4 ms·

> ruling party is risking a lot, IMO The alternative is catastrophically worse. Even conservative estimates of PRC adopting western strategies of vax and open

> ruling party is risking a lot, IMO The alternative is catastrophically worse. Even conservative estimates of PRC adopting western strategies of vax and opening has 6-7 figure deaths due to quickly overwhelmed medical system that's underdeveloped relative to west. This was pre-Omicron and assumes high mRNA vaccine penetration, which has utterly failed at preventing spread / breakthrough infections with omicron. It is looking like "superior" mRNA is as useless as traditional vaccines at preventing spread and comparable in preventing death, assuming developing literature that traditional Chinese vaccines has robust T-cell response for preventing severe cases. Which makes covid-0 the far superior choice for PRC, if it can be maintained. Simply no amount of vaccination will avert massive deaths in country of 1.4B that skews old and has marginal medical resources. Presently there's no better option than covid-0. Harsh lockdowns sucks for those going through it, but flip side is propaganda from overseas Chinese diaspora relaying the circus of western responses that's essentially resigning to herd immunity despite promise of mRNA magic of ending the pandemic. Omicron has completely vindicated PRC zero-covid strategy. Again, if it can be maintained. Of course long term, herd immune countries can return to normal sooner. The path is harder for PRC. Who knows what the end game is, I think maybe hold out for hope that even milder variants will evolve and open up for herd immunity then. Either way, dodging original and delta strand was worth it considering lockdowns only ever affected a small fraction of the population after initial country wide quarantine effort. Even now most of PRC is relatively open.

ipspam 5y ago
You forgot the rule that all covid modelling is complete BS because it ignores personal agency and ascribes all rates of change to government action. It also is one of the only academic studies that has a built in, purposeful, skewing of all data to make it look much worse than it is. (Prepare for the worse, hope for the best). Modeling is broken because it doesn't even try to predict the future, its sole purpose is to influence the future. And that works well for them. Overpredict, change behaviours, claim it was the predictions and actions that changed behaviours and made the model wrong, not the fact that the model was just dead wrong to begin with, and on purpose. Look no further than every single failed prediction by Imperial college london and Niell Ferguson.

ipspam 5y ago

You forgot the rule that all covid modelling is complete BS because it ignores personal agency and ascribes all rates of change to government action. It also is one of the only academic studies that has a built in, purposeful, skewing of all data to make it look much worse than it is. (Prepare for the worse, hope for the best). Modeling is broken because it doesn't even try to predict the future, its sole purpose is to influence the future. And that works well for them. Overpredict, change behaviours, claim it was the predictions and actions that changed behaviours and made the model wrong, not the fact that the model was just dead wrong to begin with, and on purpose. Look no further than every single failed prediction by Imperial college london and Niell Ferguson.