McConnell Blocks Vote on $2,000 Checks Despite G.O.P. Pressure

"Senator Mitch McConnell instead provided vague assurances that the Senate would “begin the process” of discussing the checks and two other issues that the president demanded lawmakers address.

Dec. 29, 2020

Senator Mitch McConnell’s decision to sidestep a vote came as a growing number of Republican senators came out in support of larger stimulus checks.Al Drago for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell blocked an attempt by Democrats on Tuesday to hold an immediate vote on increasing stimulus checks to $2,000 from $600, leaving the fate of the measure unclear as President Trump continued to demand the larger payouts and more Republicans publicly endorsed the idea.

Instead, Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, provided vague assurances that the Senate would “begin the process” of discussing $2,000 checks and two other issues that Mr. Trump has demanded lawmakers address: election security and removing legal protections for social media platforms.

Mr. McConnell would not say whether he planned separate votes on the three issues or if he would bring them for a vote on the Senate floor at all. But in a sign of how he might approach them, the majority leader introduced new legislation on Tuesday afternoon combining the $2,000 checks, election security and social media provisions into one bill, which would most likely doom the effort.

The sudden talk of election security complicates matters, given that Mr. Trump continues to claim, without evidence, that voter fraud cost him re-election. Democrats would undoubtedly resist anything that could be seen as trying to undermine the outcome of the election.

Mr. McConnell, who has privately urged his conference members not to object to the election results when Congress meets on Jan. 6 to ratify them, portrayed the president’s request as “exploring further ways to protect the sanctity of American ballots.” The bill that Mr. McConnell is putting together would create a bipartisan commission to study election practices that “strengthened” and that “undermined the integrity of the election,” like the use of mail-in ballots and vote-by-mail procedures, which Mr. Trump has baselessly complained encouraged voter fraud.

Mr. McConnell’s move came as he faced growing pressure from Republicans to increase stimulus payments to struggling Americans.

Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, who are facing tight runoff elections next week that will determine control of the Senate, announced on Tuesday that they supported increasing the size of individual stimulus checks to $2,000. They joined a handful of other Republican senators — including Marco Rubio of Florida, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — in calling for such action.

There are five days left in the current legislative session for the Senate to act. The lack of immediate action by the chamber rankled Mr. Trump, who lashed out at lawmakers in his own party.

“Unless Republicans have a death wish, and it is also the right thing to do, they must approve the $2000 payments ASAP,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. “$600 IS NOT ENOUGH!”

The vast majority of Senate Republicans have long resisted the idea of larger stimulus checks, pointing to concerns about their cost and effectiveness. But that position was undercut after Mr. Trump held a $900 billion stimulus package and government spending bill hostage for days, insisting that lawmakers more than triple the direct payments to $2,000 from $600.

On Politics with Lisa Lerer: A guiding hand through the political news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

The president relented only after Republican lawmakers persuaded him to sign the legislation on Sunday. He said that he had been assured Congress would take up his demands for bigger checks, along with removing a legal shield for tech companies and investigating “very substantial voter fraud.” His claims that the election was stolen have been repeatedly contradicted by state election officials and judges across the nation.

The House voted on Monday evening to increase the size of the stimulus checks to $2,000, daring Senate Republicans to either approve the heftier sum or defy Mr. Trump.

But on Tuesday, Mr. McConnell thwarted an effort by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to force an immediate vote on bigger checks by using a procedural tactic that allows senators to advance legislation unless another senator objects.

“Senate Democrats strongly support $2,000 checks. Even President Trump supports $2,000 checks,” Mr. Schumer said. “There’s one question left today: Do Senate Republicans join with the rest of America in supporting $2,000 checks?”

Democrats, who have long called for increased direct payments, have sought to use the issue as a political cudgel in the Georgia runoff. Jon Ossoff and the Rev. Raphael Warnock, who are running against Ms. Loeffler and Mr. Perdue, have both called for higher stimulus checks, criticizing the $600 as insufficient and rebuking their opponents for not agitating to put more money in Georgians’ pockets.

On Tuesday, Mr. Perdue called increasing the checks “the right thing to do for people in Georgia,” and he said that he was “delighted to support the president.”

That amounted to a turnabout just one week before the election. In August, Mr. Perdue told “PBS NewsHour” that he was opposed to direct payments, arguing that tax incentives were a more effective means of relief. Ms. Loeffler had been largely silent on the issue, and told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last weekshe would endorse the increase only if “it repurposes wasteful spending.”

Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, moved on Tuesday to delay a planned vote on a military policy bill that Mr. Trump had vetoed, insisting that lawmakers first vote on the proposal to increase the size of stimulus checks to $2,000.

