China should be held accountable for COVID-19

“Dec. 10: Wei Guixian, one of the earliest known coronavirus patients, starts feeling ill.

Dec. 16: Patient admitted to Wuhan Central Hospital with infection in both lungs but resistant to anti-flu drugs. Staff later learned he worked at a wildlife market connected to the outbreak.

Dec. 27: Wuhan health officials are told that a new coronavirus is causing the illness.

Dec. 30:

• Ai Fen, a top director at Wuhan Central Hospital, posts information on WeChat about the new virus. She was reprimanded for doing so and told not to spread information about it.
  
• Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang also shares information on WeChat about the new SARS-like virus. He is called in for questioning shortly afterward.
  
• Wuhan health commission notifies hospitals of a “pneumonia of unclear cause” and orders them to report any related information.
  

Dec. 31:

• Wuhan health officials confirm 27 cases of illness and close a market they think is related to the virus' spread.
  
• China tells the World Health Organization’s China office about the cases of an unknown illness.
  

Jan. 1: Wuhan Public Security Bureau brings in for questioning eight doctors who had posted information about the illness on WeChat.

• An official at the Hubei Provincial Health Commission orders labs, which had already determined that the novel virus was similar to SARS, to stop testing samples and to destroy existing samples.
  

Jan. 2: Chinese researchers map the new coronavirus' complete genetic information. This information is not made public until Jan. 9.

Jan. 7: Xi Jinping becomes involved in the response.

Jan. 9: China announces it has mapped the coronavirus genome.

Jan. 11–17: Important prescheduled CCP meeting held in Wuhan. During that time, the Wuhan Health Commission insists there are no new cases.

Jan. 13: First coronavirus case reported in Thailand, the first known case outside China.

Jan. 14: WHO announces Chinese authorities have seen "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus."

Jan. 15: The patient who becomes the first confirmed U.S. case leaves Wuhan and arrives in the U.S., carrying the coronavirus.

Jan. 18:

• The Wuhan Health Commission announces four new cases.
  
• Annual Wuhan Lunar New Year banquet. Tens of thousands of people gathered for a potluck.
  

Jan. 19: Beijing sends epidemiologists to Wuhan.

Jan. 20:

• The first case announced in South Korea.
  
• Zhong Nanshan, a top Chinese doctor who is helping to coordinate the coronavirus response, announces the virus can be passed between people.
  

Jan. 21:

• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms the first coronavirus case in the United States.
  
• CCP flagship newspaper People’s Daily mentions the coronavirus epidemic and Xi's actions to fight it for the first time.
  
• China's top political commission in charge of law and order warns that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity."
  

Jan. 23: Wuhan and three other cities are put on lockdown. Right around this time, approximately 5 million people leave the city without being screened for the illness.

Jan. 24–30: China celebrates the Lunar New Year holiday. Hundreds of millions of people are in transit around the country as they visit relatives.

Jan. 24: China extends the lockdown to cover 36 million people and starts to rapidly build a new hospital in Wuhan. From this point, very strict measures continue to be implemented around the country for the rest of the epidemic.

The bottom line: China is now trying to create a narrative that it's an example of how to handle this crisis when in fact its early actions led to the virus spreading around the globe.”

“China's top political commission in charge of law and order warns that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity."

“...Following a notification, a State Party shall continue to communicate to WHO timely, accurate and sufficiently detailed public health information available to it on the notified event, where possible including case definitions, laboratory results, source and type of the risk, number of cases and deaths, conditions affecting the spread of the disease and the health measures employed; and report, when necessary, the difficulties faced and support needed in responding to the potential public health emergency of international concern”

an argument could be made that just like support for terrorism, which is legally actionable, a government that engages in such reckless disregard and negligence and covers up an epidemic which has the potential to spread worldwide could be held legally liable ,"

OBJECTION: Pro's thesis is written in the passive voice, thereby avoiding agency.  This thesis has no subject.  Who should hold China accountable?  PRO must specify.  What International body has such authority over a sovereign state?   PRO must specify.

PRO must prove that some (as yet undefined) group has the right and responsibility to legally compel China to explain and justify its pandemic response

CHINA SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE COVID-19 

“(The WHO) routinely has spent about $200 million a year on travel expenses, more than what it doles out to fight some of the biggest problems in public health, including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined.” [1]

The UN agency relied on funding and the cooperation of members to function, giving wealthy member states like China considerable influence. Perhaps one of the most overt examples of China's sway over the WHO is its success in blocking Taiwan's access to the body, a position that could have very real consequences for the Taiwanese people if the virus takes hold there.

