Search This Blog

Friday, April 21, 2023

Healthcare in China



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
China Healthcare Security (CHS) Logo

Healthcare in China has undergone basic changes over the twentieth century and twenty-first centuries, using both public and private medical institutions and insurance programs. As of 2020, about 95% of the population has at least basic health insurance coverage. Basic medical insurance includes two systems: employee medical insurance and resident medical insurance. The former covers the urban employed population, and the latter covers the urban non-employed population and the rural population. 25% of the people covered by the basic medical insurance participated in the employee medical insurance, a total of 344 million people; 75% participated in the residents' medical insurance, a total of 1.017 billion people. Medical assistance has subsidized 78 million poor people to participate in basic medical insurance, and the coverage of poor people has stabilized at over 99.9%. Despite this, public health insurance generally only covers about half of medical costs, with the proportion lower for serious or chronic illnesses. Under the "Healthy China 2020" initiative, China has undertaken an effort to cut healthcare costs, requiring insurance to cover 70% of costs by the end of 2018. In addition, there are policies such as critical illness insurance and medical assistance.

The country maintains two parallel medical systems, one for modern or Western medicine, and one for Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Some Chinese consider TCM backward and ineffective, others consider it inexpensive, effective, and culturally appropriate. China has also become a major market for health-related multinational companies. Companies such as AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Merck entered the Chinese market and have experienced explosive growth. China has also become a growing hub for healthcare research and development. According to Sam Radwan of ENHANCE International, China’s projected healthcare spending in 2050 may exceed Germany’s entire 2020 gross domestic product.

The above only applies to Mainland China. The special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau maintain their own separate universal healthcare systems.

History

Traditional and folk medicine served as the basis for health care in China. Western-inspired evidence-based medicine made its way to China beginning in the 19th Century. When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took power in 1949, national "patriotic health campaigns" and local governments successfully introduced basic sanitary measures and preventative hygiene education. Health care was provided through the place of work, such as the government bureaucratic unit, the enterprise, factory, school, or, in the countryside, the cooperative or commune. During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), Mao Zedong's followers attacked medical professionals as elitists. Basic primary care was dispatched to rural areas through barefoot doctors and other state-sponsored programs. Urban health care was also streamlined.

However, beginning with economic reforms in 1978, health standards in China began to diverge significantly between urban and rural areas and coastal and interior provinces. Much of the health sector became privatized. As the commune and state-owned enterprises shut down and the vast majority of urban residents were no longer employed by the state, they also lost much of their social security and health benefits. As a result, the majority of urban residents paid almost all health costs out-of-pocket beginning in the 1990s, and most rural residents simply could not afford to pay for health care in urban hospitals. Free medical treatment was practiced in areas controlled by the CCP before 1949. In February 1951, the industrial and mining departments began to try out labor insurance regulations and solve workers' medical problems. In the same year, free medical treatment was also tried in northern Shaanxi and some ethnic minority areas. On June 27, 1952, the Instructions of the Administration Council on the Practice of Free Medical Treatment and Prevention for State Functionaries of People's Governments at all levels, parties, organizations and affiliated Institutions were issued. After that, the CCP government gradually communized the medical and health system and modernized it in imitation of the Soviet Union. During the period of planned economy, a tertiary hospital structure was established: a tertiary medical service and epidemic prevention system consisting of municipal and district hospitals and outpatients from sub-districts, factories, and mines. A three-level medical prevention and health care network is established in rural areas, with county hospitals as the leader, township (town) health centers as the hub, and village clinics as the basis.

System reform

Since 2006, China has been undertaking the most significant healthcare reforms since the Mao era. The government launched the New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS) in 2005 in an overhaul of the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Under the NRCMCS, some 800 million rural residents gained basic, tiered medical coverage, with the central and provincial governments covering between 30-80% of regular medical expenses. The availability of medical insurance has increased in urban areas as well. By 2011 more than 95% of the total population of China had basic health insurance, though out-of-pocket costs and the quality of care varied significantly, particularly when it came to serious illnesses among children. The health infrastructure in Beijing, Shanghai, and other major cities was approaching developed-world standards and is vastly superior compared to those operating in the rural interior.

Current healthcare system

The Chinese healthcare system maintains traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and modern medicine as two parallel medical systems. The government invests in TCM research and administration, but TCM is challenged by having too few professionals with knowledge and skills and rising public awareness of modern or western models. Major cities have hospitals specializing in different fields and are equipped with some modern facilities. Public hospitals and clinics are available in cities. Their quality varies by location; the best treatment can usually be found in public city-level hospitals, followed by smaller district-level clinics. Many public hospitals in major cities have so-called V.I.P. wards or gāogàn bìngfáng (Chinese: 高干病房). These feature reasonably up-to-date medical technology and skilled staff. Most V.I.P. wards also provide medical services to foreigners and have English-speaking doctors and nurses. V.I.P. wards typically charge higher prices than other hospital facilities, but are still often cheap by Western standards. In addition to modern care, traditional Chinese medicine is also widely used, and there are Chinese medicine hospitals and treatment facilities located throughout the country. Dental care, cosmetic surgery, and other health-related services at Western standards are widely available in urban areas, though costs vary. Historically, in rural areas, most healthcare was available in clinics providing rudimentary care, with poorly trained medical personnel and little medical equipment or medications, though certain rural areas had far higher-quality medical care than others. However, the quality of rural health services has improved dramatically since 2009. In an increasing trend, healthcare for residents of rural areas unable to travel long distances to reach an urban hospital is provided by family doctors who travel to the homes of patients, which is covered by the government.

Reform of the health care system in urban areas of China has prompted concerns about the demand and utilization of Community Health Services Centres; a 2012 study, however, found that insured patients are less likely to use private clinics and more likely to use the centers.

A cross-sectional study between 2003 and 2011 showed remarkable increases in health insurance coverage and inpatient reimbursement accompanied by increased use and coverage. The increases in service use are particularly important in rural areas and at hospitals. Major advances have been made in achieving equal access to insurance coverage, inpatient reimbursement, and basic health services, most notably for hospital delivery, and use of outpatient and inpatient care.

With substantial urbanization, attention to health care has changed. Urbanization offers opportunities for improvements in population health in China (such as access to improved health care and basic infrastructure) and substantial health risks including air pollution, occupational and traffic hazards, and the risks conferred by changing diets and activity. Communicable infections should also be re-focused on. In 2022, the BBC's chief international correspondent Lyse Doucet said China had a very good healthcare system including at the provincial level.

Resources

In 2005 China had about 1,938,000 physicians (1.5 per 1,000 persons) and about 3,074,000 hospital beds (2.4 per 1,000 persons). Health expenditures on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis were US$224 per capita in 2001 or 5.5 percent of the gross domestic product. Some 37.2 percent of public expenditures were devoted to health care in China in 2001. However, about 80 percent of the health and medical care services are concentrated in cities, and timely medical care is not available to more than 100 million people in rural areas. To offset this imbalance, in 2005 China set out a five-year plan to invest 20 billion renminbi (RMB; US$2.4 billion) to rebuild the rural medical service system composed of village clinics and township- and county-level hospitals. By 2018 this goal had been completed and the country had a total of 309,000 general practitionersor 2.22 per 10,000 people.

