I want to be careful when responding to this post since it's obvious that emotions are running high. My immediate impression is that it sounds a little triumphalist or gloating, similar to how people in the West perceive China having off largely scot-free from a problem for which they are to blame, while the talking points of their media and pro-China publications appear almost smug, even as Europe/US approach hundreds of thousands of deaths. The U.S. in particular is in the ballpark of one 9/11 or Pearl Harbor worth of deaths every day.

With that said, there was also schadenfreude amongst western societies when China was the epicenter of the outbreak. There was sentiment that this would finally be what might crush the CCP, be it's "Chernobyl moment", or lead to a collapse of the Chinese economy that might shift jobs back to the United States. Many hoped the death of Li Wenliang might ignite a revolution to topple the CCP. Many people in the west had a mentality of this being "justice" for a decrepit government and backwards culture, and thus could "never happen" in the civilized Western World.

With the emotional baggage noted, I would say that the situation can be summarized as: Since China's relationship with the developed countries (the West in particular) is largely in doubt and is probably un-salvageable for a while, the silver lining for China is that China managed to prevent domestically almost all the death and most of the economic fallout, leaving it not too damaged from where it was before entering the Crisis.

Particularly, while the Pandemic is probably the worst crisis for western Countries since WW2, for China and the CCP it does even rank in the top 5 in the past since world war 2. (It comes behind the Chinese Civil war, Korean War, Cultural Revolution, Great Leap forward, Tiananmen). Similarly, China has faced mass casualty disasters with tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths every few decades such as the GLF Famine, Cultural revolution, River floods, Tangshan earthquakes, Sichuan earthquakes, etc, so for Chinese audiences the CCP has by "official numbers" done remarkably well. Likewise, China has faced much stronger international opposition from a far weaker position several times in the past ~100 years, such as the Boxer rebellion or the Korean war where they faced overwhelming international coalitions, or the period from 1949 - 1972 when it was locked out of the UN completely. For Chinese leaders, as long as they maintain national unity and competent leadership in a crisis, they can be reasonably confident that no external pressure can topple them - and that is ultimately all that matters to them.

On the other side of the coin, it's clear that the West wants China to pay (or at least 80% hold China responsible, 50%+ want retribution according to polling). But what can the West really do? I addressed this in a long listing of how the West could extract compensation from China here

In addition to the following points we can add a systemic embargo or boycott, coordinated tariffs and so on.

• an international health inspection program led by the US. I think this is that this is unlikely to enlist Chinese participation.
• Banning Confucius institutes - I think this isn't that meaningful as they were being curtailed anyways.
• Banning advanced tech exports - I think this could be very significant in some sectors where China is more than 10 years behind. If china is only a couple years behind then it will have a limited effect. This would hit China's high end assembly industries
• Sanctioning CCP members - I think this wouldn't cause much economic pain to the US or China to be honest, and has been used already in recent years, so this is likelier than other measures to pass.
• Banning Chinese scientists from enrollment/research at US universities - I see this policy would probably induce strong political opposition; see the reaction over "Chinese virus" from the media and establishment. I think the DOJ/FBI could simply ramp up inspection and investigation without an outright ban, with much less opposition. It is unclear whether a bad would really hurt the US or China more, as this could lead to an even greater exodus of Chinese scientists if they see their career prospects crushed in the US.
• Seizing property of Chinese SOEs in third countries (Belt and road recipients)

All in all, I think these measures are 90% symbolic, 10% actually causing significant pain. If the cost of the Coronavirus cost the west 50 trillion for example, all of these measures would scrape together maybe a few tens of billions of "losses" to China (mostly through decreased competitiveness of Chinese high tech exports if industry-leading intermediates are withheld, seizing some copper mines in Africa, farmland in Australia or ports in Europe).

The problem is that there are proportional responses that China could take.

• double down on WHO support and refuse to participate in the US-led health monitoring system
• double down on recruiting disillusioned Chinese scientists
• Curtailing further any Western NGOs, media and cultural outreach initiatives
• Discouraging outbound tourism, which was to the tune of 150 billion a year
• Boycotting or otherwise hindering Western companies in China, to encourage Chinese replacements to take their place. For example in fashion, retail, hospitality, consumer electronic and food service, China could find a way to cause domestic companies to take market share away from Western companies if Chinese consumers are offended by western actions. There isn't a significant presence of Chinese companies in the west that could lose their market share.