Fake News and the Coronavirus

Who doesn’t like a good challenge?

That is what came to mind when I listened to a webinar two weeks ago by the Director of the Reuters Institute, Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, in which he started off by saying:

“We are not just fighting an epidemic but also an infodemic, where people are confused about the information they are getting from politicians, news organisations, social media, search and video sharing sites.”

In recent weeks, the topic of fake news has reemerged in the headlines in light of the current coronavirus pandemic. As a concept, false information is nothing new. As my colleague Max Gorynski illustrated in a previous article diving into its origins, civilisation has been grappling with the issue of misinformation for centuries. But the coronavirus has had an interesting side-effect, whereby the public have become tangibly aware of the dangerous consequences that misinformation and disinformation can have. One particularly poignant example of this was the report in early March “that 16 Iranians [had] died from methanol poisoning…after false rumours spread that drinking alcohol would help prevent people getting the Covid-19 virus.”[1]

The very fact that individuals are experiencing fear for their own safety during the pandemic, has forced onto the agenda skills which are necessary to differentiate fact from fiction. Useful information from dangerous information. Those skills include critical thinking, media literacy, source checking, awareness of the problem and responsible sharing of information. In this sense, the pandemic has perversely offered an opportunity to come to terms with fake news — in effect a metaphorical fork in the road.

The Age of Whoever Shouts the Loudest

The idea for this article started with the assertion by US President Trump in a public press conference on February 26th that “because of all we have done, the risk to the American people remains very low”, in reference to the current Covid-19 global pandemic.

These comments have not aged well, with the coronavirus cases in the US having surpassed 670,000 and 35,000 deaths at the time of writing.

Unless you have been living under a rock for the last four years, you know that this is far from the first time Trump has spread misinformation. In fact, he is the uncontested champion of lying, with “The Washington Post calculat[ing] that he’d made 2,140 false or misleading claims during the first year in office — an average of nearly 5.9 a day.” [2]

The Champion of Lying

But to be fair to Trump (and it really pains me to write that), he is simply the embodiment of something that has been festering in our society for decades — the erosion of truth.

But how did we get here? How did we get to a point where the truth has become unfashionable, telling lies acceptable and normalised; where truth is whatever a person chooses to believe?

Truth Redefined

Recently I read former New York Times critic Michiko Kakutani’s excellent book ‘The Death of Truth’ in which she sets out a timeline for this erosion and places it in the geo-political context of today. As she succinctly put it, we are currently in a time where “nationalism, tribalism, dislocation, fears of social change and the hatred of outsiders are on the rise again as people, locked in their partisan filter bubbles, are losing a sense of shared reality and the ability to communicate across social and sectarian lines”.[3]

There has, in effect, been a re-definition of the value that facts, science, rationale, objectivity and expert-opinion hold in our society, arguably leaving the door ajar for misinformation and disinformation to run amock.

A large contributing factor to this story has been the advent of the internet. As CEO of the New York Times Company Mark Thompson said in 2016, “our digital eco-systems have evolved into a near-perfect environment for distorted false news to thrive”.[4] This is an environment where information can be created and shared freely at incredible velocity and mass, without the veracity of it being checked beforehand. This view is reaffirmed by Kakutani who notes that “when it comes to spreading fake news and undermining belief in objectivity, technology has proven to be a highly flammable accelerant”.[5]

One industry that has been hit particularly hard by this changing societal relationship with truth has been journalism. As award winning digital media scholar Alfred Hermida notes: “verification is one of the cornerstones of the professional ideology of journalism in Western liberal democracy, together with related concepts such as objectivity, impartiality and autonomy.”[6] With this context mentioned above in mind, it is not surprising that the across the world the level of trust in journalism and indeed in journalists has declined in the recent past.

Declining Levels of Trust, Showing Healthy Dose of Scepticism

These declining levels of trust in journalism are most stark when it comes to the space of digital news. The industry leading market research report compiled in 2019 by the Reuters Institute, found that across the 38-country sample, the 75,000 survey respondents only had a trust level of 33% for news found via search engines and 23% for news found via social media.

These findings illustrate that people were already starting to think about the veracity and origin of the information that they were reading, even before the coronavirus outbreak. In fact, when asked, 55% of respondents said that they remain concerned about their ability to separate what is real and what is fake on the internet[7]. In the most extreme cases, people had felt the need to actively change their news consumption patterns to ensure a higher quality of news. This was conveyed in the fact that 26% of the repondents had said that they had started to rely on sources that they considered to be more reputable [8].