There is a shortage of doctors and nurses in China. More doctors are being trained, but most aim to leave the countryside in favor of the cities, leaving significant shortages in rural areas.

In 2016 it was reported that ticket resale was widely practiced at Beijing Tongren Hospital and Peking University First Hospital. Advance tickets for outpatient consultation are sold by the hospitals for 200 yuan but sold for as much as 3,000 yuan. An eye doctor commented that the appointment fees did not reflect the economic value of doctors' skills and experience and that the scalpers were selling the doctor's appointment at a price the market is prepared to pay.

Medical training

The Chinese medical education system is based on the British model. While some medical schools run three-year programs, hospitals tend to recruit physicians who graduated from five-year programs, while big-name hospitals only accept MDs, which takes seven years of study, including five years of undergraduate studies, followed by the completion of a Ph.D. in medicine. Once a student graduates from medical school, he or she must work 1–3 years in a university-affiliated hospital, after which the student is eligible to take the National Medical Licensing Examination (NMLE) for physician certification, which is conducted by the National Medical Examination Center (NMEC). If the candidate passes, he or she becomes a professional physician and is certified by the Ministry of Health. It is illegal to practice medicine in China as a physician or assistant physician without being certified by the Ministry of Health. Physicians are allowed to open Physiciansics after practicing medicine for five years.

Traditional and modern Chinese medicine

China has one of the longest recorded histories of medicine records of any existing civilization. The methods and theories of traditional Chinese medicine have developed for over two thousand years. Western medical theory and practice came to China in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, notably through the efforts of missionaries and the Rockefeller Foundation, which together founded Peking Union Medical College. Today Chinese traditional medicine continues alongside western medicine and traditional physicians, who also receive some western medical training, are sometimes primary caregivers in the clinics and pharmacies of rural China. Various traditional preventative and self-healing techniques such as qigong, which combines gentle exercise and meditation, are widely practiced as an adjunct to professional health care.

Although the practice of traditional Chinese medicine was strongly promoted by the Chinese leadership and remained a major component of health care, Western medicine gained increasing acceptance in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, the number of physicians and pharmacists trained in Western medicine reportedly increased by 225,000 from 1976 to 1981, and the number of physician assistants trained in Internal Medicine increased by about 50,000. In 1981 there were reportedly 516,000 senior physicians trained in Western medicine and 290,000 senior physicians trained in traditional Chinese medicine. The goal of China's medical professionals is to synthesize the best elements of traditional and Western approaches.

In practice, however, this combination has not always worked smoothly. In many respects, physicians trained in traditional medicine and those trained in Western medicine constitute separate groups with different interests. For instance, physicians trained in Western medicine have been somewhat reluctant to accept unscientific traditional practices, and traditional practitioners have sought to preserve authority in their own re. Although Chinese medical schools that provided training in Western medicine also provided some instruction in traditional medicine, relatively few physicians were regarded as competent in both areas in the mid-1980s.

The extent to which traditional and Western treatment methods were combined and integrated into the monitor hospitals variety they monitor hospitals and medical schools of purely traditional medicine was established. In most urban hospitals, the pattern seemed to be to establish separate departments for traditional and Western treatment. In the county hospitals, however, traditional medicine received greater emphasis.

Apothecary mixing traditional Chinese medicine

Traditional medicine depends on herbal treatments, acupuncture, acupressure, moxibustion (burning of herbs over acupuncture points), "cupping" (local suction of skin), qigong (coordinated movement, breathing, and awareness), tui na (massage), and other culturally unique practices. Such approaches are believed to be most effective in treating minor and chronic diseases, in part because of milder side effects. Traditional treatments may be used for more serious conditions as well, particularly for such acute abdominal conditions as appendicitis, pancreatitis, and gallstones; sometimes traditional treatments are used in combination with Western treatments. A traditional method of orthopedic treatment, involving less immobilization than Western methods, continued to be widely used in the 1980s.

Employment Insurance Regulations

In 1951, the State Council issued the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Labour Insurance, which is a sole proprietorship that stipulates the main recipient of the insurance medical treatment labor insurance medical treatment, and that reference could be made to workers of collectively owned enterprises in towns above the county level. However, the beneficiaries of the Labour Insurance Regulations were limited to state-run or more stable employment enterprises that provided more than 100 jobs, at a time when there were only about 1.2 million industrial workers in China, a tiny proportion of the 500 million Chinese population.

The coverage of the Labour Insurance Regulations was further extended in 1953 and 1956 respectively and was eventually introduced in all enterprises that were state-owned in 1956. The Labour Insurance Regulations were also introduced or applied by reference to the larger, better-off, collectively owned enterprises. But even so, the expanded beneficiary population still represents a very small proportion of the sizeable Chinese population. According to statistics for 1957, the urban population accounted for only 15.39% of the country's total population in that year, and the number of people employed in establishments and government departments with regular incomes totaled less than 20% of the urban population.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, employees of enterprises covered by the Labour Insurance Regulations were required to pay for medical treatment, surgery, hospitalization, and general medicine for general illnesses, non-work-related injuries, and disabilities, but the cost of expensive medicine, hospital meals, and travel expenses were borne by the employees themselves[9]. In the event of illness of an immediate family member supported by the employee, he or she may be treated in the hospital of the enterprise or other special hospitals, and the enterprise shall bear half of the cost of surgery and ordinary medicine.

In 1966, the Ministry of Labour and the All-China Federation of Trade Unions issued the Circular on Several Issues Concerning the Improvement of the Labour Insurance Medical System for Enterprise Workers, which appropriately increased the burden of medical treatment on individual workers to prevent such phenomena as "soaking the sick" and "treating small illnesses in a big way. "In 1966, the Ministry of Labour and the All-China Federation of Trade Unions issued a circular on several issues relating to the improvement of the labor insurance medical system for enterprise workers.

The source of funding for labor insurance and medical care, all of which were covered by the administration of the enterprises before 1953. In 1953, the fund was changed to 5%-7% of the total wage according to the nature of the industry. To facilitate the coordinated use of the fund by enterprises, in 1969 the Ministry of Finance stipulated that the welfare fund, which had been withdrawn at 2.5% of total wages, the incentive fund, which had been withdrawn at 3%, and the medical and health fund, which had been withdrawn at 5.5%, were to be combined and replaced by an employee welfare fund, which was to be withdrawn at 11% of total wages and used mainly for medical and health expenses and welfare expenses.

Primary care

After 1949 the Ministry of Public Health was responsible for all healthcare activities and established and supervised all facets of health policy. Along with a system of national, provincial, and local facilities, the ministry regulated a network of industrial and state enterprise hospitals and other facilities covering the health needs of workers of those enterprises. In 1981 this additional network provided approximately 25 percent of the country's total health services.