The delay could keep the Senate in Washington through New Year’s Day, a schedule that would be particularly burdensome to the Georgia senators, who are eager to stay on the campaign trail.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, tried to force an immediate vote by using a procedural tactic but was blocked by Mr. McConnell.Al Drago for The New York Times

Other Republican senators have also begun to rally around bigger checks, which would go to individual adults with adjusted gross income on their 2019 tax returns of up to $75,000.

“Working Americans have borne the brunt of this pandemic,” Mr. Hawley wrote on Twitter. “They’ve been hammered, through no fault of their own. They deserve $2000 in #covid relief - a fraction of what the banks & big business got. Let’s vote now.”

And Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska told reporters on Capitol Hill that her vote would depend on the legislation but said that “people are hurting and I think we need to get more aid.”

But the majority of Senate Republicans remain opposed to the plan.

“What we ought to be doing is focusing on the $900 billion that we’ve already approved and that Secretary Mnuchin helped us negotiate,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas said.

“Instead of taking appropriate credit for those good things, focusing on” the issue of larger checks, he continued, “undermines the very positive impact of what we’ve already done.”

“It’s such a huge number,” said Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma. “I’d have a hard time supporting it.”

A decision by Mr. McConnell to link all of Mr. Trump’s demands together could sink the legislation. Democrats are unlikely to endorse a hasty overhaul of the legal shield currently in place for social media companies, known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, especially measures put forward by Republican senators aimed at confronting what they believe is anticonservative bias.

Mr. Trump has attacked Section 230 for months, arguing without evidence that the law enables websites to censor conservative views. Data shows that conservative personalities and publishers often thrive online. Conservative Republicans have introduced multiple bills tackling the issue in the past two years, although none of them have become law.

While the concerns about Section 230 are bipartisan, it is unlikely that lawmakers could reach an agreement on the issue within the next week. Mr. Trump and his allies have yet to find substantial common ground with Democrats, who primarily want changes addressing discriminatory advertising or terrorist content online.

“If Senator McConnell tries loading up the bipartisan House-passed CASH Act with unrelated, partisan provisions that will do absolutely nothing to help struggling families across the country, it will not pass the House and cannot become law,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement. “Any move like this by Sen. McConnell would be a blatant attempt to deprive Americans of a $2,000 survival check.”

Despite the lack of action on a bigger check, the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, said in a tweet on Tuesday that the $600 checks could begin arriving in bank accounts as early as Tuesday evening and would continue into next week, while paper checks will start being mailed on Wednesday."

McConnell Blocks Vote on $2,000 Checks Despite G.O.P. Pressure

25 Days That Changed the World: How Covid-19 Slipped China’s Grasp

Updated 

Dec. 30, 2020, 7:16 a.m. ET2 hours ago

Moving a Covid-19 victim in Wuhan, China, in February.CHINATOPIX, via Associated Press

"Moving a Covid-19 victim in Wuhan, China, in February.CHINATOPIX, via Associated Press

Beijing acted against the coronavirus with stunning force, as its official narratives recount. But not before a political logjam had allowed a local outbreak to kindle a global pandemic.

By Chris Buckley, David D. Kirkpatrick, Amy Qin and Javier C. Hernández

---

The most famous doctor in China was on an urgent mission.

Celebrated as the hero who helped uncover the SARS epidemic 17 years ago, Dr. Zhong Nanshan, now 84, was under orders to rush to Wuhan, a city in central China, and investigate a strange new coronavirus. His assistant photographed the doctor on the night train, eyes closed in thought, an image that would later rocket around China and burnish Dr. Zhong’s reputation as the nation’s medic riding to the rescue.

China’s official history now portrays Dr. Zhong’s trip as the cinematic turning point in an ultimately triumphant war against Covid-19, when he discovered the virus was spreading dangerously and sped to Beijing to sound the alarm. Four days later, on Jan. 23, China’s leader, Xi Jinping, sealed off Wuhan.

That lockdown was the first decisive step in saving China. But in a pandemic that has since claimed more than 1.7 million lives, it came too late to prevent the virus from spilling into the rest of the world.

The first alarm had actually sounded 25 days earlier, exactly a year ago, last Dec. 30. Even before then, Chinese doctors and scientists had been pushing for answers, yet officials in Wuhan and Beijing concealed the extent of infections or refused to act on warnings.

Politics stymied science, in a tension that would define the pandemic. China’s delayed initial response unleashed the virus on the world and foreshadowed battles between scientists and political leaders over transparency, public health and economics that would play out across continents.

This article — drawing on Chinese government documents, internal sources, interviews, research papers and books, including neglected or censored public accounts — examines those 25 days in China that changed the world.

Chinese scientists and private laboratories identified the coronavirus and mapped its genes weeks before Beijing acknowledged the severity of the problem. Scientists were talking to their peers, trying to raise alarms — and in some cases, they did, if at a price.

