Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's simply zero covid working better than the best vaccines Based on one metric. But ultimately it's self defeating. If you flush the economy down the toilet then there isn't the money for clean water, or hospitals etc. Further zero flu works better than the vaccine. Do you want to stop the world until every disease is eradicated. Lockdowns were never sustainable, in the context of a modern economy. It's a question…
> Vaccines mean it's no longer the least worst option. Millions of dead, and 100s of millions taken out of workforce for ~2 weeks during infection, possibly multiple times, possibly with long covid effects for years after, or we're coming up on winter where immunity weakest. It's far from clear vaccines isn't the worst option short term (0-3 years). >flush the economy down the toilet I mean sure? Except with confluen…
1. In a country of billions, 'millions' could mean fractions of a percent. 'millions' in this context is just emotive rather than factual.
2. What do you mean taken out of the workforce? From illness? That sound wrong. From isolating? How is that worse than it Chinese status quo?
>No I think PRC wants to stop this specific disease that has demonstrably kills many people with linger side effects even in wealthy countries with access to better health care.
Which is why I specifically gave the example of flu. A disease that kills and has lingering side effects. A disease that we live with currently. Millions of people in China probably due from flu every year. Which incidentally shows how flawed your use of the figure is.
From what I can work out ~3m people would be expected to get covid in China if they were all vaccinated. ~500k would be hospitalised. And ~70k would develop long covid lasting at least 6 months. So I don't even know what figures you are working with.