Spotting Different Types of Fake News

Yes, Covid-19 has led to a plethora of misinformation and disinformation being produced and spread online, and yes the challenge is certainly big.

At this point, it is appropriate to highlight that there are many types of what (in the contemporary vernacular) has been characterised under the umbrella term ‘fake news’. The graphic below from Reuters illustrates the different forms that it can take.

Image for post

This was taken from a recently published piece of analysis, where Reuters looked at a sample of 225 pieces of misinformation between the beginning of January and end of March.[9] On the left you have misleading content, which “contain[s] some true information, but [where] the details were reformulated, selected and re-contextualised in ways that made them false or misleading”[10] and false context, where “genuine content is shared with false contextual information”.

Reconfigured content is arguably the more dangerous type of misinformation, because it is much more difficult for the reader to spot. This is why one technique often cited used to tackle the challenge of misinformation is to improve people’s media literacy levels and critical thinking skills. On the right of the graphic (38% of the findings) you have misinformation that was fabricated — also more accurately described as disinformation. This is content that is 100% false, that has been created with the intention of deliberately deceiving the reader.

Green Shoots of Recovery

The reaction to the spread of misinformation online surrounding the pandemic has been interesting to follow and given me reasons to be hopeful.

Firstly, the fact checkers are fighting back aggressively against the wave of fake news. The same Reuters article illustrated for example, how “the number of English language fact checks rose by 900% from January to March”.[11]

Furthermore, early indications are that people are employing a healthy dose of scepticism and taking some further steps themselves to access the credibility of the content that they are reading. This is reinforced by a survey conducted by Ofcom on the news consumption patterns of 2000 respondents in the UK from March 23 to March 29.

When encountering what they perceived to be misinformation, 45% of the survey respondents said that they had actively attempted to verify the content — 15% doing so by choosing themselves to employ fact-checking tips they had seen online, 13% asking friends and family, 10% going to fact-checking websites and 7% saying they had reported or blocked the content.[12]

Similarly, there has been a large increase in the number of social media users who are themselves flagging and removing misinformation. In particular, as reported by the BBC [13], administrators of closed Facebook groups have been very active on this front in the last few weeks. Going forward, I would urge readers to check any information that they send on to others via closed networks (eg WhatsApp) because of the risks as outlined in the video below. ‘Bottom-up’ spread amongst peers, family and friends is potentially more dangerous than ‘top-down’ misinformation spread by politicians, officials and celebrities.

BBC: How do you stop misinformation spread?

Secondly, as has been widely reported in recent days, public service broadcasters (e.g. ARD in Germany) have seen a significant uptick in their viewership since the coronavirus started. On March 16th, the BBC announced in a series of tweets that the previous week had been “the biggest week ever for BBC News Online…with 70m unique browsers coming to the website and apps” and that its TV audience for the BBC News at six pm “was up by 27% on 2019”. This is reinforced by the aforementioned Ofcom report, where 82% of those asked said that they were using the BBC as a source of information (see graph below).[14]

Image for post
Ofcom Covid 19 News and Information: Consumption and Attitudes Report

This is encouraging when compared to online media consumption patterns before the crisis, where a majority of people were accessing their news through either search engines, social media sites, email, mobile alerts and aggregators.[15] These sources are much more likely to feature stories that include misinformation and disinformation. These sources are particularly popular with people under the age of 35, who prefer them to public service broadcasters that have a majority of older users.

During times of crisis, it is well established that people typically tend to engage much more frequently with news than during ‘normal times’. A key driver for this change in behaviour is fear, whereby the population feel the need to inform themselves for their own protection. In their search for factually correct information people often turn to the established media brands, which is what we have seen happen in recent weeks.

In the Context of Life and Death, Turns Out Facts Do Matter

In the past, after a crisis has subsided, there is a tendency for the population’s media consumption patterns to revert back to pre-crisis levels. Perhaps this will also happen this time. But there are indications that at least some of the current patterns of behaviour might remain in place post-coronavirus. This crisis has a key point of differentiation to other crises in the past. The nature of this virus has meant that in this environment facts and data do matter and the population are starting to realise this.

On the one hand, people are using sources where they can rely on the information to be true. Many have turned to the public service broadcasters which typically command a high level of trust from users. Similarly, experts are back in high demand as millions of citizens look to them for reassurance, trusting their knowledge and analysis. Appropriately, scientists are currently the most trusted spokespeople globally[16], which is why they have been taking a leading role in government press conferences.