Health care was provided in both rural and urban areas through a three-tiered system. In rural areas, the first tier was made up of barefoot doctors working out of village medical centers. They provided preventive and primary-care services, with an average of two doctors per 1,000 people; given their importance as healthcare providers, particularly in rural areas, the government introduced measures to improve their performance through organized training and an annual licensing exam. At the next level were the township health centers, which functioned primarily as outpatient clinics for about 10,000 to 30,000 people each. These centers had about ten to thirty beds each, and the most qualified members of the staff were assistant doctors. The two lower-level tiers made up the "rural collective health system" that provided most of the country's medical care. Only the most seriously ill patients were referred to the third and final tier, the county hospitals, which served 200,000 to 600,000 people each and were staffed by senior doctors who held degrees from 5-year medical schools. Utilization of health services in rural areas has been shown to increase as a result of the rise in income in rural households and the government's substantial fiscal investment in health. Health care in urban areas was provided by paramedical personnel assigned to factories and neighborhood health stations. If more professional care was necessary the patient was sent to a district hospital, and the most serious cases were handled by municipal hospitals. To ensure a higher level of care, several state enterprises and government agencies sent their employees directly to the district or municipal hospitals, circumventing the paramedical, or barefoot doctor, stage. However, primary care in China has not developed as well as intended. The main barrier has been the scarcity of suitably-qualified health professionals.

Deficiencies and problems of health care in China

Medicare Sustainability Issues

China is a country with the fastest aging population and the largest scale in the world, and the family security function is continuously weakened due to the declining birthrate and aging population. There will be a great demand for medical resources in the future. However, urban and rural residents are still looking forward to the continuous reduction of the medical burden of personal diseases. At the same time, the growth rate of the national economy has dropped from double digits in the 20th century to single digits, and in 2016, it dropped to about 7%, and the growth rate of fiscal revenue has also dropped from over 20% to single digits. Therefore, the slowdown in the growth of national fiscal revenue and the rapid growth of national welfare has become a real contradiction.

Hospital refuses Medicare patients

At the end of 2013, as the use of medical insurance funds was approaching the bottom line of excess, in many provinces and cities across the country, only self-paying patients did not receive medical insurance patients.

In 2010, to prevent the loss of medical insurance funds caused by fraudulent insurance and large prescriptions, Jinan City began to assess the total hospital expenses and number of visits, and the medical insurance pooling fund for overspending will not be paid. Hospitals began to put pressure on doctors to deduct the income of departments and doctors if they exceeded the limit. Therefore, this practice leads to the department rejecting medical insurance patients as soon as the quota is full." The most willing to accept patients are self-funded patients, public-funded medical patients, and medical insurance patients in monopoly industries such as finance and electricity. The average age of their employees is low, the rate of medical treatment is low, and the ability to pay funds is strong, and they are unwilling to accept local ordinary medical insurance patients. According to reports, in 2016, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University in Hunan, Kunming Children's Hospital, and the 82nd Army Hospital of the Chinese People's Liberation Army in Baoding 2019 also refused to accept medical insurance patients.

In 2020, the Hebei Provincial Medical Security Bureau issued the "Notice on Preventing Medical Insurance Designated Medical Institutions to Prevaricate and Refuse to Accept Insured Persons", requiring medical security departments at all levels to conscientiously do a good job in the enjoyment of medical security benefits for insured persons during the end of the year, and resolutely put an end to prevarication and refusal The behavior of insured persons.

Erosion of health insurance funds, excessive medical treatment

In 2016, a study reported that a large number of doctors and patients conspired to erode medical insurance funds in China. Several media have disclosed that the means of eroding the medical insurance fund include farmers being “hospitalized”, treating patients without illness, falsely increasing the number of days a patient is hospitalized, fake medication, fake surgery, excessive examinations, serious treatment of minor illnesses, repeated charges, and failure to provide Charges for services (empty charges), listing surgical treatment expenses that are not within the scope of reimbursement as reimbursement, retail pharmacies swiping medical insurance cards to sell daily necessities. However, without the use of medical insurance funds, some medical institutions will be unsustainable, and may not be able to pay wages or repay loans. Affected by all parties, the regulatory authorities often cast their doubts on the rat. In the whole year of 2019, China's medical insurance departments at all levels inspected a total of 815,000 designated medical institutions, and investigated and dealt with 264,000 medical institutions that violated laws and regulations; a total of 33,100 people who participated in violations of laws and regulations were dealt with, and a total of 11.556 billion yuan was recovered. At the same time, over-diagnosis, over-examination, and over-medication in the medical industry have become common phenomena due to the loss of profitability of hospitals and the supply of medicines, which wastes medical resources.

In response to these problems, various localities have begun to coordinate and supervise medical insurance funds; explore the introduction of medical insurance intelligent monitoring systems to intelligently review medical insurance funds; centrally purchase pharmaceutical consumables to save money and increase the proportion of medical labor technology value in fund settlement.

Causes of medicine prices

Industry experts in mainland China believe that for a long time, the medical authorities have not rejected the income-generating behavior of hospitals. Because medical care is cheap and generous, it is impossible to require high quality at the same time. This is a congenital contradiction. Therefore, high-quality medical behavior and medication It is not excluded hospitals use this as additional income, to avoid the low income of the medical profession unable to retain talents to study medicine or doctors to go abroad. Therefore, in addition to the common phenomenon of hospitals investing in pharmacies and other "three industries", it is also an open norm for salesmen of many pharmaceutical companies to travel to doctors' homes to give dividends. There are no standard answers to prescribeprescribing medicine for many diseases, and the dosage also depends on the case. Ultimately The disease can be cured. At this time, prescribing a certain drug and the dosage becomes the right of the doctor to have a free heart. Therefore, the salesperson of the pharmaceutical factory and the doctor have common interests.

Another problem is that the laws and regulations give hospital managers too much discretion. Although all medicines are listed in the medical insurance payment catalog, no law stipulates that all medicines in the hospital pharmacy must be purchased in sufficient quantities, so hospitals often use "medicine". There is a feasible way to make money by guiding patients to recommend stores at their own expense. At the beginning of 2019, the General Office of the State Council issued the document "Opinions on Strengthening the Performance Evaluation of Tertiary Public Hospitals". The black hole of drug prices caused by the problem of the drug storehouse has been noticed, but the hospitals in various provinces and cities received this outline document, and finally formed the county and city The government penalty, and then implemented in the hospital, may take many years to achieve. At this stage, patients, unfortunately, encounter the medical ethics problem of the black hole at their own expense, and can only defend their rights and interests using legal disputes:

1.Patients or their family members can check the medical insurance drug catalog at any time to identify whether their medication is in the catalog

2. When asking a doctor for a self-funded pharmacy, you must refuse it decisively and fight with the catalog

3. When the doctor said that "the drug store is out of stock and the hospital did not enter this medicine" as an excuse, he asked to start an additional procurement process

4. If the additional procurement process has not been approved within a reasonable time of three or two days, you can report directly to the Municipal Health and Health Commission or the provincial Health and Health Commission at a higher level.

