Residents in a Shijiazhuang neighborhood undergo nucleic acid testing.
Although the Communist Party of China (CPC) has been saying from the beginning that the virus was “imported from outside China,” internal documents from the CPC, including the epidemiological investigation report on “Patient No. 1” in Hebei, which was obtained by the reporter, reveal that the outbreak has nothing to do with outside China and that the CPC has no clue about the origin of the outbreak.
Who is “Patient Zero” in Hebei?
The latest outbreak of the Epidemic announced by the CCP in 2021 was in Hebei Province. In epidemic control, finding the first patient infected by the virus, or “patient zero,” is important to pinpoint the source of the infection and to prevent and control the epidemic.
The Communist government of Hebei Province asserted at a press conference on January 8 that “the epidemic was caused by a virus imported from abroad, and the specific source is still being investigated,” but so far it has not been able to find the “patient zero” in Hebei.
According to the Communist Party’s outbreak notification, a female villager in Hebei’s Shijiazhuang Gaocheng district was first diagnosed on Jan. 2 this year, becoming the first “Patient No. 1” to be diagnosed.
However, the CCP has not confirmed whether the “Patient 1” in Hebei was the first “Patient 0” to be infected, and the source of infection for the current outbreak remains unknown. The Chinese government has not announced the trajectory of “Patient No. 1” as is customary.
From the latest epidemic prevention documents obtained from Hebei Province, this reporter found the epidemiological investigation reports of some of the early confirmed cases, including Hebei’s “Patient 1”.
Screenshot of the epidemiological investigation report of Hebei “Patient No. 1”. Sensitive personal information has been withheld to protect privacy.
According to the epidemiological investigation report, Hebei “Patient No. 1” Tian Mouying, 61, a villager from Xiaoguozhuang Village, Zengcun Town, Gaocheng District, felt the onset of the disease on January 1, and went to the Second Provincial Hospital on January 2, where she was diagnosed as a suspected case of New Guan by the hospital’s fever clinic, and was then transferred to the Shijiazhuang Fifth Hospital, where she tested double-positive in the nucleic acid test and recheck. Within 14 days before the onset of Tian Mouying’s illness, in addition to attending a wedding banquet in the same village, the trajectory of action is not much, confirming the close contact with 15 people.
Although the Chinese authorities have announced that the outbreak was “caused by a virus imported from abroad,” the flow investigation report of “Patient No. 1” in Hebei shows that
- “The patient has no history of travel or residence in areas or communities at risk for new infections, such as Beijing, Sichuan, or Liaoning, or in communities where new infections were reported within 14 days of the onset of the disease”; and
- “no history of contact with a person with novel coronavirus infection within 14 days of onset”.
- “No contact with patients with fever or respiratory symptoms from the case-reporting community within 14 days of onset of illness”.
- “Patient denies history of exposure related to engaging in cold chain transport and purchase of cold chain Food“.
- “No travel to Inner Mongolia, Zhangjiakou, or Chengde area for 14 days”.
- “denies returning to the country outside of China within 1 month and denies recent contact with returnees”.
- “denies having patients with novel coronavirus infections in the transportation he took”.
In short, the “No. 1 patient” in Hebei has no contact with all the ways of importing and spreading the new coronavirus outside China as announced by the Chinese Communist Party. The mystery of how “Patient No. 1” contracted the disease remains unsolved.
No source of infection has been found so far
A screenshot from the Communist Party’s Hebei health System’s “Epidemic Network” on January 9. Sensitive personal information has been omitted to protect privacy.
Hebei epidemic prevention documents reveal that Communist authorities have conducted detailed epidemiological investigations of early confirmed cases, including “Patient No. 1”; the flow survey report shows that authorities have failed to find the source of infection or any clues that the virus was imported from abroad.
For example, the epidemiological investigation report of the early confirmed case Lu Mouyi showed that the villager of Xiaoguozhuang Lu Mouyi had onset of illness and tested positive on January 3, and also did not have any history of domestic or overseas exposure to the new coronavirus within 14 days; he did not have much activity before onset of illness, and confirmed close contact with 9 people. Tianmou Ding, a villager from Xiaoguozhuang, had an illness and tested positive on January 3, and had participated in a villagers’ wedding banquet before the onset of illness.
Screenshot of the document “Information on the two wedding banquets in Oujing Ecological Garden” on January 9.
Communist authorities have screened, tested and conducted epidemiological investigations on all participants of wedding banquets related to the outbreak in Xiaoguozhuang Village. Among them, on December 28, 2020, Lu Moubo (male), a villager from Xiaoguozhuang, Zengcun Town, held a wedding in Zhengding Oujing Ecological Garden, with 248 participants; on December 31, 2020, Zhang Mouchao (female) from Xiaoguozhuang, Zengcun Town, invited guests at the Xiaoguozhuang 368 Hotel; on January 1, 2021, a wedding with Feng Moubin (from Wucunpu) was held in Oujing Ecological Garden; after verification by the public security department and big data Comparison, Zhang Mouchao’s two wedding banquets a total of 483 people attended. All these streams of investigation failed to find the source of infection.
Communist Party’s claims about the source of the epidemic in Hebei are changing and failing to shift the blame outside the country
The Communist Party’s announcement of the epidemic shows that its approach to the current round of outbreaks is still to dump the blame on foreign countries.
On the evening of Jan. 5, Feng Zijian, deputy director of the CDC, said on CCTV news that the virus in the Hebei outbreak was still imported from abroad, most likely from Europe.