“We also spoke the truth,” said Prof. Zhang Yongzhen, a leading virologist in Shanghai. “But nobody listened to us, and that’s really tragic.”

As political hostilities erupted between China and the United States, scientists on both sides still leaned on global networks built up over decades and sought to share information — with top scientists recognizing early on that the virus was probably contagious among humans.

On Jan. 8, the head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, George F. Gao, became emotional after acknowledging that danger during a call with his American counterpart, Dr. Robert R. Redfield, according to two people familiar with Dr. Redfield’s account of the call.

Yet neither Dr. Redfield nor Dr. Gao, each constrained by politics, signaled a public alarm. In Beijing, top health officials had received ominous reports from doctors in Wuhan and had sent two expert teams to investigate. Yet they lacked the political clout to challenge Wuhan officials and held their tongues in public.

To a degree, Dr. Zhong’s trip to Wuhan was less medical than political. He already knew the virus was spreading between people; his real purpose was to break the logjam in China’s opaque system of government.

“There is certainly human-to-human transmission,” Dr. Zhong wrote in a report that he drafted on the train before reaching Wuhan, according to a recent Chinese book written with his cooperation. “Remind the public not to go to Wuhan except for special reasons, reduce outings and avoid gatherings.”

Hankou Railroad Station in Wuhan on Jan. 22. The virus erupted in the approach to Lunar New Year, a busy travel season in China.Xiaolu Chu/Getty Images

Not long after, the government sealed off Wuhan.Getty Images

China ultimately got control, both of the virus and of the narrative surrounding it. Today, the Chinese economy is roaring and some experts are asking whether the pandemic has tipped the global balance of power toward Beijing.

China’s resurgence has infuriated President Trump, who spent months blaming Beijing for what he called “the China virus.” The United States still hasn’t contained the virus and is paying a heavy price in deaths and economic impact, while life is relatively normal in China.

Not long ago, China and the United States cooperated successfully to track and halt viral outbreaks in China. But the Trump administration pulled nearly a dozen public health experts from Beijing months before the outbreak — effectively closing the eyes of the American government to disease threats from China.

Chinese diplomats argue that the country’s record of stifling infections after the Wuhan lockdown has vindicated Mr. Xi’s strong-arm politics, even as the government has airbrushed over the early weeks, when decisive action could have curbed the outbreak. One early study projected that China could have reduced the total number of cases by 66 percent had officials acted a week earlier. Action three weeks earlier could have dropped the caseload by 95 percent.

China’s reluctance to be transparent about those initial weeks has also left gaping holes in what the world knows about the coronavirus. Scientists have little insight into where and how the virus emerged, in part because Beijing has delayed an independent investigation into the animal origins of the outbreak.

“They’re missing a good opportunity to learn,” said Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who studies Chinese health policy. “There’s no serious discussion on what actually went wrong.”

‘Everyone Saw It on the Internet’

On Dec. 30, after doctors in Wuhan came across patients with a mysterious, hard-to-treat pneumonia, city authorities ordered hospitals to report similar cases. By policy, the hospitals should have also reported them directly to the national C.D.C. in Beijing.

They didn’t.

Barely 12 minutes after the internal notice was issued, though, it spilled onto WeChat, China’s near-ubiquitous social media service, and a later second internal notice on patient care also quickly spread online, until talk of a mysterious pneumonia outbreak reached Dr. Gao, the Oxford-trained virologist who heads the Chinese C.D.C.

“Wasn’t it all being talked about on the internet?” Dr. Gao said in a brief interview when asked about how he learned about the Wuhan cases. “Everyone saw it on the internet.”

Late that night, the Chinese National Health Commission ordered medical experts to rush to Wuhan in the morning.

Hours later, the medical news service ProMED issued a bulletin to global health professionals, including the World Health Organization. It immediately reminded some scientists of the SARS epidemic of 2002-03 — which was caused by a coronavirus outbreak in China and killed nearly 800 people worldwide.

“My first response is: ‘Oh hell, this is SARS revisited,’” said Dr. Marjorie P. Pollack, the ProMED deputy editor in New York who issued the Dec. 30 bulletin and had also helped put out an early alert about SARS.

In Wuhan, the outbreak seemed concentrated at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. A week earlier, local doctors had sent lung fluid from a sick 65 year-old market worker to Vision Medicals, a genomics firm in southern China. It found a coronavirus roughly similar to SARS. Two more commercial labs soon reached the same conclusion.

None dared go public.

The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, the early epicenter of the outbreak, on Jan. 11. It had been shuttered at the turn of the year.Noel Celis/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

A memorial in April for those who died of the coronavirus in Wuhan.Roman Pilipey/EPA, via Shutterstock

Many coronaviruses are found in animals and people, and few are dire health threats. But two, SARS and MERS, had jumped from animals in recent years to spread person to person, causing serious and sometimes fatal illness.

