Generational Dynamics World View News

[FishbellykanakaDude]

..loves me some sea shanties...!! Har.....

[tim]

Is China lying or do they have a vaccine/medication for the virus?

If the Chinese soldiers were getting sick and virus is spreading would we see evidence on the internet or does the government have such control that information would never get out?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/20/pl ... irus-free/

China’s Military Claims to Be Virus-Free

Officially, not a single PLA soldier has been infected.

BY JOEL WUTHNOW | MARCH 20, 2020, 9:58 AM

U.S. observers have widely criticized China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for its lackluster initial response to the 2019 coronavirus outbreak. After the deployment of hundreds of PLA medics and other support personnel into Wuhan and other cities, those critiques are now less tenable. PLA personnel have been on the front lines of the crisis for the past two months, reprising roles they have played during other emergencies, such as the 2002-2004 SARS crisis and the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, and providing relief to stressed local health systems.

The question now is whether the PLA has been forthcoming about its ability to withstand the withering effects of the virus on its own personnel. On March 3, a Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman claimed that not a single PLA service member—out of a force of some 2 million—had been infected, pointing to the effectiveness of the PLA’s force protection measures (such as avoidance of large gatherings).

That seems highly unlikely. A strong circumstantial case can be made that the PLA is unlikely to have been spared from infections that have ravaged the country since the end of last year. Concealment of a disease making its way through parts of the PLA, if true, would underscore a military highly sensitive to the release of details on its current readiness. This would be a sign of weakness, not confidence.

The PLA under President Xi Jinping’s leadership has cultivated an image of confidence and determination in its ability to carry out the most dangerous assignments. Such self-assurance has been broadcast to domestic and international audiences through high-octane recruitment ads, films such as Wolf Warrior 2, and grandiose military parades. Images of Chinese troops boldly deploying to Wuhan over the past two months, and doing so without falling victim to the insidious virus, confirm this narrative of the PLA as a force to be reckoned with.

China’s official denial that any PLA members had been infected became instant fodder for the Hong Kong rumor mill, which cited claims that a group of 200 soldiers attached to the PLA’s airborne corps, based near Wuhan, were quarantined after one had become infected, while 300 others were quarantined on the island of Hainan after a submariner was stricken. Others asserted that the virus was running rampant through both the air force and the People’s Armed Police, and that “isolation houses” for military personnel had been set up in numerous locations.

Unverified reports circulating in Hong Kong tabloids should be taken with a large grain of salt. Some of the specific allegations may prove exaggerated, distorted, or untrue. However, there are several reasons to suspect that the PLA has likely concealed at least some cases.

is the first China’s track record of obfuscation in similar circumstances. During the SARS crisis, Beijing initially denied that any service members had been afflicted. Only when a PLA whistleblower came forward to the Western press with revelations that hundreds of patients were being treated in military hospitals did Chinese officials change their tune. Ultimately, the World Health Organization verified that about 8 percent of China’s SARS cases were military personnel.

Then consider the concentration of PLA personnel in the vicinity of Wuhan, which has been the epicenter of the virus in mainland China. PLA units in and around the city include airborne troops, a reserve anti-aircraft artillery battery, academies of all four services, and the central depot of the Joint Logistic Support Force, which was established in 2016 as the main provider of general purpose supplies for the entire army. (The location reflects Wuhan’s status as a critical rail juncture.) In such an army town, it is unlikely that PLA members—including reserve and militia personnel mixed in with society and active-duty troops on leave during the Spring Festival holiday—were completely unaffected.

It beggars belief, given the number of Chinese military medical personnel on the front lines of the pandemic, that they all avoided infection.It beggars belief, given the number of Chinese military medical personnel on the front lines of the pandemic, that they all avoided infection. According to Chinese media, more than 10,000 PLA health care workers have deployed, including more than 4,000 to operate makeshift hospitals in Wuhan. Others have played supporting roles involving contact with local populations. China’s National Health Commission has confirmed that more than 3,000 civilian medics have been infected, with more than a dozen deaths reported. It is dubious to think that PLA doctors, nurses, and technicians are so much more proficient than their civilian counterparts that they have been able to avoid any cases whatsoever.

