Covid-19 in China
The hidden facts

With disproportionate fanfare, on March 21, the Chinese government sent 110,000 masks and 800 protective suits on a train to bereaved Spain with the slogan “Come on matadors” – the aid was worth less than $50,000, and it did not include the vital information for stopping the covid-19 deaths – as China allegedly managed to do.

deceit and gullibility

Avraham Elarar | 24 April, 2020


The Chinese government continues in vain to try to appease the wrath of the world for the late and dubious quality of its covid-19 data, by sporadically releasing bits of relevant research information, and by awkwardly sending 110,000 masks and 800 protective suits on a train to Spain with the slogan “Come on matadors” – the aid was worth less than $50,000. This it does, not out of its commitment to good global citizenry and full transparency, but rather to contain the mounting pressure from the likes of president Trump who prematurely congratulated president Xi Jinping for his handling of the covid-19 crisis in China. The information published by the Chinese authorities continues to this day to be censured and fraught with conflicting statements and fundamental anomalies.


Chart A

Deaths in China

One such anomaly, is the improbable sudden drop in the number of the covid-19 deaths that allegedly happened simultaneously in all the Chinese provinces (except in Wuhan, Hubei province) on the week of February 14, 2020. The drop occurred almost “miraculously” in-spite of the fact that no known cure or vaccine for the disease exists. Giving more weight to the argument for the improbability of these reports, is the disparity both technological and informational that exists between the provinces, a disparity that is further aggravated by the considerable distances between the provinces, some of which are 3,300 Km from Wuhan. Chart A – Covid-19 China deaths, shows the sudden drop in the number of deaths – flattening the curve has taken a whole new meaning for the Chinese authorities.

Chart A2

Death rate

Perplexed statisticians and heads of epidemiology research centres currently trying to come up with a model for predicting the behaviour of the covid-19 virus pandemic are certainly wondering, how is it that of the 68,128 cases of covid-19 in Hubei (mostly in Wuhan), 4,512 died – 6.6%, whereas in the rest of the other provinces, of the total 15,699 cases, only 124 died – 0.8%, see Chart A2 – Percent Deaths – these disparate results should certainly be enough to entice the doctors in Wuhan to consider a second internship in hospitals in anyone of the other provinces.

Chart B

Cases vs distance from Wuhan

A more intriguing anomaly, is the unexpected high number of confirmed cases in Harbin, the capital city of Heilongjiang province located in the northeast of the country. Chart B – Cases vs distance from Wuhan shows as expected, a gradual reduction in the number of confirmed cases as the distance from Wuhan increases. Surprisingly, this expected trend is abnormally interrupted by the presence of a large cluster of covid-19 cases in Harbin. There, 872 cases were reported by 18 April, 2020, a number surpassed by only 6 other provinces whose distances from Wuhan range between 480 km and 1,000 km – Harbin is 2,340 kilometers away from Wuhan.

Chart C

Deaths per province

Further, Chart C – Deaths per province, shows a relatively high number of deaths in Harbin while some provinces between it and Wuhan appear to have been spared – the question of course is, have these provinces protected themselves from Wuhan or from Harbin – or from both.

Chart D

Reproduction number selected provinces

Finally, Chart D – Reproduction number, (the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection), shows that with the exception of three spikes in Wuhan (on January 30th, February 4th and 15th), the reproduction number in Harbin follows closely that of Wuhan throughout the full dataset. The chart also shows that the covid-19 outbreaks occurred simultaneously in Wuhan and in Harbin early in January 2020, this in-spite of the 2,340 km between them.


31 December, 2019

Hidden facts

Hidden in the data provided by the Chinese government, are facts that unequivocally point to the existence of two epicentres, one in Wuhan and the other in Harbin located 2,340 km away. The magnitude of the outbreak in Wuhan is of course greater than that of Harbin, Harbin’s outbreak nevertheless, exhibits the same typical characteristics as those seen in outbreaks in other cities throughout China and the world. The chronological facts supporting the argument that there were two outbreaks in China are too many to be ignored and too complex to just be attributed to coincidence.