Vision Medicals sent its data to the Chinese Academy of Medical Science in Beijing and dispatched a top executive to warn the Wuhan Health Commission.

The Beijing team that arrived in Wuhan on the last day of 2019 was quickly informed about the laboratory results, Dr. Cao Bin, a member of the team, told a Chinese newspaper.

At that point, the Wuhan government had publicly confirmed that city hospitals were dealing with an unusual pneumonia but denied it was potentially contagious.

At the same time, the National Health Commission told the commercial labs to destroy or hand over samples with the virus, and ordered that research findings be published only after official approval. The head of the Guangdong Health Commission, under orders from Beijing, led a team to Vision Medicals to seize its sample.

Despite the restrictions, scientists kept talking across borders. Prof. Stanley Perlman texted a Chinese colleague on Jan. 4 about rumors of a new coronavirus, and was swiftly told to switch to an encrypted phone app.

“He said, ‘Yes, it is a coronavirus and it is still not being publicized as well as one would like,’” said Professor Perlman, who teaches at the University of Iowa, adding that his friend noted that four laboratories had sequenced the virus. “So there was some murky stuff going on.”

The team from Beijing rushed together guides on treating patients and helped browbeat local officials into shuttering the market. But one of the investigators wasn’t worried about the surge of travel for Spring Festival, China’s Lunar New Year holiday later in January.

Coronavirus Briefing: An informed guide to the global outbreak, with the latest developments and expert advice.

“China has accumulated many years of experience in infectious disease control,” Dr. Xu Jianguo told a Hong Kong newspaper. “There is certainly no possibility of widespread dispersal because of Spring Festival travel.”

‘There Would be Consequences’

More than 500 miles to the east, Zhang Yongzhen, a leading virologist at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, was very worried.

Like several other Chinese labs, Professor Zhang and his team had cracked the virus’s genetic code and concluded that it could be contagious. Unlike the other labs, he felt a duty to publish the information to help researchers work on tests, treatments and vaccines.

“I don’t know,” Professor Zhang said in a lengthy interview, when asked why others didn’t go public. “For many in China, it’s easier to say what officials like to hear.”

After Professor Zhang’s team finished sequencing the virus on Jan. 5, his center internally warned leaders in Shanghai and health officials in Beijing, recommending protective steps in public spaces.

He also prepared to release the data, a step that took on added urgency after he visited Wuhan to speak at a university on Jan. 9. That same day, the government confirmed the new disease was a coronavirus, but officials continued to play down the potential danger.

At dinner, a group of Wuhan doctors told him the outbreak was worse than officials were admitting.

“The doctors on the clinical frontline certainly felt this the sharpest,” he said. “I knew that this illness was certainly quite ferocious.”

On Jan. 11, Professor Zhang was about to board a flight to Beijing when he received a call from his longtime research partner, Edward Holmes, a virologist at the University of Sydney.

By now, China had reported its first virus death and cases were suspected in Hong Kong. Professor Zhang had already submitted his sequence to GenBank, a vast online library of genetic data, but the review process was taking time.

Paramedics transporting the first person to test positive for the coronavirus in Hong Kong on Jan. 22.Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times

Washing hospital steps in Wuhan, that same day.Dake Kang/Associated Press

Professor Holmes prodded his friend. Look at the rising number of cases in Wuhan, he said. Look at the cases turning up in Hong Kong.

It was a decision that only Professor Zhang could make, Professor Holmes told him. Releasing the data risked offending health officials who were intent on controlling information and claiming credit for sequencing the virus. Professor Zhang said he needed a moment to think as his plane taxied to take off.

“In maybe less than a minute I immediately called him,” Professor Zhang said. “I told him to release it.”

Soon the data was up on a virology website.

Some two and a half hours later, Professor Zhang landed in Beijing. When he turned on his phone, messages poured in.

“Getting it out quickly was the only aim,” Professor Holmes said. “We knew that there would be consequences.”

Broken Partnership

Dr. Redfield, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was an old friend of his Chinese counterpart, Dr. Gao, and specialized in the same field, virology.

The two men had spoken after the ProMED alert, but Dr. Gao had insisted that the virus had spread only from animals at the market, not from person to person.

But now, on Jan. 8, Dr. Gao was agitated, according to two people familiar with Dr. Redfield’s account of the call. The virus had infected medical workers, Dr. Gao said, and was jumping between humans, despite the denials by local officials.

Politically, it was a perilous situation for both men.

As its trade war with China escalated, the Trump administration had all but eliminated a public health partnership with Beijing that had begun after the debacle of SARS and was intended to help prevent potential pandemics. By pulling out, current and former agency officials say, Washington cut itself off from potential intelligence about the virus, and lost a chance to work with China against it.