COVID-19 misinformation by China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chinese government has actively engaged in disinformation to downplay the emergence of COVID-19 in China and manipulate information about its spread around the world. The government also detained whistleblowers and journalists claiming they were spreading rumors when they were publicly raising concerns about people being hospitalized for a "mysterious illness" resembling SARS.

The blame for the failure to report cases of COVID-19 at the onset is unclear because of the difficulty pinpointing it as a failure by either local or national officials. The Associated Press reported that, "increasing political repression has made officials more hesitant to report cases without a clear green light from the top." There are ongoing investigations in an effort to understand what happened, including an investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) which will probe into what Wuhan officials knew at the time of the outbreak.

A 14 February 2021 exposé by the Associated Press said that China took a "leading role" in spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19.

Initial response

Downplaying early signs

In the first weeks, the dangers to the public were downplayed, leaving 11 million Wuhan residents unaware and vulnerable to the virus. Political motivations were blamed in part for the reluctance by local officials to go public as they were "preparing for their annual congresses in January". Despite the increase in COVID cases, officials continued to declare that "there had likely been no more infections."

In a March 2020 interview, Ai Fen, the director of Wuhan Central Hospital's emergency department, stated in an interview that "she was told by superiors ... that Wuhan's health commission had issued a directive that medical workers were not to disclose anything about the virus, or the disease it caused, to avoid sparking a panic."

Chris Buckley and Steven Lee Myers wrote in the New York Times that "The government's initial handling of the epidemic allowed the virus to gain a tenacious hold. At critical moments, officials chose to put secrecy and order ahead of openly confronting the growing crisis to avoid public alarm and political embarrassment."

By summer 2020, China had the virus largely under control. In December 2020, the BBC published a retrospective into how Chinese state media and China's online government censors had suppressed negative information and propagandized what was reported.

Silencing of medical workers

Li Wenliang was an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital. On 30 December 2019, he had seen seven cases of a virus he thought looked like SARS. He sent a message to fellow doctors in a chat group warning them to wear protective clothing to avoid infection. He and seven other doctors were later told to come to the Public Security Bureau and told to sign a letter. The letter accused them of "making false comments" that would "disturb the social order". Wang Guangbao, who is a Chinese surgeon and science writer, later said that by 1 January, people in medical circles thought that a SARS-like virus might be spreading, but the police warning discouraged them from talking openly about it. Li later died of the virus, and China later apologized to his family and overturned the warning in the letter.

A nurse said that by early January, doctors and nurses had noticed that they too were getting sick. Hospital administrators made long calls to the City Government and Health Commission. However, medical personnel were not allowed to wear protective gear, because it would cause panic. Health and governance experts place much of the blame on higher-level officials, as local authorities in China can be punished for reporting bad news.

Arrest or disappearance of citizen journalists

As of December 2020, around a year after the outbreak, at least 47 journalists were currently in detention in China for their reporting on the initial coronavirus outbreak.

Chinese citizen journalist Chen Qiushi started reporting on the outbreak from Wuhan on 23 January 2020. He disappeared on 6 February. On 24 September, a friend said he had been found. He was being supervised by "a certain government department", but would not face prosecution for the moment because he had not contacted opposition groups.

Fang Bin is a Chinese citizen journalist who broadcast images of Wuhan during the outbreak several times on social media. He was arrested several times during February 2020. The last arrest was on 9 February, and as of September 2020, he had not been seen in public since.

Li Zehua was reporting on the outbreak from Wuhan in February 2020. On 26 February, he was caught by the authorities after livestreaming part of the chase. On 22 April, he returned to social media with a brief statement in which he quoted a proverb that the human mind was "prone to err." A friend said he may have been told by authorities to make the statement.

Another citizen journalist, Zhang Zhan, stopped sharing information on social media in May 2020. On 28 December, she was sentenced to 4 years in prison. According to one of her attorneys, she was convicted of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble".

Early response disinformation

Chinese Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping (left) and State Council Premier Li Keqiang

In the early stages of the outbreak, the Chinese National Health Commission stated it had no "clear evidence" of human-to-human transmissions. However, at this time the high prevalence of human-to-human transmission was evident to doctors and other health workers, but they were forbidden to express their concerns in public. The Chinese government maintained the stance that human-to-human transmission had not been proven until 20 January 2020 when it was finally confirmed. Research published on 29 January 2020 indicated that, among officially confirmed cases, human-to-human transmission may have started in December 2019, and the delay of disclosure on the results until then, rather than earlier in January, brought criticism of health authorities. Wang Guangfa, one of the health officials, said that "There was uncertainty regarding the human-to-human transmission"; he was infected by a patient within 10 days of making the statement.

On 26 January 2020, the editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), tweeted a claim that the first building of the Huoshenshan Hospital had been completed in only 16 hours. The Daily Beast reported the next day that the building shown in the picture accompanying the tweet was actually a marketing photo of a modular container building sold by the Henan K-Home Steel Structure Company, and not of the actual hospital. A Human Rights Watch researcher claimed that the post was part of the Chinese government's misinformation campaign to hype the government's response. The tweet was later removed and replaced with a video of the modular container buildings being assembled at Huoshenshan Hospital, again stating that the first building had been completed in only 16 hours.

On 15 February 2020, China's paramount leader and CCP general secretary Xi Jinping published an article which claimed he had learned of the epidemic on 7 January 2020 and had the same day issued a request for information on activities to contain the spread of the disease. However, the original public announcement of that 7 January 2020 meeting did not mention the epidemic, and Xi's claim was unsupported by the evidence.

Propagation of multiple locations of origin

The Chinese government has made repeated claims that COVID-19 did not originate just in Wuhan, but across multiple locations around the world, from Autumn of 2019.

In March 2020, The Washington Post reviewed Chinese state media as well as posts in social media and discovered that anti-American conspiracy theories that were circulating among Chinese users had "gained steam through a mix of unexplained official statements magnified by social media, censorship and doubts stoked by state media and government officials."

In March 2020, Chinese state media propagated the theory that the spread of the virus may have started in Italy before the Wuhan outbreak, pointing to an interview Italian doctor Giuseppe Remuzzi gave to National Public Radio, wherein he mentioned reports of unusual pneumonia cases dating back to November and December 2019. Remuzzi later said that his words were "twisted".

In November 2020, Chinese state media propagated a misleading account of statements by World Health Organization's top emergency director Michael Ryan, speculating that the virus could have originated outside of China. In an interview with Reuters on 27 November 2020, Ryan said, "It is clear from a public health perspective that you start your investigations where the human cases first emerged" and repeated that the WHO would seek to send an investigative team to China to probe the origins of the virus.

In December 2020, Chinese state media misconstrued research from Alexander Kekulé, the director of the Institute for Biosecurity Research in Halle, using it to suggest the virus emerged in Italy. In media published by Xinhua News Agency, China Daily, and China Global Television Network (CGTN), excerpts from an interview Kekulé gave to ZDF were quoted, purporting that 99.5 percent of the coronavirus spreading around the world at the time was from a variant originating in northern Italy. In follow-up interviews, Kekulé said his words were twisted, calling the Chinese media reports "pure propaganda".