• International law restricts reparations to injuries resulting from the wrongful act itself, not any knock on effects
  
• "It is only injury caused by the internationally wrongful act of a State for which full reparation must be made. This phrase is used to make clear that the subject matter of reparation is, globally, the injury resulting from and ascribable to the wrongful act, rather than any and all consequences flowing from an internationally wrongful act"
  

• That is, any sanction would also have to identify and prove specific individual harms.  Consider that most American cases of COVID-19 came from Europe, not China:
  
• There are presently some 30,000 known mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 strain, many of which reveal specific geographic points of origin.  Genetic sequencing allows us to say with confidence which US infections came from Wuhan, or Italy, or Spain, or the US, etc.
  
• After Wuhan went on lockdown on Jan 23, genetic modeling suggests that China stopped transmitting much virus and the US mostly had those few Chinese cases under control.  The US outbreak was preventable over the following four weeks by heavy restriction or testing on European travel but those restrictions did not come for seven weeks.  Since China has no hope of influencing US-European travel, Chinese policy cannot be blamed for the majority of US cases
  
• Gonzalez-Reiche, et al.  Introductions and early spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the New York City area
  
• "our results show that the NYC SARS-CoV-2 epidemic has been mainly sourced from untracked transmission between the US and Europe, with limited evidence of direct introductions from China where the virus originated"
  
• Fauver, et al. Coast-to-Coast Spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the Early Epidemic in the United States
  
• "Because of the overall low prevalence of COVID-19 in China, we did not find any significant effects of travel restrictions from China that were enacted on February 1.  Although we did find a dramatic decrease in international importation risk following the restrictions on travel from Europe (March 13)"
  
• Worobey, et al.   The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe and the US
  
• " we date the introduction leading to the largest NYC transmission cluster to Feb. 20th, 2020 (Feb. 14th–Feb. 26th).  Despite the early successes in containment, SARS-CoV-2 eventually took hold in both Europe and North America during February 2020: evidently first in Italy in early February, then in Washington State mid-February, and then in NYC later that month. Our finding that the virus associated with the first known transmission network in the US did not enter the country until mid-February is sobering, since it demonstrates that the window of opportunity to block sustained transmission of the virus stretched all the way until that point"
  
• PRO's unidentified plaintiffs can only address cases directly attributable to China, rather than cases attributable to other government's insufficient responses after Dec 31 notification
  

• The world's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as led by China, has been the fastest and most effective response in the history of epidemics
  
• For example, over four years passed between the first confirmed AIDS death in the US and the first Presidential directives addressing the pandemic
  
• 5 months passed between the first confirmed SARS death and the WHO's first issuance of a global health alert
  
• 10 months passed during the 2009 swine flu pandemic between the first confirmed death and the the WHO's declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern
  
• 10 months passed during the 2015–2016 Zika virus epidemic between the first confirmed death and the PHEIC
  
• 21 days passed between the first death attributed to COVID-19 and the PHEIC
  
• China leads the world in COVID-19 research
  
• 39% of published scientific papers are Chinese authors
  
• 46% acknowledge Chinese funding
  
• "Chinese researchers become more independent increasing the volume of domestic as well as international collaborations in the COVID-19 era. Moreover, the Chinese research funding agencies play a vital role in supporting high quality research and development work in China.. These findings are in contrast to some popular accounts that Chinese scientists are withholding valuable information and reducing cooperation in the early stages of the global pandemic"
  

• The propaganda and downplaying of the virus caused it to spread around the world
  

• “China's top political commission in charge of law and order warns that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity."
  

• However, that was not the case. For 2 months, China shared extremely limited information about the virus. It failed to disclose that 1,700 healthcare workers were infected until Feb. 14, over a month and a half after the crisis had started
  

• China did not share the mapped genome for a week. If it had shared it, thousands of lives could’ve been saved
  

• China shared the map on Jan 9, 10 days after China knew it had a new disease, 2 days before the first known death from the virus, four days before the first known case outside of China
  
• 7 days refutes PRO's claim of "2 months"
  
• The evidence that China had sequence on Jan 2 is anecdotal and not confirmed
  
• Nations had enough to start testing for the presence of coronavirus on Dec 31
  
• The genetic sequence was not necessary for nations to begin lockdowns, travel restrictions, screening, contact tracing, etc and most nations still waited weeks or months to begin large scale interventions.  How can PRO prove that 7 day gap had any effect on international responses?
  

• Also, China permitted a huge "Lunar Year" festival which thousands of people attended
  

• According to PRO's own timeline that festival was Jan 18, two days before scientists even confirmed human-to-human transmission
  
• How can PRO fault any govt. for not quarantining before scientists even advise whether or not a quarantine is warranted?
  
