Why Did China Lockdown Half Its Economy?

That's the question that Charles Hugh Smith poses, as republished at Zerohedge: If Lockdown Is A Needless Over-Reaction, Then Why Did China Lockdown Half Its Economy? I've posed that question from time to time, as well. We know that China didn't simply panic and take that drastic action because of some sentimental concern for the welfare of its citizens. Western leaders know that, too. 

Consider this: Reported total deaths in the US are now 3X those in China, so our actions would seem not disproportionate on that basis. Of course, I don't for a minute believe the Chinese numbers, which means that the true death total in China probably dwarfs that in the US--and intelligence in that regard was part of what sparked our response.

Here are some excerpts from Smith's ruminations:

Everyone who reckons that the lockdown is needless and more destructive than the pandemic that triggered it has to answer this question: then why did China lockdown half its economy? 

The reasoning of those who reckon the lockdown is needless can be summarized as follows: 

1. The lockdown is based on poorly executed extrapolations of faulty data; the death rate is much lower than expected, and most cases are mild or asymptomatic. 

2. Therefore, the lockdown is doing far more economic damage than simply letting the pandemic run its course. 

3. Alternatively, the pandemic and the lockdown are planned operations of elites, the goal being to further consolidate New World Order control in the hands of a few. 

All of these rationales stumble on the question of why China locked down half its economy. It is a real stretch to claim that the Deep State et al. control China, therefore it's unlikely China's decision to lock down half its economy as the pandemic ravaged Wuhan was a U.S. Deep State operation. 

As for the extrapolation of faulty data: what did the Chinese leadership learn that we don't yet know? How can we assume China's leadership over-reacted to faulty data in shutting down half their economy? More likely, they had the best available data and balanced the consequences of letting the pandemic run its course or accepting the immense economic damage of locking down most of their productive economy. 

Why would China's leadership have accepted the staggering economic losses of lockdown if the situation wasn't catastrophically dire? 

What other factors might have influenced China's decision to lock down its economy that we don't know? The true origin of the virus, perhaps? The true death rate in Wuhan? The actual number of dead piling up like cordwood in Wuhan? 

If China's lockdown was a decision reached by its leadership based on information known only to them, then it follows that the information effectively forced their decision to absorb the enormous economic damage of a full lockdown as the lesser of two evils. 

It is quite reasonable to assume China's leadership had the most accurate data available, and that they deliberated very carefully before choosing a response with such grave economic consequences. 

Few commentators have speculated what the intelligence agencies of South Korea, Japan, Singapore and the Western nations might have discovered and shared with each other. China is not exactly a closed country, and there are ample intelligence-gathering opportunities via space-based assets, data collection and meta-analysis of that data, and so on. 

It seems unlikely to the point of absurdity that all these intelligence agencies weren't collating data from every available source and making their own assessments of the risks of letting the virus run its course.

Smith's considerations, in my view, play into my contention that Trump had little choice but to take the actions he took. This isn't a pandemic like the typical flu season that plays out over something like eight months and doesn't overwhelm our hospitals. In the US this has played out over a matter, really, of weeks.

Trump is facing difficult choices in the coming weeks. Weeks to a month. We may get a sense of what choices he faces in the next week or two.