Concealment of infections in the PLA would signal continuing roadblocks to Chinese military transparency. Chinese officials have touted an increasingly transparent PLA, most recently through a lengthy white paper on military modernization. Yet U.S. scholars have argued that PLA transparency has been at best uneven. One barrier has been the PLA’s tendency to avoid sharing embarrassing information with civilian leaders, or even the lack of effective communication between different parts of the PLA, which was a reason for its secrecy during the SARS crisis. PLA officials today—aware of Xi’s willingness to sack anyone accused of mishandling the crisis—may be hiding information about infections in order to avoid the fallout if top leaders were to become aware of those failures.

Another obstacle to transparency is the perception that revealing too much damaging information about the PLA’s shortcomings would have negative domestic and international repercussions. Domestically, Beijing has utilized the military as a tool not only to fight the pandemic, but also to reassure a nervous population. One PLA Daily report with the headline “The PLA Has Arrived!” boasted that “the people’s army under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is just like a raging flame, bringing confidence, strength, and hope to the people.” Confirmation that the disease is spreading in the PLA would undercut that message and raise deeper questions about the party’s ability to manage the crisis: If the last line of defense fails, then what?

Externally, Beijing relies on the military to deter its rivals and respond to provocations. One of the PLA’s clearest official messages is that the crisis has actually increased the PLA’s readiness by providing real-world experience for thousands of troops—an argument that has some validity. However, acknowledging PLA infections at the same time (especially in combat units such as the airborne corps or on submarines) would complicate that argument and, at least from Beijing’s perspective, might embolden regional antagonists to press their claims in the South or East China seas, or otherwise exploit the crisis for their own benefit.

This is not to imply that the PLA has been completely opaque about its own weaknesses. One exception is a wide acknowledgment of failures among PLA commanders and staff officers to prepare for future wars—a theme that has been broadcast in PLA media as a way to reduce complacency and stimulate positive changes. However, the line seems to be drawn at providing details on current readiness. The PLA does not, for instance, disclose information on the current manning levels of individual units. Obfuscation in cases like SARS and perhaps the 2019 coronavirus provides additional evidence of a PLA wariness to reveal information that could reduce confidence in its current ability to respond to domestic crises or deter foreign rivals.

Such an attitude stands in contrast with the U.S. military, which has already publicized specific details on cases in the ranks. While there are obviously limits to U.S. disclosures on privacy and national-security grounds, the relative openness reflects both effective coordination between civilian and military officials and confidence in the military’s ability to continue operating effectively at a time of enormous distraction. The PLA’s need to project an air of impunity—and immunity—in the latest crisis should be taken as a sign of nervousness about its ability to complete other missions while consumed with a domestic crisis. Such a conclusion would point to a PLA that still has some distance to go in its quest to become what Xi calls a “world-class” military.

Joel Wuthnow is a research fellow at the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs at the U.S. National Defense University. The views expressed are his own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

[tim]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/1 ... ade-136188

Virus pushes U.S.-Chinese relationship toward fracture

The fallout from the global pandemic threatens the recent U.S.-Chinese trade deal and could undermine future global stability.

By NAHAL TOOSI and ADAM BEHSUDI
03/18/2020 06:45 PM EDT

The coronavirus may do more to unravel U.S.-Chinese ties than trade wars, technology threats and presidential tweets ever did.

The two countries’ relationship — already under enormous pressure in recent years — is on the verge of imploding as both sides seek to assign blame for the virus’ origin and exchange tit-for-tat recriminations on other fronts, including expelling journalists.

The fallout from the global pandemic threatens the recent U.S.-Chinese trade deal and could undermine future global stability given the importance of both countries to international trade.