• The Chinese govt. implemented quarantine 3 days after scientists confirmed human transmission and just before China's biggest holiday- an decision of astonishing swiftness and courage for any politician.  The US, for example, knew of American transmissions by Jan 21 but lockdowns didn't start for nearly 2 months
  

• China obviously has not communicated with the WHO on a timely basis
  
• PRO's "two month delay" claims have been show to be fiction
  
• From early on, the WHO praised China's transparency:
  
• "We appreciate the seriousness with which China is taking this outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership, and the transparency they have demonstrated, including sharing data and genetic sequence of the virus. WHO is working closely with the government on measures to understand the virus and limit transmission. WHO will keep working side-by-side with China and all other countries to protect health and keep people safe”
  

• Media BIas/Fact Check reports:
  
• "We rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits"
  
• CON rejects all evidence sourced from FOX News as unreliable
  

• 95% of coronavirus cases could've been stopped if China acted earlier, and rapid geographic proliferation could've been stopped
  

• PRO conclusion is based on an awful misreading of the same paper quoted above
  
• "The study...shows that without non-pharmaceutical interventions – such as early detection, isolation of cases, travel restrictions and cordon sanitaire – the number of infected people would have been 67 times larger than that which actually occurred"
  
• "The research also found that if interventions in the country could have been conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier, cases could have been reduced by 66 percent, 86 percent and 95 percent respectively – significantly limiting the geographical spread of the disease. However, if NPIs were conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks later than they were, the number of cases may have shown a 3-fold, 7-fold, or 18-fold increase, respectively"
  
• PRO edits out the "if interventions could have been conducted" part because that's where his argument fails
  
• Lai, et al places the date of China interventions as Jan 23- the Wuhan lockdown, major travel restrictions, testing, etc
  
• demonstrates that China's swift, effective response likely saved tens of millions of lives worldwide
  
• How could China possibly justify a lockdown before human transmission was confirmed on Jan 19?
  
• 3 weeks before, COVID was 27 patients in Wuhan, no deaths.  Imagine the international outrage if China had shut down factories, crashing stock markets without any scientific basis whatsoever?
  

• If PRO's subject doesn't have the responsibility to compel China then how can PRO argue that everybody in the world SHOULD?
  
• If the subject has no jurisdiction, then by what authority does everybody in the world act?
  
• Is PRO calling for some violation of China's sovereignty?
  
• Is PRO willing to risk war?
  
• If yes, PRO needs to state as much explicitly.  VOTERs should be advised whether PRO's plan is illegal.  VOTERS deserve to know whether PRO is advocating military engagement. CON argues that any SHOULD bears a substantially higher burden for persuasion when the plan is unlawful and/or involves a lot of death
  
• If no, PRO's plan is impossible
  

Arguing that India should attack Pakistan assumes that India can attack Pakistan and that India will attack Pakistan.  If India has no legal grounds for war then India should not attack Pakistan- that would not be appropriate.  If the Indian people refuse en masse to go to war (will not), then attacking India would not be right.  If CON can show that India can't attack Pakistan then VOTERS will be more likely to be persuaded by should not

• For evidence, PRO provides a timeline that doesn't contain a single example of Chinese propaganda or international downplay
  
• PRO should explain how this long cut & paste serves his case
  
• PRO's timeline affirms these essential facts:
  
• Wuhan health officials confirm an outbreak of some unknown disease on Dec 31 and notify WHO on the same day (thereby fulfilling China's international health agreement obligations)
  
• On Jan 20, China confirms human-to-human transmission and locks down 4 major cities, begins testing, contact tracing  just 3 days later
  
• PRO wants to characterize this response as slow to which CON ask slower than who? when? 
  
• CON expects PRO to show multiple examples of faster national responses to new disease outbreak
  
• If  PRO cannot show faster national epidemic response than China's COVID response, PRO must concede "fastest epidemic response ever"
  
• PRO's timeline sources one peer-reviewed study which finds that by early March, China's rapid-fire implementation of
  
• travel restrictions
  
• social distancing, lockdown
  
• mass testing and contact tracing
  
• were not just highly effective but
  
• "without [these interventions], the COVID-19 cases would likely have shown a 67-fold increase (interquartile range 44 - 94) by February 29"
  
• "if [these interventions] were conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks later than they were, cases may have shown a 3-fold (IQR 2 - 4), 7-fold (5 - 10), or 18-fold (11 - 26) increase, respectively"
  

• The bottom line: China is now trying to create a narrative that it's an example of how to handle this crisis when in fact its early actions led to the virus spreading around the globe.”
  

