[ttfkam]

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.

[toomuchtodo]

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 holding down the death rate, that’s reasonable, I just can’t find any evidence to that thesis.

[feet]

>just “open back up” and let whatever happens happens; that’d be a very authoritarian thing to do

Isn't this exactly what numerous US conservatives were advocating for?

[CompactNotice]

acknowledging modern germ theory in public policy

Are you equating this with the public policy choice to impose lockdowns?

[ttfkam]

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 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.

[CompactNotice]

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.

[ttfkam]

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, 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).

[CompactNotice]

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.

[ttfkam]

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 - 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.