On the other hand, people have become hypersensitive to fake news. There is an awareness by the general public of the plurality and danger of the spread of misinformation which is a good starting point for tackling this challenge. Furthermore, we have seen a multitude of fact checking websites and organisations taking up arms against the deluge of fake news online and these resources are being used. This has been complemented by people having adopted a more responsible attitude towards sharing of information with family and friends in closed networks.

We are at a critical juncture — a fork in the road ahead— and there is still a lot of work to do in the battle against fake news. Will the Facts Win Out? Only time will tell…


[1] Corona Virus: Iran reports leap in death toll. (2020) Retrieved from:

[2, 3, 5] Kakutani, M. (2018). The Death of Truth. HarperCollins UK.


[6] Hermida, A. Nothing but the Truth. In Carlson, M., & Lewis, S. C. (2015). Boundaries of Journalism: Professionalism, Practices and Participation. Routledge.

[7 & 8] Reuters Institute 2019 Digital News Report (2019). Retrieved from:

[9, 10, 11] Brennen, J. S., Simon,F., Howard, P. N., Nielsen, R.N., (2020) Types, sources, and claims of COVID-19 misinformation.Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from:

[12 & 14] Ofcom (2020) Covid-19 News and Information: Consumption and Attitudes. Retrieved from:

[13] Spring, M. (2020, April 10). The people fighting viral fakes from their sofas. BBC News

[15] Brennen, J. S., Simon,F., Howard, P. N., Nielsen, R.N., (2020) COVID–19 has intensified concerns about misinformation. Here’s what our past research says about these issues. Retrieved from:

[16] Edelman Trust Barometer, Special Report: Trust and the Coronavirus (2020). Retrieved from:


Video 1: From Washington Post

Video 2: From BBC


The Coronavirus Power Games

It’s the End of the World As We Blog It, and we feel fine.

Yet as we join millions of observers from our monitors at home, our concern grows for the billions who will suffer the consequences unleashed by COVID-19’s rattling of the international system. This article may be about geopolitics, but it could very well serve as a warning to the powers that be; humanitarian efforts first, power games second.

In 430BC at the height of the Peloponnesian War, an invisible enemy sneaked into the port-city of Piraes — lifeblood of Athens. The great Aegean hegemon was closely linked and dependent to Piraes for its food and supplies. Though both Athens and Sparta worshipped Athena, the goddess of wisdom was going to teach Athens a costly lesson. Her wrath took the form of an epidemic which wiped out nearly 100,000 Athenians (25% of the population); the single-most deadly event in Ancient Greek history.

Just as the tide of war seemed to swing in its favour, The Plague of Athens led to the breakdown of Athenian society, wiping out much of the wealthiest citizens and strongest Hoplites. Adherence to laws and religious belief waned, violent punishments and anti-Athenian xenophobia soared. Hopeless attempts to reinstate control over the city’s 80% of non-citizens translated to a new pernicious form of institutionalised discrimination. As some of the affected came from neighbouring city-states, news of this reached Athens’ allies, contributing to the breakdown of said diplomatic relationships, previously instrumental to Athenian hegemony.

The epidemic did affect the entire region, but nowhere was struck as hard as in Athens, where overpopulation and crowding was already a real problem. A density of 100 people per square mile of land lead to the deforestation and land erosion of the forest and land around Attica (Athens).

Sparta left their siege of Athens to regroup in uninfected lands. Athens gradually lost its diplomatic influence and the trust of its allies, partially from its newer attitudes towards non-citizens but also due to the lack of sustained diplomatic contact. Athens’ trade power destroyed with a breakdown of trust in merchant vessels (thought of as carriers). Its army severely depleted by the deaths of Athenian citizens, key to highly organised Hoplite formations.

In the geopolitical academic cannon, the Peloponnesian War holds a strong place as the forefather of Great Power rivalries: from Rome vs. Carthage (200s BC) to France vs. Germany (1870s). It is thus compelling that behind this war is a landmark event which can also serve as a forewarning for future Great Power rivalries. Today’s rivalry of the United States and China is in a radically different world, between cultures and societies completely alien to Ancient Greece. However, the geopolitical effects of disease and the actions states can take to channel the impacts of said disease are comparable.

Image for post
Google trends showing a gradual decline in popular usage of the term “Pax Americana”

If the tragic events of September 11th 2001 marked the beginning of the end of Pax Americana, the events unfolding during this pandemic are a clear sign that we are well into the next geopolitical chapter.

