Neither assumptions are backed by evidence.
If this disaster spreads to other Chinese metropolitan areas it would be devastating.
It simply doesn't do the job well enough, but good luck trying to make the Chinese leader choose an American product.
So the stubbornness of the regime is at fault, but with no limits on terms anymore, i see only bad things for the future of China.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/china-walvax-says-has-m...
Better late than never must be the motto China is going for.
We find Chinese confirmed infections match the distribution expected in Benford’s Law and are similar to that seen in the U.S. and Italy.
That's infections, not deaths, and so doesn't necessarily disagree with what you said. But I still need your source.https://kevinbasset.medium.com/i-used-benfords-law-to-analyz...
Tough both are reporting on old data which tells nothing (good or bad) about the current situation.
To the contrary, there is no evidence to suggest that China has had the spread necessary to kill 3 million people nor any evidence suggesting that they have covered up 3 million deaths.
You might naively think we have no way of checking, but this level of spread would be trivial to infer from antibody tests of people traveling to China. We have seen no indication of a deception anywhere near the scale you are suggesting.
> this level of spread would be trivial to infer from antibody tests of people traveling to China.
Who is doing that testing?