11–19 of 19 posts
Has anyone here played Stray? It’s a wonderful game that came out this year about a city that’s on permanent lockdown. All the humans are gone, but the AI and drones just continue to keep the city “safe” from a virus that has long since vanished. Also you play as a cat.
> All the humans are gone
I think I see the problem :)
Can’t help myself from thinking that this insane zero-covid policy is more about the party conditioning its population for a coming war than fighting a virus.
Shanghai is like the Florida of China. Most of the rest of China had fully opened up long ago without any restrictions due to a zero Covid policy that worked. Shanghai always cut corners and kept getting hit with new outbreaks the rest of the country wasn't seeing. I'm not defending Xi's government, but preventing spread and acknowledging modern germ theory in public policy actually works.
Are you equating this with the public policy choice to impose lockdowns?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shanghai is like the Florida of China. Most of the rest of China had fully opened up long ago without any restrictions due to a zero Covid policy that worked. Shanghai always cut corners and kept getting hit with new outbreaks the rest of the country wasn't seeing. I'm not defending Xi's government, but preventing spread and acknowledging modern germ theory in public policy actually works.
acknowledging modern germ theory in public policy Are you equating this with the public policy choice to impose lockdowns?
BUT
It stopped the spread in its tracks unlike the US and Europe who kept spreading for a year and a half. After a few months, most of China went back to normal. Wuhan itself is maskless with hospitals working under a normal load. The lockdowns worked.
Lockdowns and cat act tracing works, but only if everyone participates. Unfortunately it got political instead of following the science. Many preferred to let their fellow citizens die rather than wear a mask and stay at home when possible.
Authoritarianism is a horrible thing, but it has it uses during a viral pandemic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
acknowledging modern germ theory in public policy Are you equating this with the public policy choice to impose lockdowns?
Yes. I am fully aware only an authoritarian government would be willing and able to forcibly lock down entire cities. BUT It stopped the spread in its tracks unlike the US and Europe who kept spreading for a year and a half. After a few months, most of China went back to normal. Wuhan itself is maskless with hospitals working under a normal load. The lockdowns worked. Lockdowns and cat act tracing works, but only if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I am fully aware only an authoritarian government would be willing and able to forcibly lock down entire cities. BUT It stopped the spread in its tracks unlike the US and Europe who kept spreading for a year and a half. After a few months, most of China went back to normal. Wuhan itself is maskless with hospitals working under a normal load. The lockdowns worked. Lockdowns and cat act tracing works, but only if…
Authoritarianism can always solve some problems -- always just for "the duration of the emergency" of course (now running well over 2 years in China). "The science" has absolutely nothing to do with the policy tradeoffs involved in deciding whether or not lockdowns are advisable. You're simply begging the question that reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 should be the only consideration on the table.
Wuhan for example began its lockdown in Feb 2020 and ended it Apr 2020. There was a brief, limited lockdown in July of this year, but that's it.
Folks in China were able to freely mingle, eat out, etc. long before the West did. Reducing transmission is certainly not the only consideration, but the economy and public life are better by actually dealing with a deadly virus quickly than pretending it will just magically go away and dragging out its effects for two years (and counting).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shanghai is like the Florida of China. Most of the rest of China had fully opened up long ago without any restrictions due to a zero Covid policy that worked. Shanghai always cut corners and kept getting hit with new outbreaks the rest of the country wasn't seeing. I'm not defending Xi's government, but preventing spread and acknowledging modern germ theory in public policy actually works.
So my understanding of the Chinese population is that the older citizens are heavily resistant to vaccination, and at the same time, China has a rapidly aging population with very weak social safety nets. To me, it’s strange they wouldn’t just “open back up” and let whatever happens happens; that’d be a very authoritarian thing to do. With that, what is the goal of these lockdowns if it’s nuking productivity? If it’s…
Isn't this exactly what numerous US conservatives were advocating for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Authoritarianism can always solve some problems -- always just for "the duration of the emergency" of course (now running well over 2 years in China). "The science" has absolutely nothing to do with the policy tradeoffs involved in deciding whether or not lockdowns are advisable. You're simply begging the question that reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 should be the only consideration on the table.
Are you suggesting that Chinese cities have been under continuous lockdown for the last two years? Because that's not the case. Wuhan for example began its lockdown in Feb 2020 and ended it Apr 2020. There was a brief, limited lockdown in July of this year, but that's it. Folks in China were able to freely mingle, eat out, etc. long before the West did. Reducing transmission is certainly not the only consideration, b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that Chinese cities have been under continuous lockdown for the last two years? Because that's not the case. Wuhan for example began its lockdown in Feb 2020 and ended it Apr 2020. There was a brief, limited lockdown in July of this year, but that's it. Folks in China were able to freely mingle, eat out, etc. long before the West did. Reducing transmission is certainly not the only consideration, b…
But no one is "pretending it will just magically go away." You're contending with an obvious strawman here. They're simply judging that we do not need ongoing threats of lockdowns to control a virus with an IFR about 1.5x that of influenza, any more than we ever needed them for the flu.
Approximate US death stats via CDC, influenza vs covid-19:
2018-2019 - Influenza 34,200
2019-2020 - Influenza 25,000
2020-2021 - Influenza 700 - Covid 350,831 (Lockdowns in effect)
2021-2022 - Influenza 1,700 - Covid 771,000 (Vaccines available/lockdowns lifted)
But by all means, explain how Covid-19's IFR is just 1.5x that of influenza. Please provide evidence from reputable sources that can reconcile these numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But no one is "pretending it will just magically go away." You're contending with an obvious strawman here. They're simply judging that we do not need ongoing threats of lockdowns to control a virus with an IFR about 1.5x that of influenza, any more than we ever needed them for the flu.
No one except the President of the United States for the better part of a year in front of a large number of microphones, transmitted to millions of screens. Memories are short. https://youtu.be/TgZAazfHo7k Approximate US death stats via CDC, influenza vs covid-19: 2018-2019 - Influenza 34,200 2019-2020 - Influenza 25,000 2020-2021 - Influenza 700 - Covid 350,831 (Lockdowns in effect) 2021-2022 - Influenza 1,700 - Co…
If influenza deaths had been counted in prior years the way Covid deaths were counted, they would have been far higher than the figures you cite.