Free speech should be what is contagious

Our present social system comes in various guises.  Many countries have some form of dictatorship, others have freer systems with less restriction on free speech.

  In China, if you vote, you vote for the regime. Any kind of dissent or disaffection, you’re in trouble. So when Dr Li Wenliang (a doctor in Wuhan, in central China) decided some of his patients were showing symptoms reminiscent of the Sars epidemic of 2003, and warned others to take extra care, the police moved in.

 They told him about the nasty things which happen to people who “make false comments” and “disturb the social order”, and he had to promise to shut up.

  For some strange reason this vigorous police action didn’t kill off the virus, or stop the disease spreading.  More people fell ill with flu-like symptoms, including Dr Li, who died. 

 At the Lunar New Year, thousands of Chinese (or even millions – China is a big country) travel to celebrate the holiday with relatives.  All of this continued, and when the Chinese authorities finally had to agree that something was wrong, the virus had spread all over China, and to other countries. Now in China and elsewhere, there is an economic slowdown, and stock exchanges all over the world report sharp falls in the price of shares.

      In other words, if China had what is usually called democracy, so doctors were less likely to be told to “shut up or else”, it is likely that mass travel across the country could have been restricted much earlier, and probably coronavirus nipped in the bud.  If these crisis measures had been taken promptly, it would have been much better for the world’s share owners, and might have saved them from the losses which coronavirus is now imposing. This could explain why in some countries the people in power agree that there are benefits in free speech.

Alwyn Edgar