23 January, 2020

Harbin outbreak

Here is why, on 23 January, 2020, 24 of the 32 Chinese provinces reported a total of 643 confirmed covid-19 cases of whom 444 were in Wuhan, 2 in Harbin and the rest in the other provinces. On 24 January, 2020, Hebei province, located 900 km from Wuhan, reported that 1 of its 2 confirmed covid-19 cases had died – the first outside of Wuhan, on the same day Harbin reported that of its 4 reported cases, 1 had died – the second outside of Wuhan, and whereas the number of deaths excluding those of Wuhan kept increasing moderately, the number of deaths in Harbin continued to represent the highest percentage of total deaths excluding those of Wuhan, Harbin was effectively becoming the remotest second outbreak centre in China after Wuhan.

By 15 February, 2020, the number of confirmed cases in Harbin represented only 3 percent of the total cases excluding those of Wuhan, but its share of the reported deaths was 16 percent of the total reported deaths, 5 times its share of the confirmed cases – Harbin’s health system is evidently not at par with that of the other provinces – or it is just that the covid-19 strain in Harbin is more virulent.

24 January, 2020

Covid-19 kills in 18 days

Added to Harbin’s supposedly inept health system, are the reports of dubious quality issued daily by the authorities there. According to a study conducted by researchers in Wuhan and published in early March, 2020, covid-19 kills in an average of 18.5 days

Assuming that the study is accurate, then it follows that the fist person who died in Harbin must have been infected with the virus on 6 January, 2020 – 17 days before Harbin reported its first confirmed case. The implication is that covid-19 was already infecting people in Harbin long before the authorities reported the fact – a further proof that Harbin was unquestionably the second epicentre in China – Chart E – Covid-19 cases, clearly shows two major covid-19 clusters, one in Wuhan in the province of Hubei and the other in Harbin in the province of Heilongjiang in the northeast of China.

27 February, 2020

Two epicentres

Two significant outbreaks occurring simultaneously in cities that are 2,340 km apart is a rare occurrence, unless these two cities share a common underlying denominator directly related to the outbreak – in the case of Wuhan and Harbin, that denominator is the existence of prominent research centres that have been conducting research on the H5N1 and H1N1 viruses and swapping genes with the influenza virus (common flu). That in itself may not have been sufficient to raise a flag, except that both the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, and the Harbin Veterinary Research Institute (HVRI) in Harbin have been harshly criticized by the international research community for their negligence and the lack of established proper safety procedures in both centres. The “temporary isolation” imposed on 22 February, 2020 by the municipal government in Harbin on several districts including on Xiangfang where the Harbin Veterinary Research Institute (HVRI) is located is too telling to be ignored. The genie it appears cannot be put back in the bottle – China is now reporting a re-outbreak in Harbin where it previously denied that anything serious was happening – lets hope that the information that it feeds to itself is of less dubious quality than the masks that it recently sent to Canada.

24 April, 2020

Questions & answers (maybe)

Following the piece by Josh Rogin in The Washington Post, the questions posed by the international community should no longer just be “what happened in Wuhan” but rather “what happened in Wuhan and in Harbin back in 17 November, 2019 and where did the outbreak occur first”. The questions should be followed by a vigorous request to see the detailed records of both the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where Shi Zhengli is a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the Harbin Veterinary Research Institute (HVRI), where Chen Hualan is director of its key Laboratory of Animal Influenza, assuming that the records have not been destroyed for “fear of contamination” – the questions should of course not be asked via the World Health Organization (WHO) – it has a propensity for being the gullible mouthpiece of the Chinese government.

If you wish to receive our latest news in your email box, just subscribe to our newsletter. We won’t spam you, we promise!


    If you wish to receive our latest news in your email box, just subscribe to our newsletter. We won’t spam you, we promise!

      R E S P O N S A

      Responsa specializes in providing timely and contextual strategic information to businesses, government agencies and to non-profit organizations.

      Contact us at:

      Copyright 2021 All rights reserved | RESPONSA.