In December 2020, the People's Daily featured a study by scientists associated with the state-backed Chinese Academy of Sciences positing that the earliest human-to-human transmission occurred on the Indian subcontinent three to four months before the Wuhan outbreak. The study, which was not peer-reviewed, was posted on the preprint platform SSRN. It was later withdrawn from the platform at the authors' request.

Origin disinformation

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang promoted claims that the US had engineered a bioweapon.

There is evidence that the Chinese government has made a vigorous effort to play down its early failures in the crisis and to mitigate the damage it has wrought to its image, by claiming the virus originated outside of China. Chinese state media misconstrued research from academics such as Alexander Kekulé, the director of the Institute for Biosecurity Research in Halle, suggesting it was Italy, not China, where the virus began. Chinese state media also misrepresented statements from Michael Ryan, the World Health Organization's emergency director, insinuating that the virus may have originated outside of China. CNN, Quartz, The Washington Post, Financial Times, Associated Press and others have reported that Chinese government officials, in response to the outbreak, launched a coordinated disinformation campaign seeking to spread doubt about the origin of the coronavirus and its outbreak. A review of Chinese state media and social media posts in early March 2020, conducted by The Washington Post, found that anti-American conspiracy theories circulating among Chinese users "gained steam through a mix of unexplained official statements magnified by social media, censorship and doubts stoked by state media and government officials". United States Department of State officials, as well as sinologist Dali Yang, have said the campaign was intended to deflect attention away from the Chinese government's mishandling of the crisis.

At a press conference on 12 March 2020, two spokesmen for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zhao Lijian and Geng Shuang, promoted the conspiracy theory that the coronavirus had been "bio-engineered" by Western powers and suggested that the US government, specifically the US Army, had spread the virus. No evidence supports these claims. Zhao also pushed these conspiracy theories on Twitter, which is blocked in mainland China but is used as a public diplomacy tool by Chinese officials to promote the Chinese government and defend it from criticism. China's ambassador to South Africa also made these claims on Twitter. Some Chinese state media had propagated the speculation that the virus may have spread in Italy before the Wuhan outbreak, after Italian doctor Giuseppe Remuzzi mentioned reports of strange pneumonia cases in November and December. He later said his words were "twisted".

An "intentional disinformation campaign" by China was discussed among the Group of Seven (G7), and the Chinese efforts were condemned by the US Department of State, which criticized Chinese authorities for spreading "dangerous and ridiculous" conspiracy claims. The US summoned China's ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, to issue a "stern message" over the Chinese government's claims; Cui had disavowed the US military conspiracy theory as "crazy" in a February interview and affirmed his belief in another one in mid-March.

The Observer reported in April 2020 that China clamped down on the publication of research on the origin of the virus, requiring that all academic papers containing information on COVID-19 be vetted by China's ministry of science and technology before they can be published. CNN, for example, published a report about the imposition of new restrictions and central government vetting, quoting an anonymous Chinese researcher's belief that the crackdown "is a coordinated effort from [the] Chinese government to control [the] narrative, and paint it as if the outbreak did not originate in China."

In May 2020, Twitter placed fact-check labels on two of the Chinese government tweets which had falsely suggested that the virus originated in the US and was brought to China by the Americans. In November 2020, the People's Daily published the false claim that COVID-19 was "imported" into China. In October 2021, a University of Oxford researcher found that Chinese state media accounts spread a theory that the virus originated from American lobsters from Maine. In March 2022, China Daily and Global Times republished an article by the British conspiracy website The Exposé which falsely claimed COVID-19 was created by Moderna.

Huanan market swabs

The market was closed on January 1st, Swab samples were taken of surfaces in the market; samples from the actual animals in the market would be more conclusive but could not be collected, as and the animals had been removed before public-health authorities from the Chinese CDC came in. Some Chinese researchers had published a preprint analysis of the Huanan swab samples in February 2022, concluding that the coronavirus in the samples had likely been brought in by humans, not the animals on sale, but omissions in the analysis had raised questions, and the raw sample data had not yet been released.

On March 4th of 2023, the raw data from the swab samples of the Huanan live-animal market were released, or possibly leaked. No raw genetic data had previously been accessible to any academics not working at Chinese institutions until the genetic sequences from some of the market swabs were uploaded to an international database. A preliminary analysis of this data was reviewed by the international research community, which said that it made an animal origin (especially the common raccoon-dog as an intermediate host) much more likely. On March 14th, an international group of researchers presented a preliminary analysis at a meeting of the World Health Organization’s Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens, at which Chinese COVID-19 researchers were also present. On the 17th of March, the WHO director-general said that the data should have been shared three years earlier, and called on China to be more transparent in its data-sharing. There exists further data from further samples which has not yet been made public. Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, called for it to be made public immediately.

US Army and Fort Detrick origins

On 12 March 2020, two spokesmen for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zhao Lijian and Geng Shuang, alleged at a press conference that Western powers may have "bio-engineered" the coronavirus, alluding to the US government, but more specifically to the US Army as having created and spread the virus.

In January 2021, Hua Chunying renewed the conspiracy theory from Zhao and Geng that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the United States from the U.S. military biology laboratory Fort Detrick. This conspiracy theory quickly went trending on the Chinese social media platform Weibo, and Hua continued to refer to it on Twitter, while asking the government of the United States to open up Fort Detrick for further investigation to determine if it is the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In July 2021, the Chinese foreign ministry called on the WHO to investigate Fort Detrick.

Treatment misinformation

Traditional Chinese medicine

Beijing championed traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as a way to treat COVID-19. In early June 2020, China's State Council Information Office published a white paper titled Fighting COVID-19: China In Action which details the plans that were put into place to prevent, control and treat COVID-19, including medical services that integrate TCM and scientific medicine to treat the virus. The paper states that "Chinese herbal formulas and drugs were administered to 92 percent of all confirmed cases" and that 90 percent of confirmed cases in Hubei Province received TCM treatment that proved effective." While TCM supporters claim that there is no downside to its use, the US National Institutes of Health believe that while there may be some relief of symptoms using TCM, the overall efficacy against COVID-19 is inconclusive. Edzard Ernst, a retired UK-based researcher of complementary medicines is quoted in the journal Nature stating, "For TCM there is no good evidence and therefore its use is not just unjustified, but dangerous."

Propagation of disinformation

Kazakh virus

In July 2020, misinformation about a deadlier virus appearing alongside COVID-19 in Kazakhstan was traced to the Economic and Commercial Office of the Chinese Embassy in Kazakhstan. The misinformation was picked up by Xinhua News Agency and from there spread to other Chinese outlets and internationally.

Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine

In January 2021, multiple Chinese state and CCP-affiliated media outlets, including CGTN and the Global Times, raised doubts about the efficacy of the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, calling for an investigation into the deaths of elderly people in Norway and Germany after receiving the vaccine. According to Reuters, the reports made allegations of "deliberately downplaying the deaths" and "using propaganda power to promote the Pfizer vaccine and smearing Chinese vaccines" and touted Chinese vaccines as "relatively safer due to their mature technology".

In April 2021, the European External Action Service published a report that cited Chinese state media outlets for "selective highlighting" of potential vaccine side-effects and "disregarding contextual information or ongoing research" to present Western vaccines as unsafe.

As part of the Cross-Strait conflict

On 26 February 2020, the Taiwanese Central News Agency reported that large amounts of misinformation had appeared on Facebook claiming the pandemic in Taiwan was out of control, the Taiwanese government had covered up the total number of cases, and that President Tsai Ing-wen had been infected. The Taiwan fact-checking organization had suggested the misinformation on Facebook shared similarities with mainland China due to its use of simplified Chinese characters and mainland China vocabulary. The organization warned that the purpose of the misinformation is to attack the government.

In March 2020, Taiwan's Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau warned that China was trying to undermine trust in factual news by portraying the Taiwanese government reports as fake news. Taiwanese authorities have been ordered to use all possible means to track whether the messages were linked to instructions given by the Chinese Communist Party. The PRC's Taiwan Affairs Office denied the claims, calling them lies, and said that Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party was "inciting hatred" between the two sides. They then claimed that the "DPP continues to politically manipulate the virus". According to The Washington Post, China has used organized disinformation campaigns against Taiwan for decades.

Nick Monaco, the research director of the Digital Intelligence Lab at Institute for the Future, analyzed the posts and concluded that the majority appear to have come from ordinary users in China, not the state. However, he criticized the Chinese government's decision to allow the information to spread beyond China's Great Firewall, which he described as "malicious". According to Taiwan News, nearly one in four cases of misinformation are believed to be connected to China.

On 27 March 2020, the American Institute in Taiwan announced that it was partnering with the Taiwan FactCheck Center to help combat misinformation about the COVID-19 outbreak.

International response

On 25 March 2020, the "intentional disinformation campaign" by China was discussed among the Group of Seven.

On 17 March 2020, CGTN aired a video in Arabic that Reporters Without Borders classified as misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In August 2021, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs asked Chinese state media to remove widely quoted allegations, attributed to a non-existing Swiss biologist, that the United States pressured the WHO to blame China for the pandemic.

Crisis of the Third Century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crisis of the Third Century
Map of Ancient Rome 271 AD.svg
The divided Empire in 271
Date235–284 (c. 49 years)
Location
Result

Roman Empire victory

Territorial
changes
  • Reunification of the Palmyrene and Gallic empires into the Roman Empire
  • loss of parts of the Agri Decumates and Syria
  • Dacia abandoned
  • Belligerents
    Roman Empire
    (Adriatic-Ionian-centered)
    Goths
    Alemanni
    Vandals
    Carpians
    Sasanian Empire
    Commanders and leaders

    Cniva
    Shapur I

    The Crisis of the Third Century, also known as the Military Anarchy or the Imperial Crisis (AD 235–284), was a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed. The crisis ended due to the military victories of Aurelian and with the ascension of Diocletian and his implementation of reforms in 284.

    The crisis began in 235 with the assassination of Emperor Severus Alexander by his own troops. During the following 50-year period, the Empire saw the combined pressures of barbarian invasions and migrations into Roman territory, civil wars, peasant rebellions and political instability, with multiple usurpers competing for power. This led to the debasement of currency and economic collapse, with the Plague of Cyprian contributing to the disorder. Roman troops became more reliant over time on the growing influence of the barbarian mercenaries known as foederati. Roman commanders in the field, although nominally working for Rome, became increasingly independent.

    By 268, the empire had split into three competing states: the Gallic Empire (including the Roman provinces of Gaul, Britannia and, briefly, Hispania); the Palmyrene Empire (including the eastern provinces of Syria Palaestina and Aegyptus); and, between them, the Italian-centered Roman Empire proper.

    There were at least 26 claimants to the title of emperor, mostly prominent Roman army generals, who assumed imperial power over all or part of the Empire. The same number of men became accepted by the Roman Senate as emperor during this period and so became legitimate emperors. Later, Aurelian (AD 270–275) reunited the empire militarily. The crisis ended with Diocletian and his restructuring of Roman imperial government in 284. This helped to stabilize the Empire economically and militarily for a further 150 years.

    The crisis resulted in such profound changes in the empire's institutions, society, economic life, and religion that it is increasingly seen by most historians as defining the transition between the historical periods of classical antiquity and late antiquity.

    History

    After the Roman Empire had been stabilized, once again, after the turmoil of the Year of the Five Emperors (193) in the reign of Septimius Severus, the later Severan dynasty lost more and more control.

    The army required larger and larger bribes to remain loyal. Septimius Severus raised the pay of legionaries, and gave substantial donativum to the troops. The large and ongoing increase in military expenditure caused problems for all of his successors. His son Caracalla raised the annual pay and lavished many benefits on the army in accordance with the advice of his father to keep their loyalty, and considered dividing the Empire into eastern and western sectors with his brother Geta to reduce the conflict in their co-rule. But with the major influence of their mother, Julia Domna, this division of the empire was not possible.

    Instead of warring in foreign lands, the Roman empire was increasingly put on the defensive by marauding enemies and civil wars. This cut off the essential source of income gained from plundering enemy countries, while opening up the Roman countryside to economic devastation from looters both foreign and domestic. Frequent civil wars contributed to depletion of the army's manpower, and drafting replacement soldiers strained the labour force further. Fighting on multiple fronts, increasing size and pay of the army, increasing cost of transport, populist "bread and circuses" political campaigns, inefficient and corrupt tax collection, unorganised budgeting, and paying off foreign nations for peace all contributed to financial crisis. The emperors responded by confiscating assets and supplies to combat the deficit.

    The situation of the Roman Empire became dire in 235. Many Roman legions had been defeated during a previous campaign against Germanic peoples raiding across the borders, while the emperor Severus Alexander had been focused primarily on the dangers from the Sassanid Empire. Leading his troops personally, the emperor resorted to diplomacy and accepting tribute to pacify the Germanic chieftains quickly, rather than military conquest. According to Herodian this cost Severus Alexander the respect of his troops, who may have felt that more severe punishment was required for the tribes that had intruded on Rome's territory. The troops assassinated Severus Alexander and proclaimed the new emperor to be Maximinus Thrax, commander of one of the legions present.

    Maximinus was the first of the barracks emperors – rulers who were elevated by the troops without having any political experience, a supporting faction, distinguished ancestors, or a hereditary claim to the imperial throne. As their rule rested on military might and generalship, they operated as warlords reliant on the army to maintain power. Maximinus continued the campaigns in Germania but struggled to exert his authority over the whole empire. The Senate was displeased at having to accept a peasant as Emperor. This precipitated the chaotic Year of the Six Emperors during which all of the original claimants were killed: in 238 a revolt broke out in Africa led by Gordian I and Gordian II, which was soon supported by the Roman Senate, but this was quickly defeated with Gordian II killed and Gordian I committing suicide. The Senate, fearing Imperial wrath, raised two of their own as co-Emperors, Pupienus and Balbinus, with Gordian I's grandson Gordian III as Caesar. Maximinus marched on Rome but was assassinated by his Legio II Parthica, and subsequently Pupienus and Balbinus were murdered by the Praetorian Guard.

