of the trade-off is the public health outcome. Slower growth may be a reasonable price to pay if the medical goals are achieved. This is where there an important and problematic gap in the available data has become apparent. There are questions about the efficacy of the Chinese model. In particular, questions as to whether the medical and public health outcomes – e.g., rates of infection and mortality – being reported for China are accurate. If these concerns are valid, it will likely weigh upon Chinese financial markets and the valuations of the companies trading there.

The Great Discrepancy


In the United States, more than 825,000 people have died from Covid.

China’s official Covid death count is… 4,636.

(Pause right there, to consider that purported Fact.)

The difference in mortality rates is even more shocking. The Chinese government reports a Covid death rate overall of 0.321 per 100,000 population. The U.S. Covid death rate is 248 per 100,000 population –  800 times higher. 

Really? Much of the Western media has accepted these figures as valid, and pundits have pondered the gross failure (as it would seem) of American policies. Meanwhile, the Chinese authorities are triumphalist. As they see it, the success of their “zero covid” approach — marked by severe lockdowns for entire cities, travel bans, intensive contact tracing, military enforcement – simply demonstrates the superiority of their system.

30 Provinces Launch The First Level Response To Major Public Health Emergencies In China
GETTY IMAGES

  • “The Communist Party is rebranding itself as the unequivocal leader in the global fight against the virus. The state-run news media has hailed China’s response to the outbreak as a model for the world, accusing countries like the United States and South Korea of acting sluggishly to contain the spread. ‘Some countries slow to respond to virus,’ read a recent headline from Global Times, a stridently nationalistic tabloid controlled by the Chinese government. Online influencers have trumpeted China’s use of Mao-style social controls to achieve containment, using the hash tag, ‘The Chinese method is the only method that has proved successful.’” – The New York Times

But can we believe the Chinese numbers? 

A Chinese investor scratches his head as
AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

Origins vs Outcomes

Over the past two years, our understanding of the Covid phenomenon has evolved. Most of the critical attention has focused on determining the origin of the virus. The initial default hypothesis – that Covid is zoonotic or animal-transmitted – has come under scrutiny. The lab-leak theory has gained support. This is of course highly contentious, and any reassessment has been vigorously resisted by the Chinese. The origin question is scientifically complex, touching on the taxonomy and ecology of Asian bat populations, the typical patterns of viral evolution, and the minute details of genomic sequences. That debate will continue, and some are saying it may never be fully resolved. And in a sense, it is academic. Covid is here now and we have to deal with it regardless of how it originated.

But – the second and much more obvious discrepancy in the Covid narrative focuses on a question that is arguably more important: What is the best way to contain the spread of the virus? How can we reduce the levels of infection, hospitalization and death? 

To answer this question, the Covid mortality rate is a key metric. It defines the primary desired outcome of public health policy, and the primary measure of success or failure. If the mortality figures are unreliable, or subject to manipulation, we are in trouble. 

And we are in trouble. Because the mortality rates presented for China are plainly implausible. The Chinese death rates are much higher than what is published.

This is now becoming clear, as new statistical approaches start to shed light on the gap between the reported Covid death rates and the true death rates – the so-called “excess mortality” – comparing current Covid-impacted levels of mortality in careful ways with past averages and trends, to reveal the “surplus deaths” beyond the normal baseline, most of which can be attributed to undiagnosed, misdiagnosed or unreported Covid. This sort of close analysis of Covid mortality figures is being pursued by researchers at institutions including Johns Hopkins University in the U.S, Cambridge University in the UK, the Max Planck Institute in Germany, and by several leading media companies, including the New York TimesReuters, the Financial Times, and The Economist

This effort has started to reveal the truth – and the truth is shocking. 

Covid Mortality Statistics: “Reported” vs “True”

Official Covid death statistics are vastly understated, almost everywhere

 

  • “[The true death toll] is two or three times higher than the number of deaths we know about.” – Amber D’Souza, Prof. of Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
  • “Whatever number is reported is going to be a gross underestimate.” – Tim Riffe, a demographer at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany.”

 

The discrepancy varies from country to country. 

 

  • “The official death toll is a false figure… [and] it’s much worse than that. There’s no doubt that some countries are under-reporting COVID-19 deaths.” - David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at the University of Cambridge

 

The U.S. is apparently “guilty” of underreporting. According to the New York Times study, we probably undercount the prevalence of Covid deaths by about 17%. The Economist found a 7% discrepancy. They later increased their estimate of U.S. under-reporting to 30%. 

China is another story. Its official statistics understate the Chinese Covid death rate by 17,000% (according to The Economist’s model). 

In fact, based on excess mortality calculations, The Economist estimates that the true number of Covid deaths in China is not 4,636 – but something like 1.7 million. 

That is, China’s cumulative death toll is likely at least double that of the United States.

In the case of the United States, the discrepancy is inadvertent. It can be explained in terms of inefficiencies and frictions in the system that cause some data loss. 

In the case of China, it is clearly intentional. The Covid death figures are being grossly — one might say, crudely – manipulated by the Chinese authorities.

