US Federal Judge Rules, Communist China Responsible for Covid, By Chris Knight (Florida)

On March 7, 2025, a federal judge in Missouri, Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, ruled that the Chinese government was responsible for mishandling the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/us/missouri-china-covid-judgment.html

The lawsuit, originally filed in April 2020 by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, accused China of concealing the emergence and spread of the virus and hoarding personal protective equipment (PPE), exacerbating the global crisis. The judge entered a default judgment of over $24 billion against China, its Communist Party, local governments, a health agency, and a laboratory, after the Chinese government failed to respond or appear in court despite being properly served.

The ruling stemmed from Missouri's claim that China's actions caused direct harm to the state, including lost tax revenue and increased expenditures due to the PPE shortages. Missouri officials, led by Bailey, vowed to enforce the judgment by seizing Chinese-owned assets, such as farmland in Missouri. Bailey described the decision as a "landmark victory" to hold China accountable for "unleashing Covid-19 on the world," emphasizing that China's refusal to participate in the legal process would not exempt it from consequences.

Chinese officials rejected the ruling, stating they did not accept it and signalling potential retaliation if their interests were harmed. The article notes that this judgment marks a significant legal move by a U.S. state against a foreign government, though its enforceability remains uncertain due to international law complexities and China's non-participation.

Based on the details in the article and broader contextual understanding, one can argue that China bears significant responsibility for the emergence and global spread of Covid-19 due to its actions and inactions in the early stages of the outbreak. This is leaving aside the most important issue of the likely production of the Covid virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The Missouri lawsuit and subsequent ruling assert that China withheld critical information about the virus's existence and transmissibility in late 2019 and early 2020. Reports from that period, widely discussed in public discourse, indicate that Chinese authorities silenced whistle-blowers like Dr. Li Wenliang, who attempted to warn colleagues about a SARS-like illness in Wuhan. By downplaying the outbreak and delaying transparent communication with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the international community, China prevented timely global preparedness, allowing the virus to spread unchecked beyond its borders.

The court found that China exacerbated the pandemic by hoarding PPE, a claim supported by Missouri's evidence of economic harm from disrupted supply chains. In early 2020, as the virus ravaged Wuhan, China reportedly nationalised factories producing PPE—including those owned by American companies—and restricted exports while importing vast quantities of protective gear from abroad. This left other nations, including the United States, scrambling to secure supplies amid skyrocketing demand, worsening the death toll and economic damage. Missouri's $24 billion judgment reflects the tangible impact of this hoarding on states forced to overspend or face shortages.

While not definitively proven in the article, the inclusion of a Chinese laboratory (likely the Wuhan Institute of Virology) as a defendant aligns with ongoing speculation about a lab-leak origin. Critics argue that China's lack of transparency about research conducted in Wuhan, combined with its refusal to allow independent investigations, fuels suspicion that the virus may have escaped due to negligence or mismanagement. Even if the virus originated naturally, China's failure to contain it early—whether through wet markets or lab activities—implicates its responsibility.

China's decision not to defend itself in court, as noted in the article, can be interpreted as an admission of culpability or, at minimum, a disregard for international accountability. By ignoring the legal process, China avoided presenting evidence that might counter Missouri's claims, leaving the judge with a one-sided case that favoured the plaintiff. This behaviour mirrors its broader rejection of scrutiny during the pandemic, reinforcing the perception that it has something to hide.

The scale of the pandemic—millions of deaths, trillions in economic losses, and untold suffering—can be traced back to China's initial mishandling. Had China acted swiftly and transparently, global health systems might have mitigated the spread more effectively. The Missouri ruling, while symbolic in its $24 billion penalty, underscores the argument that China's negligence or deliberate actions set the stage for a preventable catastrophe.

To critically examine this narrative, one must consider potential counterarguments. China has consistently denied responsibility, claiming it acted responsibly by sharing the virus's genetic sequence in January 2020 and implementing strict lockdowns. It might argue that pandemics are inherently unpredictable, and no country could have fully contained such a novel pathogen. Additionally, the U.S. and other nations faced their own failures in pandemic response, such as delayed testing or inadequate stockpiles, which amplified the crisis independently of China's actions.

However, these counterpoints do not fully absolve China. Sharing the genetic sequence came after weeks of obfuscation, and lockdowns were reactive rather than preventive. Regardless of the virus's origin, China's early suppression of information and PPE hoarding—validated by the Missouri court—directly worsened the global outcome.

The New York Times article highlights a legal victory for Missouri that, while difficult to enforce, symbolically holds China accountable for its role in the Covid-19 pandemic. The argument that China was responsible rests on its suppression of critical early warnings, monopolisation of PPE, potential negligence in virus containment, and refusal to engage transparently—actions that collectively amplified a global disaster. While no single entity can bear sole blame for a pandemic, China's conduct, as adjudicated in this case, positions it as a primary contributor to the scale of the tragedy.