Beyond trade, the virus’ spread could even lead to more long-term shifts in how the U.S. and China are perceived. China, which has continued to shore up its military power in the face of longstanding U.S. supremacy, has now begun offering aid to other countries crippled by the virus as a way to showcase its global leadership amid a slow, limited U.S. reaction.

“I cannot think of a more dangerous time in the U.S.-China relationship in the last 40 years, and the carnage from the coronavirus has barely begun in the U.S.,” China analyst Bill Bishop wrote this week in his widely read Sinocism newsletter.

The first phase of the trade deal that the two sides agreed to in December eases, but does not fully eliminate, the tariffs President Donald Trump put into place and has China agreeing to buy some $200 billion more in U.S. goods and services over the next two years.

China appears to be meeting some of the deal’s deadlines for now, but there are concerns that, given the damage the virus — as well as the trade war — has done to its economy, it may not be able to buy all the U.S. goods as quickly as it had promised. The virus’ effect on U.S. businesses, meanwhile, could dampen some industries’ ability to offer the goods and services China might want.

Despite pressure from U.S. businesses, Trump said Wednesday he wouldn’t be suspending tariffs that remain, although the administration has exempted certain medical supplies from the import penalties.

When asked whether he would lift more penalties, Trump said, “China is paying billions and billions of dollars in tariffs, and there's no reason to do that,” reiterating his incorrect assertion that China, not U.S. businesses and consumers, pays the tariffs. “They haven't even spoken to me. China hasn’t asked me to do that.”

The response and rhetoric surrounding the pandemic is now throwing into question whether the two sides will enter into a second phase of negotiations to address some of the more systemic issues that have plagued the U.S.-China trade relationship.

The virus may prove to be the most compelling reason for the two countries to “decouple” economically, as some of Trump’s hawkish advisers have long wanted.

Trump is expected to sign an executive order this week that will place new “Buy America” requirements on government purchases of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro has been leading the effort, which would attempt to reduce reliance on China for vital drug ingredients and supplies like masks and gloves.

“The problem we’re facing is that any time we have a public health emergency, people wake up to the extreme foreign dependency that we have,” he said. “And after the crisis is over, they promptly go back to sleep.”

Steve Bannon, a former chief strategist in Trump’s White House who has long warned about the dangers posed by a rising China, said any goodwill built up as a result of reaching the initial trade deal is now moot. He blamed Beijing’s early actions — when it was accused of trying to cover up the crisis and resisting outside help — for “metastasizing” the pandemic.

“Now you can see they are on a propaganda offensive to blame this on the West, particularly the United States, and it’s going to lead to a further confrontation. There is a confrontation coming,” Bannon said.

He said a confrontation would likely involve an escalation “in the information war and the economic war.”

Escalating rhetoric could hinder coordinated response
Since the virus began to spread globally, officials on both sides have used social media and other platforms to attack each other.

Trump, for instance, has taken to calling the coronavirus the “Chinese virus,” a term critics say is racist and xenophobic. He says Beijing’s ruling Communist Party has left him no choice but to do this because Chinese officials are floating conspiracy theories that the COVID-19 illness began in the U.S. or was planted in China by the U.S. military.

“I have to call it where it came from; it did come from China,” Trump said Tuesday when asked about his use of the “Chinese virus” label. “So I think it’s a very accurate term.” He continued: “I didn’t appreciate the fact that China was saying that our military gave it to them.”

Trump on Wednesday pushed back on mounting criticism for his use of the term, insisting, “It’s not racist at all.”

Scientists believe the virus was first spotted in China’s Hubei province, where the city of Wuhan was an epicenter. But as China has, through strict quarantines and other measures, appeared to bring the virus under control, it has gone about trying to fudge that history.

A spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, Lijian Zhao, has been particularly brash, using Twitter — a platform banned for most Chinese — to share articles and raise questions about whether the U.S. was the origin of the illness.