    In the following years, numerous generals of the Roman army fought each other for control of the empire and neglected their duties of defending it from invasion. There were frequent raids across the Rhine and Danube frontier by foreign tribes, including the Carpians, Goths, Vandals, and Alamanni, and attacks from Sassanids in the east. Climate changes and a sea level rise disrupted the agriculture of what is now the Low Countries, forcing tribes residing in the region to migrate into Roman lands. Further disruption arose in 251, when the Plague of Cyprian (possibly smallpox) broke out. This plague caused large-scale death, severely weakening the empire. The situation was worsened in 260 when the emperor Valerian was captured in battle by the Sassanids (he later died in captivity).

    Throughout the period, numerous usurpers claimed the imperial throne. In the absence of a strong central authority, the empire broke into three competing states. The Roman provinces of Gaul, Britain, and Hispania broke off to form the Gallic Empire in 260. The eastern provinces of Syria, Palestine, and Aegyptus also became independent as the Palmyrene Empire in 267. The remaining provinces, centered on Italy, stayed under a single ruler but now faced threats on every side.

    Gothic raids in the 3rd century

    An invasion of Macedonia and Greece by Goths, who had been displaced from their lands on the Black Sea, was defeated by emperor Claudius II Gothicus at the Battle of Naissus in 268 or 269. Historians see this victory as the turning point of the crisis. In its aftermath, a series of tough, energetic barracks emperors were able to reassert central authority. Further victories by Claudius Gothicus drove back the Alamanni and recovered Hispania from the Gallic Empire. He died of the plague in 270 and was succeeded by Aurelian, who had commanded the cavalry at Naissus. Aurelian reigned (270–275) through the worst of the crisis, gradually restoring the empire. He defeated the Vandals, Visigoths, Palmyrene Empire, and finally the remainder of the Gallic Empire. By late 274, the Roman Empire had been reunited into a single entity. However, Aurelian was assassinated in 275, sparking a further series of competing emperors with short reigns. The situation did not stabilize until Diocletian, himself a barracks emperor, took power in 284.

    More than a century would pass before Rome again lost military ascendancy over its external enemies. However, dozens of formerly thriving cities, especially in the Western Empire, had been ruined. Their populations dead or dispersed, these cities could not be rebuilt, due to the economic breakdown caused by constant warfare. The economy was also crippled by the breakdown in trading networks and the debasement of the currency. Major cities and towns, including Rome itself, had not needed fortifications for many centuries, but now surrounded themselves with thick walls.

    Fundamental problems with the empire still remained. The right of imperial succession had never been clearly defined, which was a factor in the continuous civil wars as competing factions in the military, Senate, and other parties put forward their favored candidate for emperor. The sheer size of the empire, which had been an issue since the late Roman Republic three centuries earlier, continued to make it difficult for a single ruler to effectively counter multiple threats at the same time. These continuing problems were addressed by the radical reforms of Diocletian, who broke the cycle of usurpation. He began by sharing his rule with a colleague, then formally established the Tetrarchy of four co-emperors in 293. However the trend of civil war would continue after the abdication of Diocletian in the Civil wars of the Tetrarchy (306–324) until the rise of Constantine the Great as sole Emperor. The empire survived until 476 in the West and until 1453 in the East.

    Causes

    The problem of succession and civil war

    From the beginning of the Principate there were no clear rules for the imperial succession, largely because the empire maintained the facade of a republic.

    During the early Principate, the process for becoming an emperor relied on a combination of proclamation by the Senate, popular approval, and acceptance by the army, in particular the Praetorian Guard. A family connection to a previous emperor was beneficial, but it did not determine the issue in the way a formal system of hereditary succession would. From the Julio-Claudian dynasty onwards there was sometimes tension between the Senate's preferred choice and the army. As the Senatorial class declined in political influence and more generals were recruited from the provinces, this tension increased.

    Whenever the succession appeared uncertain, there was an incentive for any general with support of a sizable army to attempt to seize power, sparking civil war. The most recent example of this prior to the Crisis was the Year of the Five Emperors which resulted in the victory of Septimius Severus. After the overthrow of the Severan dynasty, for the rest of the 3rd century, Rome was ruled by a series of generals, coming into power through frequent civil wars which devastated the empire.

    Natural disasters

    The first and most immediately disastrous of the natural disasters that the Roman Empire faced during the Third Century was the plague. The Antonine Plague that preceded the Crisis of the Third Century sapped manpower from Roman armies and proved disastrous for the Roman economy. From AD 249 to AD 262, the Plague of Cyprian devastated the Roman Empire so much so that some cities, such as the city of Alexandria, experienced a 62% decline in population. These plagues greatly hindered the Roman Empire's ability to ward off barbarian invasions but also factored into problems such as famine, with many farms becoming abandoned and unproductive.

    A second and longer-term natural disaster that took place during the third century was the increased variability of weather. Drier summers meant less agricultural productivity and more extreme weather events led to agricultural instability. This could also have contributed to the increased barbarian pressure on Roman borders, as they too would have experienced the detrimental effects of climate change and sought to push inward to more productive regions of the Mediterranean.

    Foreign invasions

    Barbarian invasions against the Roman Empire in the 3rd century

    Barbarian invasions came in the wake of civil war, plague, and famine. Distress caused in part by the changing climate led various barbarian tribes to push into Roman territory. Other tribes coalesced into more formidable entities (notably the Alamanni and Franks), or were pushed out of their former territories by more dangerous peoples such as the Sarmatians (the Huns did not appear west of the Volga for another century). Eventually, the frontiers were stabilized by the Illyrian Emperors. However, barbarian migrations into the empire continued in greater and greater numbers. Though these migrants were initially closely monitored and assimilated, later tribes eventually entered the Roman Empire en masse with their weapons, giving only token recognition of Roman authority.

    The defensive battles that Rome had to endure on the Danube since the 230s, however, paled in comparison to the threat the empire faced in the East. There, Sassanid Persia represented a far greater danger to Rome than the isolated attacks of Germanic tribes. The Sassanids had in 224 and 226 overthrown the Parthian Arsacids, and the Persian King Ardashir I, who also wanted to prove his legitimacy through military successes, had already penetrated into Roman territory at the time of Severus Alexander, probably taking the strategically important cities of Nisibis and Carrhae in 235/236.

    Economic impact

    Emperor Diocletian. With his rise to power in 284, the Crisis of the Third Century ended and gave rise to the Tetrarchy

    Internally, the empire faced hyperinflation caused by years of coinage devaluation. This had started earlier under the Severan emperors who enlarged the army by one quarter, and doubled the base pay of legionaries. As each of the short-lived emperors took power, they needed ways to raise money quickly to pay the military's "accession bonus" and the easiest way to do so was by inflating the coinage severely, a process made possible by debasing the coinage with bronze and copper.

