
While North Korea denied Covid-19 cases, the virus was widespread and barely treated, report says
For the first time since the global outbreak of Covid-19, researchers claim to have pierced North Korea's ironclad information blockade to reveal how some ordinary citizens endured the pandemic.
While Pyongyang insisted for more than two years that not a single case had breached its hermetically sealed borders, a new report paints a far darker picture, of a deadly wave of largely untreated illness that swept the country, but was barely talked about.
The 26-page report also details testimony of deaths by counterfeit or self-prescribed medicine, and official denial leading to a culture of dishonesty.
'Doctors were lying to the patients. Village leaders were lying to the party. And the government was lying to everybody,' said Dr. Victor Cha, one of the report's lead authors.
Released by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in partnership with the George W. Bush Institute, the paper is based on 100 in-person interviews conducted discreetly inside North Korea between September and December 2023.
The testimony – gathered through informal, conversational methods known as 'snowball sampling' – span all nine provinces and the capital Pyongyang. The result is what the authors describe as 'arguably the first glimpse' inside the country's most extreme period of isolation in modern history.
Snowball sampling is a recruitment method often used when studying hidden or hard-to-access populations. Researchers begin by identifying one or two trusted participants, who then refer them to others in their networks. Over time, the pool of participants 'snowballs,' growing through word-of-mouth and personal trust.
While it lacks the scientific rigor of more conventional surveys, this method is often the only way of getting raw, subjective testimony from people living in repressive and totalitarian states, such as North Korea.
Cha, a former White House adviser and Korea Chair at CSIS, said the findings were evidence of 'a total failure on the part of the government to do anything for the people during the pandemic.'
'Everybody was effectively lying to everybody during the pandemic,' he said. 'Because of a government policy that said there was no COVID in the country. When they knew there was.'
Cha said Pyongyang's policy of denial didn't just attempt to deceive the outside world – it forced North Korea's more than 26 million people into mutually enforced silence.
When North Korea closed its borders in early 2020 – as the virus made its way across the globe, on its way to infecting and killing millions – state media claimed it had kept the virus out entirely; no infections, no deaths. The world was skeptical. But the regime's total control over borders and information made independent verification nearly impossible.
Two years later, North Korean television aired scenes of a military parade in Pyongyang. Crowds filled Kim Il Sung Square. Masks were scarce. Not long after, reports of a mysterious 'fever outbreak' began appearing in state media. By early May, Pyongyang confirmed its first Covid-19 case. Three months later, it declared victory – claiming just 74 deaths out of nearly 5 million 'fever' cases.
But according to the new survey, Covid-19 had by that point been circulating widely inside the country for at least two years.
Ninety-two percent of respondents said they or someone close to them had been infected. Most said 2020 and 2021 – not 2022 – were when outbreaks were at their worst.
'Fevers were happening everywhere, and many people were dying within a few days,' one participant reported. Another, a soldier, described a military communications battalion in which more than half the unit – about 400 soldiers – fell ill by late 2021. In prisons, schools, and food factories, respondents described people collapsing or missing days of work due to fever.
Even under normal conditions, the country's isolated and underfunded healthcare system struggles to meet the needs of its people. But a pandemic-level event, coupled with official denial and an initial refusal to accept foreign vaccines, left people dangerously exposed, the report claims.
With virtually no access to testing, diagnoses came from Covid-19 symptoms that most of the world had grown familiar with: fever, cough, shortness of breath. Some respondents said even these symptoms were taboo. One woman recalled being told by a doctor that if she said she had those symptoms, 'you will be taken away.' Another said bluntly: 'They told me it's a cold, but I knew it was COVID.'
In place of official care, citizens turned to folk medicine: saltwater rinses, garlic necklaces, even opium injections. One woman said her child died after being given the wrong dosage of adult medication. Another respondent described neighbors overdosing on counterfeit Chinese drugs. In total, one in five respondents reported seeing or hearing of deaths due to misuse of medication or fake pharmaceuticals.
Protective gear was nearly nonexistent. Just 8% of respondents said they received masks from the government. Many made their own, reused them, or bought them at black-market prices. One mother said her children had to sew their own because adult-issued masks were too big.
Cha says the failure was not just in what the government withheld, but in how it blocked the kind of grassroots survival that had helped North Korea's 'resourceful' citizens endure past disasters – including the 1990s famine, known inside the country as the 'Arduous March.' That crisis gave rise to private marketplaces, which emerged as a lifeline when the state-run ration system collapsed. During the pandemic, however, those markets were shut down – officially to contain the virus, but also, Cha suggests, to limit the spread of information.
'They didn't allow the people to find coping mechanisms,' he said. 'Just shut them down, quarantine them, lock them down – and then provided them with nothing.'
The suffering extended beyond illness. With internal travel banned and markets shuttered, food shortages became acute. Eighty-one percent of those surveyed said they faced hunger. Respondents spoke of trying to survive quarantine periods with no rations, no access to medicine, and no way to seek help.