Under the partnership, teams of American doctors were stationed in China and, over time, helped train more than 2,500 Chinese public health staff. More than 15 traveled to the United States for training, as well.

“Our trainees,” the Americans called them.

One of the American doctors was stationed inside the Chinese C.D.C., building ties with trainees bound for posts across the country, and socializing with Chinese doctors.

“You are in a position to gain extremely important information,” said Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, a former agency director who helped set up the arrangement, “particularly on a threatening new disease.”

In a review of 10 years of partnership, doctors on both sides argued that it had helped prevent potential pandemics, such as avian flu, which first appeared in the southern province of Guangdong. China let U.S. epidemiologists join the response and sent scientists to America for training, a partnership that continued as recently as 2017, when a newly virulent strain spread to other countries and killed more than 600 people.

“We worked shoulder to shoulder with the China C.D.C.,” recalled Dr. Tom Frieden, the head of the U.S. agency under President Barack Obama. With further spread and the wrong mutation, Dr. Frieden added, “It could have been a pandemic.”

Another American program in the country — called Predict — sought to spot dangerous pathogens in animals, particularly coronaviruses, before they could leap to humans. One of the labs it worked with was in Wuhan.

Yet in July 2019, without public explanation, the United States pulled out the last American doctor inside the Chinese C.D.C. A separate Beijing office of the American C.D.C. closed months later. It had once included more than a dozen American specialists and 40 Chinese public health workers. By December, all that remained were two epidemiologists, an information technology specialist and a handful of local employees, primarily working on seasonal influenza. The Predict program was also suspended.

A newscast in Beijing, displaying President Xi Jinping’s first visit to Wuhan in March.Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

President Trump at a coronavirus news conference in February. In 2019, the United States had pulled the last American doctor out of the Chinese C.D.C.Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior administration official said the C.D.C. had concluded that China could sustain the training program with less assistance. Despite close cooperation as recently as 2017, a White House spokesman denied that a larger American presence would have made any difference.

“If we’d had 100 people in China, it would’ve made no difference given that the Communist Party was determined to keep our people in the dark,” the spokesman, John Ullyot, of the National Security Council, said.

As his predecessor had with avian flu, Dr. Redfield quickly offered American help to fight the outbreak in Wuhan. He told Dr. Gao that he could send 20 epidemiologists in 48 hours.

This time, China never accepted.

A Toothless Watchdog

On paper, Dr. Ma Xiaowei, the director of China’s National Health Commission, and the most powerful person in the country’s medical bureaucracy, wielded formidable resources to stop the virus in Wuhan.

In practice, his hands were tied.

In the Communist Party hierarchy, he stood at the edge of the elite, pressing for attention from ever-busy leaders. Outside Beijing, disease control officials often took their cues from local overseers, not Dr. Ma.

“The provincial leaders have more say,” said Mr. Huang, the health system expert.

But on Jan. 8, Dr. Ma dispatched a team to Wuhan, to pick up where the previous Beijing experts had left off. Officials in Wuhan claimed that no new cases had been detected for days, and the new Beijing team did not publicly challenge that assessment.

“Everyone all along had their suspicions about contagiousness,” Wang Guangfa, a respiratory doctor from Peking University First Hospital who was a key member of the team, said in an interview. “But the results from the epidemiological investigations didn’t offer clear conclusions.”

Yet inside many Wuhan hospitals, fever wards were crowding. At Tongji Hospital, Dr. Zhao Jianping had no doubt what he was seeing.

“Nobody expected that it would be as severe as it’s become,” said Dr. Zhao, the head of the respiratory unit, in an account for a Chinese medical website. “But what was clear was that we knew it was contagious, that human-to-human spread was happening.”

Zhongnan Hospital opened a 24-hour fever clinic and an isolation ward, both of which were quickly overrun.

“It felt like a disaster was looming,” Dr. Wang Xinghuan, the hospital’s president, told the Chinese magazine Caixin. He said he tried to warn officials, even sending them a timeline of how SARS escalated from cover-up to full-blown crisis.

Over just 10 days, workers mostly completed a new field hospital in Wuhan to help cope with the outbreak.Getty Images

A Covid-19 intensive care unit at a hospital in Wuhan in February.CHINATOPIX, via Associated Press

Doctors and nurses were falling ill at several Wuhan hospitals that the Beijing team visited. But infections of medical workers were not included in the official numbers fed to the visiting experts.

Zhongnan Hospital submitted three reports to provincial leaders warning that the “illness was highly infectious,” China’s Science Daily later reported. Dr. Wang, the hospital president, told Caixin that he waited for the Beijing experts to visit him.

They never did.