“It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation!” Zhao tweeted on March 12.

The Washington-Beijing clash is going well beyond just rhetoric.

China said this week that it is expelling American journalists working for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. It also announced new restrictions on several U.S.-based outlets including Voice of America.

American reporters have been among the most aggressive in covering the coronavirus outbreak in China, as well as other issues deemed sensitive there.

China said it was merely taking reciprocal action after the Trump administration recently announced new restrictions on Chinese media outlets in America, including capping the number of Chinese citizens working for them. The Trump administration also has designated several Chinese media outlets as foreign missions — effectively treating them as arms of the Chinese government, which plenty of analysts say is a fair characterization.

In a briefing with reporters Wednesday, a senior State Department official defended the Trump administration’s approach in high altitude terms, saying that for decades the U.S. has tried to build a “normal relationship” with China, but that the Chinese have taken advantage of America’s relatively open system without offering similar access.

“For the last 40 years, you can characterize a relationship of them competing while we’ve been trying to cooperate. This administration has understood that this is a relationship characterized by strategic competition,” the official said.

Many public health experts have raised alarms about the U.S.-China rhetoric and reciprocal actions during the coronavirus crisis.

They argue that now is not the time for either side to insult the other, because working together will help speed up efforts to contain the virus across the world.

And the U.S., to its credit, has sent tons of humanitarian aid to China and offered millions in additional assistance to help it fight the virus.

Trump himself has avoided criticizing Chinese leader Xi Jinping directly. It’s a cautious approach he’s long taken despite the trade war and other scuffles, apparently believing that keeping a strong personal relationship with Xi could pay off down the line. In January, when Trump was downplaying the spread of the illness, he even thanked Xi in a tweet praising China for “working very hard” to contain the coronavirus.

But Trump aides feel they cannot allow the Chinese to rewrite history. In a phone call with a senior Chinese foreign policy official earlier this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned “that this is not the time to spread disinformation and outlandish rumors, but rather a time for all nations to come together to fight this common threat,” according to a State Department readout.

While some Democrats have blasted the Trump administration and its supporters for its heated rhetoric toward China, there’s strong bipartisan support in Washington for the broader idea that the U.S. needs to be tougher on China. And there are plenty of signs that sentiment isn’t on pause amid the coronavirus pandemic.

In recent weeks, U.S. lawmakers have sent legislation to Trump that allows for paying rural telecom carriers $1 billion to eliminate and replace materials in their networks that come from Huawei and ZTE. Both are Chinese telecommunications firms that U.S. officials fear could be a means of exposing U.S. networks to Chinese hacking and spying.

In mid-February, the U.S. Department of Justice filed racketeering and conspiracy charges against Huawei and some of its subsidiaries, alleging they were trying to steal trade secrets from American companies.

China looks to capitalize on slow U.S. response
The Chinese Communist Party, which saw its reputation dealt a major blow over its initial handling of the virus within its borders, is now trying to capitalize on its recent successes containing the illness’ spread.

China has sent experts to assist Italy as it battles severe outbreaks of the virus, while offering assistance to Spain. It has pledged to send at least 100,000 test kits to the Philippines. And it has made clear, through actions and pledges, that it will help other nations that need it.

Chinese charities have also stepped up to offer assistance to other countries, including the United States. In requesting Beijing’s assistance, Serbia’s president declared this week: “The only country that can help us is China.”

Senate leaders and White House officials are discussing a massive, third stimulus package to salvage the economy.

“This support is highly valued and we are grateful for it,” she said.

It’s clear that Beijing sees itself filling a global leadership role that would traditionally be held by the United States, but which, under Trump’s “America First” philosophy, appears vacant.

Chinese state-controlled media websites are filled with stories about the U.S. struggle to control the virus in its borders. They’re also filled with stories about Chinese leader Xi offering words of comfort to his counterparts abroad.