On January 6, the CDC Weekly Report (English), sponsored by the China CDC, a unit directly under the Communist Party’s Health and Welfare Commission, released a study (link to original Weekly Report) stating that CDC staff performed genetic sequencing of samples from two cases of New Crown Pneumonia in Shijiazhuang and Xingtai, Hebei Province, on January 2 and found that the two cases were likely of the same origin and that the virus may have originated in Russia.
An article published by the land-based media CNA on January 9, “Who set the epidemic alight in Xiaoguozhuang village, which was overrun by the virus? The article, which is based on speculation and without any solid evidence, presents various analyses. For example, the report alleges that “Xiaoguzhuang Village is only a dozen kilometers away from Zhengding International Airport, and it takes less than 20 minutes by car. This seems to provide a convenient condition for the importation of the virus.”
The report also cites an analysis by Wu Hao, an expert with the Communist Party’s National Health Commission, saying that “rural migrant workers, who are mostly engaged in the service industry, may also be engaged in cold chain transportation, and once they come into contact with dangerous objects imported from abroad in the process, they may send the virus Home in the form of express packages.” The article also blamed the outbreak on “weak awareness of protection” in rural areas, saying that “villages have become the most vulnerable vulnerability.
According to the official website of the CDC, on January 17, Gao Fu, director of the CDC, was in Shijiazhuang to exchange views with provincial and municipal traceability verification teams on the traceability of the epidemic, and admitted that “the traceability of the epidemic in Shijiazhuang is the most difficult one in recent years.
According to a Jan. 19 report by the China News Service, the director of the Emergency Response Office of the Hebei Provincial CDC, Shi Jian, said on Jan. 18 that the CDC found that the strain was different from the strains found in other domestic outbreaks after genetic sequencing of samples from the Hebei outbreak, so it was determined that the virus was “imported from outside China” and “inferred that the virus The report also acknowledges that the virus has been imported from outside China. However, the report also admitted that the work is currently under intense investigation and no final conclusion has been reached.
The above-mentioned internal Communist Party epidemic prevention documents indicate that the Communist authorities have failed to find any clues to the source of the current outbreak, let alone prove that the virus was imported from outside China.
According to current affairs commentator Li Linyi, in the past, the CCP would always claim that “after genetic sequencing and other source investigations, the virus is highly homologous with a certain country’s virus” when shirking the blame for the source of the epidemic.
According to Li Linyi, this shows that the Chinese Communist Party has no clue about the source of the virus in this year’s new outbreak, and is at its wits’ end, not knowing where the virus came from.
The Chinese Communist Party reacted abnormally behind the outbreak of “chopsticks public opinion” in the center of the infected area
Shijiazhuang Gaocheng District Internet Information Office issued an opinion alert on January 8, monitoring the safety of disposable chopsticks produced by Gaocheng Xiaoguozhuang. The picture is a screenshot of the public opinion warning.
The reporter also obtained a copy of the “Notice of Internet Public Opinion Alert” from the Shijiazhuang Gaocheng District Internet Information Office on January 8, which monitored netizens questioning the safety of disposable chopsticks produced by Gaocheng Xiaoguozhuang. Xiaoguozhuang, in Shijiazhuang’s Gaocheng District, is one of the outbreak sites and one of the main producers of disposable chopsticks in mainland China.
It is rumored on the Internet that the disposable chopsticks produced in Xiaoguzhuang village, the “center of the epidemic area,” are not safe for use.
The Chinese Communist Party authorities have caught on to this online public opinion and have responded in a very low-key manner compared to the past. So far, there has been little news or commentary on the Internet in mainland China, except for a report by the mainland media Oriental Daily.
According to the newspaper, the reporter interviewed the relevant departments and people responsible on January 14. The disposable chopsticks manufacturer told the reporter that Shijiazhuang Prevention and Control Office and Gaocheng District Prevention and Control Office had done an investigation into the company and the result of the investigation was that there was no problem with the product. The manufacturer said that in order not to cause unnecessary anxiety, the company is now silent in response to the relevant remarks on the Internet and will be held accountable after the outbreak.
According to the Oriental Daily, the Gao Cheng District Epidemic Prevention and Control Office confirmed the disposable chopsticks manufacturer’s statement to the newspaper.
Commentator Li Linyi said in response that the Chinese Communist Party’s response to this online opinion was very unusual. “Because normally the CCP would debunk a rumor in a high profile and arrest the poster; but this debunked story was so low key that the CCP didn’t make a big deal out of it and just used the interviewer to issue a threat.”
Li Linyi explained that if the CCP really wanted to dispel the rumors about the disposable chopsticks in Xiaoguozhuang, it should have announced the test results, such as announcing that the environmental test of the chopsticks was negative, etc. However, the official only said that there was “no problem”, which is an understatement.
According to Li Linyi’s analysis, the CCP’s unusually low profile on the “chopsticks public opinion” should be due to the fear that its claim that the virus was imported from abroad would be debunked. This is because the main source of infection for the CCP’s widely publicized “imported from abroad” is the so-called cold chain transportation or cold chain food carrying the virus. If it is possible to import a virus from abroad, then it is logical that products produced in infected areas could also “transmit” the virus. This inference, and the resulting social panic, is clearly a consequence that the CCP does not want to see and cannot afford.
Li Linyi pointed out that the CCP’s view of “cold chain virus transmission” is not substantiated and is generally denied by medical circles outside of the CCP; therefore, the CCP dares not publicize this public opinion because it fears that it may prompt the Chinese public to examine the credibility of the propaganda of “cold chain virus transmission” or “virus imported from outside China.
Recent Comments