    This resulted in runaway rises in prices, and by the time Diocletian came to power, the old coinage of the Roman Empire had nearly collapsed. Some taxes were collected in kind and values often were notional, in bullion or bronze coinage. Real values continued to be figured in gold coinage, but the silver coin, the denarius, used for 300 years, was gone (1 pound of gold = 40 gold aurei = 1,000 denarii = 4,000 sestertii). This currency had almost no value by the end of the third century, and trade was carried out without retail coinage.

    Breakdown of internal trade network

    One of the most profound and lasting effects of the Crisis of the Third Century was the disruption of Rome's extensive internal trade network. Ever since the Pax Romana, starting with Augustus, the empire's economy had depended in large part on trade between Mediterranean ports and across the extensive road systems to the Empire's interior. Merchants could travel from one end of the empire to the other in relative safety within a few weeks, moving agricultural goods produced in the provinces to the cities, and manufactured goods produced by the great cities of the East to the more rural provinces.

    Large estates produced cash crops for export and used the resulting revenues to import food and urban manufactured goods. This resulted in a great deal of economic interdependence among the empire's inhabitants. The historian Henry St. Lawrence Beaufort Moss describes the situation as it stood before the crisis:

    Along these roads passed an ever-increasing traffic, not only of troops and officials but of traders, merchandise and even tourists. An interchange of goods between the various provinces rapidly developed, which soon reached a scale unprecedented in the previous history and not repeated until a few centuries ago. Metals mined in the uplands of Western Europe, hides, fleeces, and livestock from the pastoral districts of Britain, Spain, and the shores of the Black Sea, wine and oil from Provence and Aquitaine, timber, pitch and wax from South Russia and northern Anatolia, dried fruits from Syria, marble from the Aegean coasts, and – most important of all – grain from the wheat-growing districts of North Africa, Egypt, and the Danube Valley for the needs of the great cities; all these commodities, under the influence of a highly organized system of transport and marketing, moved freely from one corner of the Empire to the other.

    With the onset of the Crisis of the Third Century, however, this vast internal trade network broke down. The widespread civil unrest made it no longer safe for merchants to travel as they once had, and the financial crisis that struck made exchange very difficult with the debased currency. This produced profound changes that, in many ways, foreshadowed the very decentralized economic character of the coming Middle Ages.

    Large landowners, no longer able to successfully export their crops over long distances, began producing food for subsistence and local barter. Rather than import manufactured goods from the empire's great urban areas, they began to manufacture many goods locally, often on their own estates, thus beginning the self-sufficient "house economy" that would become commonplace in later centuries, reaching its final form in the manorialism of the Middle Ages. The common, free people of the Roman cities, meanwhile, began to move out into the countryside in search of food and better protection.

    Made desperate by economic necessity, many of these former city dwellers, as well as many small farmers, were forced to give up hard-earned basic civil rights in order to receive protection from large land-holders. In doing so, they became a half-free class of Roman citizen known as coloni. They were tied to the land, and in later Imperial law, their status was made hereditary. This provided an early model for serfdom, the origins of medieval feudal society and of the medieval peasantry. The decline in commerce between the imperial provinces put them on a path toward increased self-sufficiency. Large landowners, who had become more self-sufficient, became less mindful of Rome's central authority, particularly in the Western Empire, and were downright hostile toward its tax collectors. The measure of wealth at this time began to have less to do with wielding urban civil authority and more to do with controlling large agricultural estates in rural regions since this guaranteed access to the only economic resource of real value – agricultural land and the crops it produced. The common people of the empire lost economic and political status to the land-holding nobility, and the commercial middle classes waned along with their trade-derived livelihoods. The Crisis of the Third Century thus marked the beginning of a long gradual process that would transform the ancient world of classical antiquity into the medieval one of the Early Middle Ages.

    However, although the burdens on the population increased, especially the lower strata of the population, this can not be generalized to the whole empire, especially since the living conditions were not uniform. Although the structural integrity of the economy suffered from the military conflicts of that time and the inflationary episode of the 270s, it did not collapse, especially because of the complex regional differences. Recent research has shown that there were regions that prospered even further, such as Egypt, Africa and Hispania. But even for Asia Minor, which was directly affected by attacks, no general decline can be observed. While commerce and the economy flourished in several regions, with several provinces not affected by hostilities, other provinces experienced some serious problems, as evidenced by personal hoards in the northwestern provinces of the empire. However, there can be no talk of a general economic crisis throughout the whole of Empire.

    Even the Roman cities began to change in character. The large cities of classical antiquity slowly gave way to the smaller, walled cities that became common in the Middle Ages. These changes were not restricted to the third century, but took place slowly over a long period, and were punctuated with many temporary reversals. In spite of extensive reforms by later emperors, however, the Roman trade network was never able to fully recover to what it had been during the Pax Romana (27 BC – AD 180). This economic decline was far more noticeable and important in the western part of the empire, which was also invaded by barbarian tribes several times during the century. Hence, the balance of power clearly shifted eastward during this period, as evidenced by the choice of Diocletian to rule from Nicomedia in Asia Minor, putting his second in command, Maximian, in Milan. This would have a considerable impact on the later development of the empire with a richer, more stable eastern empire surviving the end of Roman rule in the west.

    While imperial revenues fell, imperial expenses rose sharply. More soldiers, greater proportions of cavalry, and the ruinous expense of walling in cities all added to the toll. Goods and services previously paid for by the government were now demanded in addition to monetary taxes. The empire suffered from a crippling labour shortage. The steady exodus of both rich and poor from the cities and now-unprofitable professions forced Diocletian to use compulsion; conscription was made universal, most trades were made hereditary, and workers could not legally leave their jobs or travel elsewhere to seek better-paying ones. This included the unwanted middle-class civil service positions and under Constantine, the military. Constantine also tried to provide social programs for the poor to reduce the labour shortage.

    Increased militarization

    All the barracks emperors based their power on the military and on the soldiers of the field armies, not on the Praetorians in Rome. Thus, Rome lost its role as the political center of the empire during the third century, although it remained ideologically important. In order to legitimize and secure their rule, the emperors of the third century needed above all military successes.

    The centre of decision-making shifted away from Rome and to wherever the emperor was with his armies, typically, in the east. This led to the transfer of the capital to the four cities Milan, Trier, Nicomedia, and Sirmium, and then to Constantinople. The Senate ceased to be the main governing organ and instead members of the equestrian class who filled the military officer corps became increasingly prominent.

    Emperors

    Several emperors who rose to power through acclamation of their troops attempted to create stability by giving their descendants the title of Augustus and so making them co-emperors who later succeeded to the throne after their death or on some occasions their relatives managed to become an emperor immediately after their death. This led to the creation of several brief dynasties.

    Operator (computer programming)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_(computer_programmin...