Learning from strategic blunders in the 00s, American foreign policy in the 2010s found itself on awkward footing, and with accordingly awkward decisions to make as to its forward identity. To ditch Interventionism for strategic realism and restraint. To seek “long-termist” policy by engaging regional allies, while also dictating American national interests. To be the “first among equals”. The Obama doctrine was a brilliant assembly of the world’s greatest power’s hawkish and dove-ish leanings. It was a brilliant foreign-policy device so long as it stayed within a familiar Post-Cold War consensus. This framework depended on the United States’ dominance of the financial system (the financial aid and monetary support accompanying it), its military credibility (damaged by twenty years of military stalemates in Afghanistan and the Middle East), and institutional influence (ability to effect change at a global level).

Image for post

By the time Donald Trump entered the picture, the United States had lost ground on all three fronts. It may have achieved energy independence thanks to the discovery of huge Shale gas and oil reserves, but this only helped reduce its enthusiasm for investing abroad (this includes reducing America’s budget for multinational institutions such as the United Nations). Years of strategic counter-measures from rival powers like China, Russia and even Iran have pushed the US to retreat into its historical role: a Superpower in Isolation.

After a delayed response by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United States played a major role in containing the Ebola outbreak in West Africa back in 2014–5. It coordinated the international response and even sent 10,000 American personnel to the affected region. Today, as Yuval Noel Harari puts it, America is isolated and in-denial: “concerned by its own greatness”.

Perhaps a testament to the United States’ decentralised governance structure, its current approach to responding to the virus has been principally State and Municipality-driven. Donald Trump has been repeatedly lambasted across the USA for his denial of COVID-19 and now for his blaming of China and the World Health Organisation’s supposed “collusion”. Whereas New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has now been dubbed “America’s Governor”. Cuomo’s media presence, narrative clarity and personal links to COVID-19 (his brother caught the virus) are all great conditions for him to become an homme providentiel (man-of-the-moment). Ahead of an unpredictable 2020 presidential election, Trump may be missing his chance to take advantage of a much needed crisis. His inability to marshal both sides of the aisle and assert Federal leadership on COVID-19 present America’s biggest weakness on the global stage.

American disunity is a handicap to its ability to influence other nations and institutions. The current administration’s complicated relationship with the world-leading American scientific community, indicates an inability to reap the soft power benefits that this community attracts on the world-stage. The characteristically cool relationship between Washington DC and multinational institutions in past years have already ushered a passing of the torch to other world powers. Macron’s France has inherited the mantle of coordinating the Global Climate Emergency response, since his predecessor’s masterful COP-21 conference. Xi Jinping’s China is in the middle of a 25-year strategy of replacing Western-led international institutions with comparable Sino-led organisations: AIIB or NDB. Today, the World Health Organisation willingly chose China as its primary partner in delivering and communicating the global response against COVID-19.

Image for post

Despite a rocky start, China has found a way to assume global leadership on the question of Coronavirus. Thanks to the brave actions of a few Wuhan residents, who decried the state of local Chinese hospitals and the lack of face-masks in early February, Xi Jinping rapidly coordinated a “typically-authoritarian” response to the growing number of infected patients. China imposed a total lockdown of the Wuhan region and then confined all non-essential citizens to their homes for two months. A feat still unequaled by any country in the world, China built two field hospitals holding 2600 beds in a matter of 12 days. As the number of Wuhan cases began to slow-down, China was able to use its spare capacity to send “generous face-mask and ventilator donations” to the countries of Europe that were, in late February, becoming the new epicentre of the virus. As supplies were unloaded from a Chinese plane in Italy, Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio noted that the aid demonstrated that “we are not alone, there are people in the world who want the help Italy.” This contrasted very strongly with the US-EU travel bans (minus the UK) initially called-for by Donald Trump and the lack of EU-driven solidarity at that stage of the crisis.

China not only impressed the world with its “show of generosity” but also with its ability to impose social distancing and lockdowns across a country of 1.4 billion people. I put parentheses around the word “generosity” because one cannot forget that China is in most cases the primary manufacturer of face-masks, ventilators and other essential supplies. Xi Jinping managed to nevertheless brand the export of supplies by investing in their value as diplomatic gifts for countries-in-need. This is by no means downplaying the value of such support for the countries lacking the supplies, who are only awaiting another generous donation by a global power like China or the United States to help keep people alive.