 

The Chronic Unreliability of Chinese Official Figures 

In some respects, this was to be expected, based on what we know of Beijing’s tendencies to tamper with the data in other areas. E.g.,  

 

  • The unreliability of official Chinese economic data is notorious; no need here for a lengthy demonstration. A detailed study by the St Louis Federal Reserve Bank concluded that “skepticism for Chinese official economic data is widespread, and it should be.” (A subject for another column.)
  • The pattern of non-cooperation, denial, obstruction, cover-up and data-destruction by Chinese authorities with respect to any inquiry involving Covid is now well-documented. [For details, see the recent book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19, by Matt Ridley and Alina Chan, published in November 2021 by Harper Collins.]

 

 

The Missing Covid Data

More specific to the Covid mortality question are the extraordinary lacunae in Chinese data related to Covid cases. 

It is becoming clear that the suppression or deletion of data related to excess deaths in China began shortly after the pandemic started. As a result, most multi-country studies of Covid prevalence and outcomes are forced to omit China from their analyses. 

 

  • November 2020: An academic study of 22 countries – “There are no data from China.”
  • January 2021: An academic study covering 77 countries – “[For China] the email addresses did not work and returned an error message… ‘We are sorry to inform you that we do not have the data you requested.’ … We treat Taiwan and Hong Kong as separate countries. They release monthly mortality data, whereas China does not.”
  • February 2021: One of the first mainstream media presentations of the excess mortality methodology by the New York Times catalogued the underreporting of nearly half a million Covid deaths in 35 countries – but did not include China. 
  • May 2021: The Economist – “The official death counts capture just a small share of the disease’s true impact… China’s data on excess deaths are heavily delayed or entirely unavailable.” 
  • July 2021: A Journal of American Medical Association study covering 67 countries still had nothing on China.
  • August 2021: “Data for China was unavailable.” – The Financial Times
  • September 2021: A University of Washington survey, translated into the map reproduced here — shows that even 20 months into the pandemic China was not publishing data on excess mortality (half the country reported nothing at all, and the other half reported de minimis); China was the only country in the world at this point, other than Greenland and the former Spanish Sahara, that did not provide this data. 

China's Data Gap

China's Data Gap

 CHART BY AUTHOR

 

China’s suppression of data related to the origins of the virus – e.g., the lab records of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or the whitewashing of the WHO inquiry – is well known. The ongoing suppression of basic mortality data – which continues now two years into the pandemic – has received much less attention. It is just as serious an impediment to the scientific understanding of disease and the effectiveness of countermeasures. 

 

The Case of the Missing Wuhan Data

The missing data problem also emerges from an examination of the hotspot — the only hotspot for Covid in all of China — Wuhan, in Hubei province. According to China’s official statistics, Hubei has accounted for 97% of all Covid-related deaths in the country. (The outbreak in Xian in the last few weeks may soon alter this calculation.) 

All of the reported deaths in Wuhan/Hubei occurred between Jan 1 and March 31 of 2020. After that, all reporting ceased. 

 

  • “There are no excess-death statistics for the period from April 2020 onwards.” 

 

Even the data that “escaped” in this brief window show a puzzling degree of instability. The extreme geographical and temporal concentration of the disease outbreak, affecting just a single major urban center, during a short period, under almost total lockdown, ought to have simplified the task of data collection (compared to the difficulties of collating reports from hundreds or thousands of reporting sites spread across an entire country). 

However, the Wuhan/Hubei death count has been subject to a series of revisions, adjustments, and gaps. 

After the Wuhan outbreak was allegedly brought under control by the end of March 2020, the original “final count” of Covid deaths in the city was set at 2,579. Then in April, an adjustment added another 1,290 deaths, said to be “the result of patients who died at home without a diagnosis in the early stages of the outbreak and failures by hospitals to report numbers correctly.” That brought the Wuhan count up to 3,869, where it sits today. Another 643 deaths came from the province of Hubei outside of the city, for a total of 4,512. (Beyond Hubei, there have been just 124 Covid deaths reported in all of China over two years.)

In February 2021, an article in the British Medical Journal analyzed the overall mortality statistics from Wuhan. The researchers found that there were 5,954 more deaths in Wuhan compared to the same period in 2019 – “as a result of an eightfold increase in deaths from pneumonia, mainly covid-19 related.” This “excess mortality” calculation suggested that the actual Covid death count for that period was at least 54% higher than the official figure.  

In May 2021, The Economist was able to review and reanalyze some of the data used by the BMJ researchers. Using more sophisticated methods to estimate excess mortality, the Economist’s team found that

 

  • The data suggest that total excess deaths in Wuhan between January 1st 2020 and March 31st 2020 numbered 13,400. That is more than triple the official count, and more than double the estimate in the BMJ paper. 

To summarize: 


Source

Most Recent Post

Man charged for borrowing rare Chinese manuscripts from UCLA library, returning fakes

  Suspect Jeffrey Ying allegedly travelled to China after checking works out using several aliases Agence France-Presse Published: 12:11pm, ...

Popular Posts - Last 30 days