Doctors in Wuhan knew that, politically, there was little incentive to own up to the problem. In the Communist Party pecking order, the secretary of Hubei Province — whose officials had promoted a reassuring line about the virus — overshadowed the National Health Commission director.

“So what if we knew? I’d also heard of medical workers being infected,” Yu Changping, a respiratory and critical illness doctor at Renmin Hospital in Wuhan, told a Chinese newspaper about the first weeks of January. “But the discipline rules from the authorities were clear at the time, so what could I say?”

Dr. Ma was hardly oblivious to the rising risks. A Wuhan tourist visiting Thailand had become the first case confirmed outside China. The National Health Commission called together medical officials across China on Jan. 14 for a video meeting — kept secret at the time — that laid out precautions against the virus.

Afterward, the commission sent out an internal directive: 63 pages that advised hospitals and disease control centers across China about how to track and halt the new virus — and seemed to assume it was contagious.

Yet the instructions hedged on the key issue. There was “no clear proof in the cases of human to human transmission among the cases,” one section declared.

‘Your Last Chance to Tell the Truth’

In mid-January, Xi Jinping presided over a meeting of the country’s two dozen top officials. There was no mention of the coronavirus, at least in the official summaries then and since.

Mr. Xi kept busy with other matters: his campaign to instill Communist values in officials, and sealing a trade deal on Jan. 15 with the United States.

“The central government seemed almost singularly focused on the trade deal,” said an American business executive who spoke with senior Chinese officials in the middle of that month. “The epidemic did not come up.”

Twelve hundred miles south in Guangdong Province, though, health officials and experts, including Dr. Zhong Nanshan, were not reassured.

Dr. Zhong’s role in helping to expose SARS, and then urging the public not to panic, had sealed his special status. Even early in his career, Dr. Zhong stood out, as one of the first Chinese doctors sent for training in the West in the late 1970s. He studied in London and Edinburgh.

“He was already quite influential,” said Professor William MacNee of the University of Edinburgh. “I sensed even back then that he was a kind of a political character.”

Now the head of a respiratory disease center in Guangdong, Dr. Zhong learned in mid-January about cases at a hospital in Shenzhen, a city just across the border from Hong Kong. A family had tested positive for the virus after visiting Wuhan. None had gone to the market.

Then another relative tested positive after entering the hospital on Jan. 14 — one who had never gone to Wuhan. The virus was being passed on like a baton in a relay race.

“I knew that this was extremely serious,” said Kwok-Yung Yuen, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Hong Kong, who helped investigate the case. “I immediately sounded the alarm.”

A checkpoint between Hunan and Hubei provinces in January.Thomas Peter/Reuters

Medical workers in March preparing to transport patients to a newly constructed field hospital in Wuhan.Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Officials in Guangdong held an emergency meeting on Jan. 16 to prepare hospitals and health officials. In coastal Zhejiang Province, Dr. Li Lanjuan, the former chief of the provincial health office, heard that doctors in Wuhan hospitals were being infected. She called Dr. Ma in Beijing to urge that experts take another look.

The political dynamic had changed. Guangdong and Zhejiang provinces are economic powerhouses, if anything more powerful than Hubei. On Jan. 18, Dr. Ma enlisted Dr. Zhong to lead a third delegation to Wuhan.

There, Dr. Zhong learned from former students that “the actual situation in Hubei was far worse than was public or in news reports,” he told a Guangdong newspaper. He also met for breakfast with the president of Zhongnan Hospital, who described a calamity in the making.

Yet officials still insisted the outbreak was manageable when the governor of Hubei Province, Wang Xiaodong, received Dr. Zhong’s team in a hotel conference room. It quickly became a confrontation.

“Today is your last chance to tell the truth,” Zeng Guang, another expert in the delegation, said, according to the recent book about Dr. Zhong.

Finally, one of the officials acknowledged that 15 medical workers in Wuhan Union Hospital were likely to have been infected, an admission of human-to-human spread, the book said. It was all Dr. Zhong needed, and his team rushed to Beijing.

The visit gave Dr. Ma, the top health official, political cover to press top leaders for urgent action, said Mr. Huang, the expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“They were ready to make that change,” he said. “They just needed somebody to play that role.”

The next morning, Dr. Zhong went to the Chinese Communist Party leadership’s walled compound, Zhongnanhai. Mr. Xi was away in southwestern China, and Prime Minister Li Keqiang listened as the experts warned that the virus was spreading.

“The outbreak is at a critical juncture,” Dr. Zhong told a televised news conference that night. “Already many people have fallen ill, and many people have also gone on travel.”

Three days later, China had confirmed 571 cases of the coronavirus, although experts estimate the real number was many thousands. Back in Beijing, Mr. Xi closed off Wuhan, a city of 11 million people.

