Facts: China Has Tracked 640,000 Virus Cases

The coronavirus pandemic has left two lingering questions.

1. How bad was China’s outbreak?

2. How early was the virus in America?

A number of states have turned up evidence that the virus was actually here quite early. One answer may be that the PRC covered up the full scale of the outbreak. More evidence of that has leaked from China’s own virus tracker.

A leaked database from a Chinese military-run university suggests the country may have at least 640,000 COVID-19 cases — a figure substantially higher than Beijing’s dubious claim that it has seen just 80,000 coronavirus infections.

The virus tracker, compiled by China’s National University of Defense Technology and leaked to Foreign Policy magazine, appears to confirm fears that the nation’s Communist government is hiding the true nature of the outbreak that originated in Wuhan late last year.

According to the report, the virus tracker consists of more than 640,000 rows of cases in 230 cities ranging from early February to late April and confirms the location of each infection.

If you’ll recall, the PRC was giggling when US cases passed 100,000. It would appear that China’s cases were well above that.

But the virus tracker may be only part of the picture.

China’s ruling Communist Party, which has blocked US scientists from coming to the country to study the virus, claims it has seen only 4,633 deaths and 82,929 cases as of Thursday. These figures are considered highly untrustworthy by the international community, with the US now at 85,601 deaths and 1.4 million confirmed cases.

No one seriously believes that China got off that clean. And while the Commies keep lying, the real scale can only be guessed at.

Keep in mind that the virus hits the elderly hardest.

Contract tracing would mostly be needed for a more mobile population. Those who died in hospitals would be the largest part of the total.

UK: Illegal Migrants are the Medicine Being Imported Into a Sickly Country
Bernie Sanders Joins Marxists to Launch ‘Progressive International’
>