“Sunshine always comes after the rain,” Xi said, according to a Chinese media report of his conversation with Spain’s prime minister.

[ScratInTheHat]

I think shutting down the economy to keep drug addicts and elderly people alive who will all be dead within five years anyway is stupid. I'm an older person (70) and I am willing to take my chances if it means my grandchildren won't have to live in abject poverty for the rest of their lives.

I love people jumping right to killing people without addressing what John has covered time and time again over the years. The cost of our healthcare system is a scam! Government is killing you with regulation and you accept it without question! We could get rid of at least 25% of the BS in our system and never see a difference in care. I hope to have John's response on this because he can cover this 1000 times better than I can!

Thanks for the help with the account John!

[FishbellykanakaDude]

I think shutting down the economy to keep drug addicts and elderly people alive who will all be dead within five years anyway is stupid. I'm an older person (70) and I am willing to take my chances if it means my grandchildren won't have to live in abject poverty for the rest of their lives.

I love people jumping right to killing people without addressing what John has covered time and time again over the years. The cost of our healthcare system is a scam! Government is killing you with regulation and you accept it without question! We could get rid of at least 25% of the BS in our system and never see a difference in care. I hope to have John's response on this because he can cover this 1000 times better than I can!

Thanks for the help with the account John!

All the "Guests" in this forum should be summarily executed,.. as in knocked off this forum.

Bloody hell, JohnO,.. make 'em register in as unobtrusive a manner as possible.

I understand that there are possibly valuable posters in here who NEED (supposedly) to remain "anonymous" for "safety" reasons, but I'm simply not buying that excuse anymore.

If you "unsafe" contributors aren't using a VPN, and "fake" email accounts, to protect yourselves at this point, you're already as exposed as you can possibly be short of giving out your freakin' address and mistress' phone number to any "enemy" of yours of any sophistication whatsoever.

Use a damn internet condom, and wash your stinkin' hands,.. and use the hand sanitizer at the front door of the supermarket! ..ya' filthy goddamn pigs...

End of rant,.. for now. <sheeeeesh!>


<chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, chuckle...>

[Unregistered]

All the "Guests" in this forum should be summarily executed,.. as in knocked off this forum.

Ah, okay.

Bloody hell, JohnO,.. make 'em register in as unobtrusive a manner as possible.

I understand that there are possibly valuable posters in here who NEED (supposedly) to remain "anonymous" for "safety" reasons, but I'm simply not buying that excuse anymore.

Well, with loons like you calling for the deaths of complete strangers, I don't think anyone should listen to you. I think it's people like you that make the Internet dangerous. I'm all for anonymity.

If you "unsafe" contributors aren't using a VPN, and "fake" email accounts, to protect yourselves at this point, you're already as exposed as you can possibly be short of giving out your freakin' address and mistress' phone number to any "enemy" of yours of any sophistication whatsoever.

Boring day at the Kremlin troll factory?

Use a damn internet condom, and wash your stinkin' hands,.. and use the hand sanitizer at the front door of the supermarket! ..ya' filthy goddamn pigs...

Forget to take your meds again?

End of rant,.. for now. <sheeeeesh!>

[Guest]

I think shutting down the economy to keep drug addicts and elderly people alive who will all be dead within five years anyway is stupid. I'm an older person (70) and I am willing to take my chances if it means my grandchildren won't have to live in abject poverty for the rest of their lives.

This is an entirely valid point. I don't know why some people get so upset by the suggestion. The person suggesting this is a 'Guest', so this poster should not be allowed to post?

If you are thin skinned, you have no business posting on this forum. GD deals in death and destruction. It's not a happy place. If these comments upset you so much, how are you going to survive the economic collapse that is coming with the corona virus? You won't.

You live in Cali, fishkanker, so how smart can you be? That's MAD MAX.

Fishkanker just wants to BAN everyone because he can dish it out, but he can't take it. Sitcks and stones, you little b***ch.