Rewriting History

Eleven days later, Mr. Xi was facing a political crisis.

China’s internet echoed with fury over Li Wenliang, a Wuhan doctor who was reprimanded by the police after trying to alert colleagues to the coronavirus. Dr. Li now lay in a critical care unit after contracting the virus. Emboldened Chinese journalists had produced searing accounts of missteps and lies in the previous weeks.

Under fire, Mr. Xi defended his record at a Politburo meeting on Feb. 3, asserting that he had been on the case early.

Since the start of China’s Lunar New Year holiday on Jan. 25, “containing the outbreak has been the issue I’ve most cared about,” Mr. Xi said in a speech that was not made public at the time.

Infections and deaths kept rising. On Feb. 7, Dr. Li died, unleashing a nationwide outpouring of grief. Questions spread in China and abroad about Mr. Xi’s grip on power.

Eager to show that Mr. Xi remained in command, propaganda officials released his Politburo speech from early February. Except that ignited even more questions.

Until then, Mr. Xi’s earliest known comments on the crisis were on Jan. 20. But in his speech, Mr. Xi claimed he had given internal instructions about the outbreak as early as Jan. 7 — before China had officially announced that the disease was a coronavirus.

“Beijing wanted to get on the record so no one could say the leader had been asleep at the wheel,” said Richard McGregor, a senior fellow at the Lowy Institute in Australia, who has studied China’s handling of the outbreak.

On China’s internet, people asked why they had not been warned sooner, given that the issue was urgent enough to go to Mr. Xi’s desk. And why, they asked, weren’t Mr. Xi’s precise instructions made public?

A vigil for Dr. Li Wenliang, who died in Wuhan after the police reprimanded him for raising alarms about the coronavirus.Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times

Mr. Xi, center, with Dr. Zhong Nanshan, second from right, in September after commending officials for their efforts against the coronavirus.Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters

But Mr. Xi’s speech foreshadowed what was to come — rewriting the history of the crisis even as it was happening. As well as quelling infections, Mr. Xi said, the party had to “seize the initiative” on how the outbreak was seen.

“We must actively respond to international concerns,” Mr. Xi told leaders, “and tell a good story of China’s fight against the outbreak.”

By March, infections rose sharply in Europe and then the United States and began to recede in China.

Official Chinese accounts pushed a new narrative of the outbreak, describing prompt, seamless coordination between Wuhan and Beijing. Episodes and people that contradicted that story were moved out of view. The authorities detained activists who had criticized Mr. Xi.

Damning investigations disappeared from Chinese news sites, including several cited in this article. Doctors and nurses in Wuhan who had been lauded for warning about the virus fell silent.

Professor Zhang, the Shanghai virologist, went unmentioned in the laudatory official reports. His research center in Shanghai underwent “rectification,” hindering his research.

In September, Mr. Xi honored doctors, officials and other Chinese for their role in fighting Covid-19.

China’s leaders had “acted decisively and responded to an extraordinary event with extraordinary measures,” Mr. Xi said in a 74-minute speech that barely touched on the time before Wuhan was locked down.

He awarded Dr. Zhong the Medal of the Republic, China’s highest honor. The next day, People’s Daily — the Communist Party’s main paper — celebrated Dr. Zhong and cited one of his adages.

“In science, it is only right to seek truth from facts and not to play safe,” Dr. Zhong was quoted as saying. “Otherwise patients will be the victims.”

Research and reporting were contributed by Keith Bradsher, Amber Wang, Amy Chang Chien, Albee Zhang, Elsie Chen and Coral Yang."

25 Days That Changed the World: How Covid-19 Slipped China’s Grasp

Opinion | Will Pence Do the Right Thing? - The New York Times

Will Pence Do the Right Thing?

By NEAL K. KATYALnytimes.com6 min

On Jan. 6, the vice president will preside as Congress counts the Electoral College’s votes. Let’s hope that he doesn’t do the unthinkable — and unconstitutional.

By and John Monsky

Mr. Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown, is a former acting solicitor general of the United States. Mr. Monsky is the creator of the American History Unbound Series of multimedia productions that covers watershed moments in American history and a board member of the New-York Historical Society.

Credit...Tom Brenner/The New York Times

President Trump recently tweeted that “the ‘Justice’ Department and FBI have done nothing about the 2020 Presidential Election Voter Fraud,” followed by these more ominous lines: “Never give up. See everyone in D.C. on January 6th.”

The unmistakable reference is to the day Congress will count the Electoral College’s votes, with Vice President Mike Pence presiding. Mr. Trump is leaning on the vice president and congressional allies to invalidate the November election by throwing out duly certified votes for Joe Biden.