The rationing system, long unreliable, collapsed entirely under the weight of the lockdown. 'If you didn't have emergency food at home, it was really tough,' one soldier said.
Eighty-seven percent of respondents said they had no access to Covid tests at any point in the pandemic. Fewer than 20% received any vaccine — and most of those were administered only after Pyongyang acknowledged the outbreak in 2022 and accepted limited Chinese assistance. Soldiers reported receiving three shots as part of a campaign later that year. Civilian respondents described group vaccinations administered at schools or workplaces – months after the rest of the world had rolled out full vaccination programs.
Even the basic act of reporting illness became a risk. According to the report, local clinics and neighborhood watch units were required to report cases to central authorities. But only 41% of respondents ever received any information about those reports. Most said the results were either never shared or filtered through rumor. One respondent said: 'I realized that serious illnesses and deaths were not reported because they were told not to call it COVID.'
This system of denial created what Cha calls a 'double lie': the government lied to its people, and the people lied to each other and to their government – each trying to avoid quarantine, censure, or worse.
The survey also documented a deep well of frustration with the regime's response – and its propaganda. One participant said: 'Our country can build nuclear weapons, but they can't give us vaccines.' Others noted the contrast between their conditions and what they heard about other countries: free testing, access to medicine, the ability to travel.
In one of the report's most striking findings, 83% of respondents said their experience did not align with what the government or its leader Kim Jong Un told them. More than half said they explicitly disbelieved the regime's Covid-related announcements.
'When I saw the Supreme Leader touting his love for the people, while so many were dying without medicine,' one respondent said, 'I thought of all the people who didn't survive.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
BEN CARSON: After COVID confusion, how can we rebuild trust in public health leaders?
Just over five years ago, our nation faced a moment that felt more like fiction than reality—a global pandemic and a national emergency, brought on by a virus we had never seen before. Faced with fear and uncertainty, Americans turned to our frontline healthcare workers, public health leaders, and scientists to help guide us through. And we trusted them—because historically, we've had good reason to. But as the weeks turned into months, something began to shift. Decisions that lacked consistency and transparency started to erode that trust. Schools were closed to protect children—yet we later learned how deeply it harmed them. Mask mandates changed repeatedly. Beaches were shut down, while large political gatherings were permitted. These contradictions did more than confuse people—they undermined confidence in those charged with guiding us through the crisis. Many Americans endured great sacrifices—missing weddings, funerals, and final goodbyes with loved ones—while some officials appeared to operate by a different set of rules. The phrase "trust the science" was too often wielded as a shield against legitimate questions and concerns. As a member of President Trump's White House Coronavirus Task Force, I witnessed firsthand the difference of opinion among health experts. But rather than welcome those scientific debates, some dismissed them outright—labeling thoughtful disagreement as "anti-science." That kind of dismissiveness damages the very credibility that public institutions depend upon. Today, we are seeing the consequences of that breakdown in trust. Perhaps nowhere is it more evident than in the growing skepticism around vaccinations. For decades, immunizations have been one of modern medicine's greatest achievements—eliminating diseases and saving millions of lives. But now, after years of mixed messaging and politicized public health decisions, we're watching long-held confidence in vaccines waver. This isn't hypothetical. We are now facing the largest measles outbreak in the U.S. in a generation—spanning 31 states, resulting in over a thousand infections and the tragic loss of life. In several of the hardest-hit areas, vaccination rates are dangerously low. This mistrust has even begun to shape legislation, with several states considering laws that would further weaken immunization efforts. We must not allow the missteps of recent years to unravel the decades of progress made through sound immunization practices. The established guidelines for routine vaccinations have long provided a foundation of safe and effective protection against serious diseases. While that trust must be restored, it must go hand in hand with a renewed respect for parental choice and individual responsibility. Confidence in vaccines grows when people are engaged and provided with clear information and empowered to make informed decisions in consultation with trusted providers. Trust is not built through mandates—it's earned through transparency, consistency, and respect for personal responsibility. It is time for a reset. We need to move past the confusion and division of the COVID era. We must acknowledge what went wrong—not to assign blame, but to rebuild what's been lost: trust. President Donald Trump's team at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration now has the opportunity to lead with clarity, competence, and a renewed focus on serving the American people. We recently saw very significant personnel changes at ACIP – a panel central to vaccine policy. This committee plays a vital role in protecting families and guiding national readiness. It's important in our quest for change that we pursue reform that's thoughtful, apolitical and fair. Safeguarding credibility is key to advancing the President's broader mission. Let us remember that public health is not just about data—it's about people. It's about protecting families, preserving life, and earning trust through honesty and integrity. We've all learned important lessons from a difficult time. Let's carry those lessons forward—and finally close the chapter on the COVID era.

Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
SINOVAC Announces New Board Member
BEIJING, June 18, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (Nasdaq: SVA) ("SINOVAC" or the "Company"), a leading provider of biopharmaceutical products in China, today announced that it received a resignation notice from David Guowei Wang, a member of the board of directors (the "Board") and a member of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board, effective immediately. Mr. Wang's resignation was due to increased professional commitments and time constraints and was not the result of any disagreement with the Company on any matter relating to the Company's operations, policies or practices. The Board has appointed Geoffrey C. Hsu, CFA, as a director to the Board to fill the vacancy created by such resignation under the laws of Antigua and Barbuda. Mr. Hsu has also been elected as a member of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board. Mr. Hsu is a General Partner and Portfolio Manager at OrbiMed, one of the world's largest dedicated healthcare investment firms, managing over $17 billion in assets. Mr. Hsu brings extensive investment experience in the biotechnology industry and China. He joined OrbiMed in 2002 and has been a Portfolio Manager since 2005, leading the public equity team's biotech and emerging markets efforts. He has been responsible for overseeing the firm's public equity investments in China since 2009 and the firm's investment in SINOVAC since 2013. Prior to joining OrbiMed, Mr. Hsu worked as a financial analyst in the healthcare investment banking group at Lehman Brothers. He received an A.B. degree summa cum laude from Harvard University and holds an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Following this appointment, the Board consists of four members, including Dr. Chiang Li (Chairman), Mr. Yuk Lam Lo, Mr. Sven H. Borho, CFA, and Mr. Hsu. The Audit Committee of the Board consists of three members, including Mr. Borho, Mr. Lo and Mr. Hsu. The Compensation Committee and the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board each consists of Dr. Li, Mr. Lo and Mr. Hsu. About SINOVAC Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (SINOVAC) is a China-based biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the R&D, manufacturing, and commercialization of vaccines that protect against human infectious diseases. SINOVAC's product portfolio includes vaccines against COVID-19, enterovirus 71 (EV71) infected hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD), hepatitis A, varicella, influenza, poliomyelitis, pneumococcal disease, etc. The COVID-19 vaccine, CoronaVac®, has been approved for use in more than 60 countries and regions worldwide. The hepatitis A vaccine, Healive®, passed WHO prequalification requirements in 2017. The EV71 vaccine, Inlive®, is an innovative vaccine under "Category 1 Preventative Biological Products" and commercialized in China in 2016. In 2022, SINOVAC's Sabin-strain inactivated polio vaccine (sIPV) and varicella vaccine were prequalified by the WHO. SINOVAC was the first company to be granted approval for its H1N1 influenza vaccine Panflu.1®, which has supplied the Chinese government's vaccination campaign and stockpiling program. The Company is also the only supplier of the H5N1 pandemic influenza vaccine, Panflu®, to the Chinese government stockpiling program. SINOVAC continually dedicates itself to new vaccine R&D, with more combination vaccine products in its pipeline, and constantly explores global market opportunities. SINOVAC plans to conduct more extensive and in-depth trade and cooperation with additional countries, and business and industry organizations. For more information, please visit the Company's website at View source version on Contacts Sinovac Biotech YangTel: +86-10-8279 9779Email: ir@


Android Authority
2 hours ago
- Android Authority
Samsung could charge for new Health features, but would you hit subscribe?
Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority 🗣️ This is an open thread. We want to hear from you! Share your thoughts in the comments and vote in the poll below — your take might be featured in a future roundup. I'm not against paying for subscriptions. Last week, I wrote a piece about subscriptions I'll happily pay for, especially focusing on those that add value to my daily life. However, I do have my limits. On Wednesday, Samsung's head of digital health suggested that the company is once again considering a Health subscription tier that could lock newer features behind a paywall. Unlike the current system, which offers new features to all Health users, a subscription would split the user base in half. In fairness, one wouldn't have to purchase the subscription to continue access to Samsung Health. There's no indication that the entire service will become pay-to-play. The base fitness tracking features, including heart rate and step tracking, would presumably remain accessible to all. However, some specific future features may be reserved. This could include incoming One UI 8 Watch items, like Bedtime Guidance and Vascular Load. The timeline, the specific features, the models affected, and, more importantly, the price, are all currently unclear. For me to cough up the cash, Samsung Health's premium tier would need to add significant value to my fitness regime. But I want to hear your thoughts, especially if you own a Galaxy Watch. Here are the questions: Are there any specific health tracking features you'd pay for that aren't available on Galaxy products right now? How much would you pay for a Samsung Health subscription that offered the above and more? Do you feel that health app subscriptions (including Garmin Connect Plus and Fitbit Premium) are necessary for reaching your health goals? Do you currently pay for any? If not Samsung Health, what's your go-to health tracking app in 2025? Do you trust Samsung Health's data? Be sure to vote in the poll below, too! Would you buy a Samsung Health subscription? 41 votes Yes, absolutely 0 % It depends on the features 22 % No, absolutely not 78 % 👇Sound off in the comments: What do you think of a potential Samsung Health subscription tier?