After a rocky-start and a close-to-perfect diplomatic response, the crisis is entering a new phase. Embellished, China’s credibility as a leader in the global pandemic response and as a credible source for scientific data depends on persistent exemplary behaviour. In early April, China is particularly vulnerable for two reasons:

Taiwan’s investigation into possible collusion between the WHO and China. Technically-speaking the WHO chose China because this virus most likely originated in the Chinese province of Wuhan. It chose China because of its unfortunate position on the frontline, responsible for gathering data and developing solutions aimed at stemming and then slowing the growth of the infected. This said, some outlets have described the WHO’s attitude to China as “largely deferential”, and others even pointed to potential political collusion due to a recent Zoom recording released by Hong Kong English-language outlet RTHK where a WHO official declined to recognise the existence of Taiwan.

It is crucial nonetheless to understand that if a partnership between the WHO and China should be fruitful, it is indeed an understandable move to avoid controversial questions such as Taiwan’s political status foregoing the risk of soiling the relationship. It comes to no one’s surprise therefore that Taiwan has and will continue to look for ways to discredit China and the WHO, and perhaps find new information to come to light about the beginnings of the pandemic. Taiwan found a new track yesterday evening, which if proven valid could indicate that China initially denied the existence of a virus in mid December and decided to cover-up the evidence of an outbreak until several weeks later. If this story reaches a critical mass in Western media outlets, particularly European outlets, many of Chinese recent gains could vanish and trust broken down.

Image for post
Image for postSource: Worldmeters (accessed April 11th 2020)

A second-wave of infected patients. Since mid-February, China managed to contain the spread of the virus and restrict its logarithmic growth to barely above zero. After several weeks of stagnation at around 50 new cases per day, China has begun to progressively lift its lockdown on Wuhan. There are fears however that a second-wave of infections, like the one Japan is currently experiencing will restart the exponential growth of January and February. If China gets a second wave, it will damage its example to the world: that lockdown and “social distancing” aren’t sustainable models to follow. In a world where waves of infections are almost impossible to avoid, Wuhan-style lockdowns every few months are a tough ask for decentralised individualistic countries such as those in Europe or North America. Three schools of thought have emerged in Coronavirus disaster response:

  • 1. A Wuhan-style lockdown & social distancing approach, based on centralised government action restricting the movement of people through regulation and law enforcement (China, Italy, France)
  • 2. Massive testing campaigns and intensive citizen awareness efforts, based on informing citizens of updates in their neighbourhoods and workplaces and letting them take necessary steps themselves. (Taiwan, South Korea for the testing, UK)
  • 3. “Herd Immunity” — Which relies on the idea that a person/city/country having caught the virus can develop the antibodies necessary to prevent catching the virus again. Therefore some are pushing for relaxed social distancing policies to build their country’s immunity. (Sweden, UK in Feb)

While the Wuhan-style lockdowns are the current dominant approach to fighting the virus, a second wave could change this and make Testing-first and Herd Immunity approaches more appealing. Always struggling to shrug off the “Big but cheap” stereotype, such a public humiliation could significantly damage China’s regime image abroad in more sectors than just healthcare.

The Plague of Athens saw the transformation of the Aegean geopolitical system with Athens losing its position as hegemon to Sparta’s power and its growing diplomatic influence. Athens bore the brunt of the plague and Sparta had the fortunate sense of retreating its forces from the besieged city of Athens in time to avoid significant infection.

The war on Coronavirus is far from over, with many developments ahead. Who will, for example, win the battle for a treatment method (or even a potential vaccine)? Will second waves come, what will the reaction be if the world discovers a Chinese cover-up of second-wave cases?

Today, it is unclear who will be Athens and who will inherit the new COVID-19 world. China seems to have made inroads with countries beyond its traditional sphere of influence, filling a void left by the slowly reacting EU and the disunited United States. However, China has vulnerabilities regarding its actions early in the crisis and the soundness of its pandemic response. Those vulnerabilities can damage the key ingredient of trust that it desperately needs to overcome the United States on the global stage.

The rivalry between the United States and China, just like that between Athens and Sparta, isn’t only based on economic rivalry or military competition, but on the incompatibility of two governmental models. China is currently showing to the world what a centralised authoritarian model can do. The United States (perhaps due to its model) has not had the chance to show yet.

Whoever can make a more convincing case will be the Power able to define the future international standard for dealing with global emergencies. The geopolitical arena will place pandemic preparedness and response at the top of the international agenda for decades to come. Just as 9/11 defined international action from 2001, the COVID-19 virus will provide a mandate to change the international system.