Mr. Pence thus far has not said he would do anything like that, but his language is worrisome. Last week, he said: “We’re going to keep fighting until every legal vote is counted. We’re going to win Georgia, we’re going to save America,” as a crowd screamed, “Stop the steal.”

And some Republicans won’t let up. On Monday, Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas and other politicians filed a frivolous lawsuit, which has multiple fatal flaws in both form and substance, in an attempt to force the vice president to appoint pro-Trump electors.

Mr. Trump himself has criticized virtually everyone’s view of the election, from that of the Supreme Court to the F.B.I. to Senator Mitch McConnell, but he has never attacked Mr. Pence, suggesting he has hopes for the vice president.

But as a matter of constitutional text and history, any effort on Jan. 6 is doomed to fail. It would also be profoundly anti-democratic and unconstitutional.

Both Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment say that the votes of the Electoral College are to be opened by the “president of the Senate,” meaning the vice president. The Electoral Count Act, passed in 1887 to avoid chaotic counts like the one that followed the 1876 election, adds important details. It provides a detailed timeline to tabulate electoral votes, culminating with the final count to take place on Jan. 6, and it delineates the powers of the vice president.

He is to be the “presiding officer” (meaning he is to preserve order and decorum), open the ballot envelopes, provide those results to a group of tellers, call for any objection by members of Congress, announce the results of any votes on objections, and ultimately announce the result of the vote.

Nothing in either the text of the Constitution or the Electoral Count Act gives the vice president any substantive powers. His powers are ministerial, and that circumscribed role makes general sense: The whole point of an election is to let the people decide who will rule them. If an incumbent could simply maneuver to keep himself in office — after all, a maneuver to protect Mr. Trump also protects Mr. Pence — the most foundational precept of our government would be gravely undermined. In America, “we the people,” not “we, the vice president,” control our destiny.

The drafters of the Electoral Count Act consciously insisted on this weakened role for the vice president. They guarded against any pretense he might have to throw out a particular state’s votes, saying that the vice president must open “all certificates and papers purporting to be” electoral votes. They further said, in the event of a dispute, both chambers of Congress would have to disagree with a particular state’s slate of electoral votes to reject them. And they made it difficult for Congress to disagree, adding measures such as a “safe harbor” provision and deference to certification by state officials.

In this election, certification is clear. There are no ongoing legal challenges in the states of any merit whatsoever. All challenges have lost, spectacularly and often, in the courts. The states and the electors have spoken their will. Neither Vice President Pence nor the loyal followers of President Trump have a valid basis to contest anything.

To be sure, this structure creates awkwardness, as it forces the vice president to announce the result even when personally unfavorable.

After the close election of 1960, Richard Nixon, as vice president, counted the votes for his opponent, John Kennedy. Al Gore, in perhaps one of the more dramatic moments of our Republic’s short history, counted the votes and reported them in favor of George W. Bush.

Watching Mr. Gore count the votes, shut off all challenges and deliver the presidency to Mr. Bush was a powerful moment in our democracy. By the time he counted the votes, America and the world knew where he stood. And we were all lifted up when Mr. Gore, at the end, asked God to bless the new president and vice president and joined the chamber in applause.

Republican leaders — including Senators McConnell, Roy Blunt and John Thune — have recognized the outcome of the election, despite the president’s wrath. Mr. McConnell put it in clear terms: “The Electoral College has spoken. So today, I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden.”

Notably, Mr. Pence has been silent. He has not even acknowledged the historic win by Kamala Harris, the nation’s first female, first African-American and first Asian-American vice president.

He now stands on the edge of history as he begins his most consequential act of leadership. The question for Vice President Pence, as well as other members of Congress, is which side of history he wants to come down on. Can he show the integrity demonstrated by every previous presidential administration? The American people accept a graceful loser, but a sore loser never goes down well in the history books.

We urge Mr. Pence to study our first president. After the Revolutionary War, the artist Benjamin West reported that King George had asked him what General Washington would do now that America was independent. West said that Washington would give up power and go back to farming. King George responded with words to the effect that “if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Indeed, Washington did so, surrendering command of the army to Congress and returning to Mount Vernon for years until he was elected president. And he again relinquished power eight years later, even though many would have been happy to keep him president for life. Washington in this way fully realized the American Republic, because there is no Republic without the peaceful transfer of power.

And it’s now up to Mr. Pence to recognize exactly that. Like all those that have come before him, he should count the votes as they have been certified and do everything he can to oppose those who would do otherwise. This is no time for anyone to be a bystander — our Republic is on the line.

Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal), a former acting solicitor general of the United States and the author of “Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump,” is a law professor at Georgetown. John Monsky is the creator of the American History Unbound Series of multimedia productions that covers watershed moments in American History and is a board member of the New-York Historical Society."

Opinion | Will Pence Do the Right Thing? - The New York Times