<chuckle>

[aeden]

Is China lying or do they have a vaccine/medication for the virus?

If the Chinese soldiers were getting sick and virus is spreading would we see evidence on the internet or does the government have such control that information would never get out?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/20/pl ... irus-free/

China’s Military Claims to Be Virus-Free

Officially, not a single PLA soldier has been infected.

BY JOEL WUTHNOW | MARCH 20, 2020, 9:58 AM

U.S. observers have widely criticized China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for its lackluster initial response to the 2019 coronavirus outbreak. After the deployment of hundreds of PLA medics and other support personnel into Wuhan and other cities, those critiques are now less tenable. PLA personnel have been on the front lines of the crisis for the past two months, reprising roles they have played during other emergencies, such as the 2002-2004 SARS crisis and the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, and providing relief to stressed local health systems.

The question now is whether the PLA has been forthcoming about its ability to withstand the withering effects of the virus on its own personnel. On March 3, a Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman claimed that not a single PLA service member—out of a force of some 2 million—had been infected, pointing to the effectiveness of the PLA’s force protection measures (such as avoidance of large gatherings).

That seems highly unlikely. A strong circumstantial case can be made that the PLA is unlikely to have been spared from infections that have ravaged the country since the end of last year. Concealment of a disease making its way through parts of the PLA, if true, would underscore a military highly sensitive to the release of details on its current readiness. This would be a sign of weakness, not confidence.

The PLA under President Xi Jinping’s leadership has cultivated an image of confidence and determination in its ability to carry out the most dangerous assignments. Such self-assurance has been broadcast to domestic and international audiences through high-octane recruitment ads, films such as Wolf Warrior 2, and grandiose military parades. Images of Chinese troops boldly deploying to Wuhan over the past two months, and doing so without falling victim to the insidious virus, confirm this narrative of the PLA as a force to be reckoned with.

China’s official denial that any PLA members had been infected became instant fodder for the Hong Kong rumor mill, which cited claims that a group of 200 soldiers attached to the PLA’s airborne corps, based near Wuhan, were quarantined after one had become infected, while 300 others were quarantined on the island of Hainan after a submariner was stricken. Others asserted that the virus was running rampant through both the air force and the People’s Armed Police, and that “isolation houses” for military personnel had been set up in numerous locations.

Unverified reports circulating in Hong Kong tabloids should be taken with a large grain of salt. Some of the specific allegations may prove exaggerated, distorted, or untrue. However, there are several reasons to suspect that the PLA has likely concealed at least some cases.

is the first China’s track record of obfuscation in similar circumstances. During the SARS crisis, Beijing initially denied that any service members had been afflicted. Only when a PLA whistleblower came forward to the Western press with revelations that hundreds of patients were being treated in military hospitals did Chinese officials change their tune. Ultimately, the World Health Organization verified that about 8 percent of China’s SARS cases were military personnel.

Then consider the concentration of PLA personnel in the vicinity of Wuhan, which has been the epicenter of the virus in mainland China. PLA units in and around the city include airborne troops, a reserve anti-aircraft artillery battery, academies of all four services, and the central depot of the Joint Logistic Support Force, which was established in 2016 as the main provider of general purpose supplies for the entire army. (The location reflects Wuhan’s status as a critical rail juncture.) In such an army town, it is unlikely that PLA members—including reserve and militia personnel mixed in with society and active-duty troops on leave during the Spring Festival holiday—were completely unaffected.

It beggars belief, given the number of Chinese military medical personnel on the front lines of the pandemic, that they all avoided infection.It beggars belief, given the number of Chinese military medical personnel on the front lines of the pandemic, that they all avoided infection. According to Chinese media, more than 10,000 PLA health care workers have deployed, including more than 4,000 to operate makeshift hospitals in Wuhan. Others have played supporting roles involving contact with local populations. China’s National Health Commission has confirmed that more than 3,000 civilian medics have been infected, with more than a dozen deaths reported. It is dubious to think that PLA doctors, nurses, and technicians are so much more proficient than their civilian counterparts that they have been able to avoid any cases whatsoever.