The Technologies that will help China recover from COVID-19

This article is a follow-up to “The Chinese Tech behind the War on Coronavirus”. China is now moving into the second phase and using technology to bring about a new normality.

In many locations, temperature checks restaurants or supermarkets and mask-wearing is still mandatory. An air of cautiousness has settled throughout the country. Nevertheless, the great Chinese economic machine is slowly shifting gears to support its economic and social recovery.

David Chang — “Normalcy under high Surveillance”

Remote-working Technologies

In early March, Zoom surged nearly 22% to $159.07 per share, a new intra-day high for the video conferencing company. Since January 31, Zoom stock has gained 101% while the S&P 500 has lost nearly 30%. This reflects the demand for video conferencing technologies as a direct response to businesses’ commitments and compliance to social isolation.

Remote working also skyrocketed in China. Around 200 million people were working at home by the end of the Chinese New Year holiday. Many companies in China adopted local productivity technologies, such as, WeChat Work and Alibaba’s Dingtalk to: communicate externally & internally, hosting meetings, training and lectures. DingTalk Monthly active users jumped by 66 percent to more than 125 million., commonly known as Ctrip in China is the country’s largest online travel agency, has long enabled its contact-center staff to work from home. This paid dividends for the agency who was able to maintain a high service-quality during widespread travel disruptions.

Due to the high demand of remote working technologies the 3 leading domestic software enterprise players: Alibaba Dingtalk, Bytedance Lark, and WeChat Work experienced substantial growth between January-Feburary 2020 in downloads, though their user base vary massively:

DingTalk: 1,446%

Lark: 6,085%

WeChat Work: 572%.

What is DingTalk?

Entertainment Technologies

Domestic lock-down promised a surge of online entertainment. The short-video industry registered 569 million daily active users after the Chinese New Year holidays, regularly exceeding 492 million users, as reported by QuestMobile (Beijing located big data intelligence company).

The movie industry also benefitted despite the lack of box office revenues. “Enter the Fat Dragon,” an action comedy film directed by Kenji Tanigaki, debuted on Tencent Video and iQiyi released 2 weeks before premiering on Feb 14th. Another comedy, “Lost in Russia” was set to hit theatres on the first day of the Lunar New Year (Jan 25th), but opted to launch on ByteDance-owned platforms Xigua VideoDouyin and Jinri Toutiao the same day. With the foresight of offering it for free to viewers, as of Jan 27th more than 600 million Chinese have watched the film. The video streaming business is carrying Cinema.

Image for post
Online video company owned by Baidu (China’s domestic equivalent of Google)

Delivery Technologies

The initial Wuhan lock-down triggered panic-buying and the emptying of shelves. Yet in a matter of days, the supply chains worked on overdrive and supplies started to flow double-time into Wuhan. Residents have come to terms with the new reality and used digital technology to communicate and collaborate with suppliers.

Digitally-enabled delivery systems present in major Chinese population centres have enabled product delivery to homes in as little as 20 minutes — button-clicked to doorbell-rung. Alibaba’s Cainiao network supports the supply chains of the merchants it serves through an AI-enabled digital inventory system. Cainiao links the offline and online shopping worlds, in which the physical location of the merchant stores serve as an extended distribution network. When the lockdown went en-force, Alibaba immediately facilitated shipping essential medical & food supplies into Wuhan.

Chinese consumer are comfortable with the virtual/online world. Since SARS 2003 Chinese consumers have gotten used to preferring online shopping. With the development of and Alibaba, consumer behaviour shifted from traditional ‘brick & mortar’ shopping to 100% online- “contactless” shopping.

These two particularities of the Chinese lifestyle enable residents in gated community to organise home-delivery of essential supplies to those in self-quarantine. In my father’s gated-community in Hefei, residents have organised groups of volunteers via WeChat apps to receive supplies at the gate for the whole residential community. They box the goods and send them over to the households in need on their doorstep. The community-mentality present in communities like the one in Hefei has bought the community closer and provided hope for virus-affected families who know their community does not discriminate but instead lends a helpful hand.

As I conclude this article, I am writing in my lounge gazing longingly into the long-awaited London spring weather — an urge to go out and enjoy the Sun. It is only the start of the surge in COVID-19 cases in the UK. My wish is that the world can heal soon, with humanity coming together to fight this pandemic.