• China's epidemic response is the fastest mass national response to a disease outbreak in history
  
• China confirmed human-to-human transmission on Jan 20
  
• any expectation that the Chinese govt. implement quarantines before confirming human-to-human transmission is unreasonable
  
• PRO must show that the 3 day turn around from confirmation to quarantine is somehow unacceptable
  
• Let's recall that most nations waited weeks or months to quarantine after confirming infections in their countries
  

• “China's top political commission in charge of law and order warns that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity."
  

• PRO is using this as an example of China downplaying? 
  
• CON submits PRO's own quote as evidence that  China was taking the disease quite seriously as early as Jan 21
  

But it was not until Feb. 14 — more than a month into the crisis — that China disclosed that about 1,700 front-line medical workers were infected at the time. The figure, which has since grown, was published in a research paper, not reported directly to the World Health Organization.

"The research also found that if interventions in the country could have been conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier, cases could have been reduced by 66 percent, 86 percent and 95 percent respectively – significantly limiting the geographical spread of the disease. However, if NPIs were conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks later than they were, the number of cases may have shown a 3-fold, 7-fold, or 18-fold increase, respectively"

• Twitter deleted millions of accounts that spread misinformation about the virus.
  

• PRO must prove that everybody in the world has the right and responsibility to legally compel China to explain and justify its pandemic response
  
• If nations don't have the RIGHT [noun] (legal, moral entitlement) to compel China, then nations would not be RIGHT [adjective] (correct) to act.
  
• Since SHOULD is used to show what is right (correct) and lack of moral or legal entitlement makes national acts of accountability unrighteous, SHOULD is disproved using PRO's own definition and in spite of PRO's semantic diversions.
  
• PRO is presenting a plan.  If the plan is unwise or disproportional or not possible those are valid refutations of SHOULD.  If the plan lacks any legal or moral basis, then SHOULD is disproved.
  
• VOTERS will note that PRO outright dodged his obligation to  VOTERS to explain whether his plan violates international law.
  
• VOTERS will note that PRO refused to say whether his plan risks or even deliberately provokes war with China.
  
• These two drops demonstrate that PRO's plan is not to be taken seriously.
  

• CON consistently uses the WHO as a source, but as already proven, it is unreliable and corrupt.
  

• CNBC, stated that if China had released information such as correct death rates, and the mapped genome. The rapid increase of cases could've been "dramatically slowed"
  

• The actual quote is "China stalled for at least two weeks more on providing WHO with detailed data on patients and cases, according to recordings of internal meetings held by the U.N. health agency through January — all at a time when the outbreak arguably might have been dramatically slowed"
  
• Here is China's first detailed case data from Jan 24- the day after lockdown
  
• CNBC is probably accurately reporting that somebody at WHO claimed that China stalled on releasing this data for two weeks but this seems unlikely.
  
• For example, the case data reports that 6 of the original 41 died but
  
• 2 weeks before on Jan 10, nobody had yet died of COVID.
  
• PRO dropped CON's refutation that "thousands of lives could've been saved"
  
• PRO dropped CON's argument that Jan 2 sequencing is based one scientist's claim and not yet corroborated
  
• PRO dropped CON's argument that the genetic sequence was not essential to any nation's epidemic response
  
• "The genetic sequence was not necessary for nations to begin lockdowns, travel restrictions, screening, contact tracing, etc and most nations still waited weeks or months to begin large scale interventions.  How can PRO prove that 7 day gap had any effect on international responses?"
  

• source 2, of my round 1 argument proves that the "timely response" with China simply does not exist.
  

• Again, debunked in CONTENTION 2, R2.
  
• China shared healthcare worker infection rates as early as Feb 7
  
• China did not coverup 1700 infected healthcare workers for weeks until Feb 14, that number of infected healthcare workers was not possible until mid-Feb.
  
• PRO dropped FOX news claimed of "legal liability"  No evidence remains supporting Chinese liability
  

• PRO concedes Chinese immunity form international law
  

• Yes, China is recognized as a sovereign state. That means, no body of government or law has control over it.
  

• PRO never argued and so concedes that China leads the world in COVID research, funding, and prevention.
  
• PRO failed to show that any national response to a new disease outbreak has ever improved on China's present performance.
  

• Let's recall that China came under intense international criticism for acting as soon as it did
  
• If China had acted before Jan19, shutting down factories, exports, crashing the world economy and then the science proved no human-to-human transmission, China would have suffered far more exposure to criticism, sanctions
  
• China's 3 day political response to the science was remarkably swift
  
• China should be lauded for its efficiency, not scapegoated for COVID-19's virulence
  
• Thanks to Crocodile for this timely topic and
  
• Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration
  
• PLEASE VOTE CON