Trapped in lockdown, Shanghai residents turn to WeChat groups for food

IMVHO they best move is just talking with their neighbors, in a day or two, offline, there will be a sufficient mass of people ready to descend to the street, and others will joint. At that point there is not much room for a new Tian'anmen: they are too much to be repressed.

On the other side: it's a lesson almost no one would like to learn that we need to produce enough food to nourish residents, witch means that any relatively small area (like a region) should allow at maximum the number of residents who can be nourished at a minimum level with locally produced foods, of course commerce would be still there and improve life, but for basic surviving local one must be there. And that's an enormous issue for China.

They need a younger population to remain in a growing state they need to counter the USA, they need to counter USA/UK because they are already too much and so they have to source food from south America, Africa etc witch means they need a dominance of "nearby" sees and USA can't accept that but a younger population means more children, so even more mouth to be nourished.

In Europe we have a less profound but not that different issue and in the north America I suspect that's the same.

Witch is not much different than lowering down speed limits or asking to lower head/air-con usage in various EU countries.

Not much time ago VoxEU publish https://voxeu.org/article/trade-and-travel-time-epidemics a reasoning about how travels can be limited without hurting the economy and there are many other in the same line of thought. Honestly I see no other explanation.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2108120

It was literally the first hit on google. And it's well known that infection is much more protective than vaccination (although riskier).

Besides, viral infections are very damaging to the human body. An infection severe enough to knock you out for multiple days multiple times a year, on top of all the other disease we have, each time rolling the dice on long term side effects, is far worse than "work from home a couple of times a day".

If there is an only 5% rate of long term side effects (which is much less than it is at now), and you end up catching it twice a year, that means you're guaranteeing most people to suffer from long term side effects.

Not to mention, unless we're sending sick kids to school, parents will be in deep shit.

And on a personal preference level, I would much rather have a week or two of lockdown every year on average until we can develop a vaccine that can prevent reinfection and mutation or treatments and testing or w/e is needed to limit it, than to be guaranteed to get sick for a week or two at random times alone and risk severe long term effects every time.

Even the Chinese didn't have constant lockdowns. The majority of Chinese people didn't even see a single lockdown this year. If their government was competent enough to keep a basic surveillance testing regime the lockdown in Shanghai might have already been over.