Concealment of infections in the PLA would signal continuing roadblocks to Chinese military transparency. Chinese officials have touted an increasingly transparent PLA, most recently through a lengthy white paper on military modernization. Yet U.S. scholars have argued that PLA transparency has been at best uneven. One barrier has been the PLA’s tendency to avoid sharing embarrassing information with civilian leaders, or even the lack of effective communication between different parts of the PLA, which was a reason for its secrecy during the SARS crisis. PLA officials today—aware of Xi’s willingness to sack anyone accused of mishandling the crisis—may be hiding information about infections in order to avoid the fallout if top leaders were to become aware of those failures.

Another obstacle to transparency is the perception that revealing too much damaging information about the PLA’s shortcomings would have negative domestic and international repercussions. Domestically, Beijing has utilized the military as a tool not only to fight the pandemic, but also to reassure a nervous population. One PLA Daily report with the headline “The PLA Has Arrived!” boasted that “the people’s army under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is just like a raging flame, bringing confidence, strength, and hope to the people.” Confirmation that the disease is spreading in the PLA would undercut that message and raise deeper questions about the party’s ability to manage the crisis: If the last line of defense fails, then what?

Externally, Beijing relies on the military to deter its rivals and respond to provocations. One of the PLA’s clearest official messages is that the crisis has actually increased the PLA’s readiness by providing real-world experience for thousands of troops—an argument that has some validity. However, acknowledging PLA infections at the same time (especially in combat units such as the airborne corps or on submarines) would complicate that argument and, at least from Beijing’s perspective, might embolden regional antagonists to press their claims in the South or East China seas, or otherwise exploit the crisis for their own benefit.

This is not to imply that the PLA has been completely opaque about its own weaknesses. One exception is a wide acknowledgment of failures among PLA commanders and staff officers to prepare for future wars—a theme that has been broadcast in PLA media as a way to reduce complacency and stimulate positive changes. However, the line seems to be drawn at providing details on current readiness. The PLA does not, for instance, disclose information on the current manning levels of individual units. Obfuscation in cases like SARS and perhaps the 2019 coronavirus provides additional evidence of a PLA wariness to reveal information that could reduce confidence in its current ability to respond to domestic crises or deter foreign rivals.

Such an attitude stands in contrast with the U.S. military, which has already publicized specific details on cases in the ranks. While there are obviously limits to U.S. disclosures on privacy and national-security grounds, the relative openness reflects both effective coordination between civilian and military officials and confidence in the military’s ability to continue operating effectively at a time of enormous distraction. The PLA’s need to project an air of impunity—and immunity—in the latest crisis should be taken as a sign of nervousness about its ability to complete other missions while consumed with a domestic crisis. Such a conclusion would point to a PLA that still has some distance to go in its quest to become what Xi calls a “world-class” military.

Joel Wuthnow is a research fellow at the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs at the U.S. National Defense University. The views expressed are his own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

maybe ... drug sold under the brand name Kaletra. The drug — which has been used to treat HIV and AIDS for over 10 years — was combined with interferon beta, a protein that prevents cells from becoming infected Santiago Moreno, head of infectious diseases at the Ramón y Cajal hospital in Madrid, said ...

[Guest]

maybe ... drug sold under the brand name Kaletra. The drug — which has been used to treat HIV and AIDS for over 10 years — was combined with interferon beta, a protein that prevents cells from becoming infected Santiago Moreno, head of infectious diseases at the Ramón y Cajal hospital in Madrid, said ...

I'll stick with Vitamin C.

[jmparret]

Like you i will stick with Vitamin C but add in some Vitamin D. I also do not trust anyone who repeats themselves with two acronyms.

Joe