3 ms·

The zero-Covid strategy is not sustainable. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-in-china-cases-lockdown-omicron-variant-us-alert-beijing-olympics/ https://www.c

by a0-prw 5y ago

The zero-Covid strategy is not sustainable. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-in-china-cases-lockdown-omicron-variant-us-alert-beijing-olympics/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-in-china-cases-lockdown-o... China is still locking down whole cities. Denmark is back to normal. Once Omicron gets into a country, that's it. Eventually, they will have to bite the bullet.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
There is currently no major city in China under lockdown. China relies much more heavily on contact tracing and mass testing than on large-scale lockdowns. At the height of the "wave" this winter (which means about 200 infections/day), about 20 million people in China were under lockdown, out of a population of 1.4 billion (that's less than 2% of the population). That "wave" was successfully contained, and the major city that was under lockdown, Xi'an, reopened (the lockdown lasted 3 weeks). The vast majority of people in China have not experienced a lockdown since April 2020. > Once Omicron gets into a country, that's it. China has already successfully controlled a few Omicron outbreaks. Omicron is a bit harder to control, because the serial interval (the time from one infection to the next in a transmission chain) is a bit shorter, but it's not fundamentally different. Your contact tracing has to be faster to control Omicron, and Chinese contact tracing is very fast. They identify all close contacts of an infected person within hours. > Denmark is back to normal. The vast majority of China has been back to normal since April 2020. The advantage of zero-CoVID is that it allows life for the vast majority of people to go back much closer to normal for the vast majority of the time. If your neighborhood has an outbreak or if you're a close contact of an infected person, you may have to quarantine, but outbreaks are few and far between in China, so these measures only ever affect relatively few people. Danish people have been living with on-and-off restrictions for two years. The average Dane's daily life has been more restricted than that of the average Chinese person. > Eventually, they will have to bite the bullet. Not in the way that most countries have "bitten the bullet." Chinese public health experts have said that they will reevaluate the policy when drugs and vaccines render SARS-CoV-2 less deadly than the flu. We're not at that point yet. When/if China allows the virus to spread, it will be much less deadly, and China will not suffer the same sort of enormous death toll that the US and Europe have suffered.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  I agree that the average Dane's life has been more affected (I live in Denmark). I am also not in any way a China basher. I have just experienced how fast it goes when Omicron gets a toehold. I don't believe they can keep it up. And more importantly, why? If very few people get seriously ill, why are economically destructive policies justified. I've felt that way from the beginning of the pandemic.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    > I don't believe they can keep it up. People have been saying this for a year, with every new variant, yet China has been perfectly capable of keeping CoVID-19 under control and 98% or more of the country open. Contact tracing, mass testing and the other measures China uses work. > And more importantly, why? Because the risks of letting CoVID-19 spread in China are poorly known but potentially massive. Looking outside China, the US is currently going through its 2nd most lethal CoVID-19 wave. There are more deaths per day now than there were at the height of the Delta wave. It's prudent to wait and continue to assess the situation, rather than gambling with public health, as most countries are doing. China is able to do so. > If very few people get seriously ill, why are economically destructive policies justified. I've felt that way from the beginning of the pandemic. Well, first of all, China has had better economic performance than any other major country during the pandemic. One of the reasons is that it has spent far less time under lockdown or with restrictive social distancing measures than most countries. That's because it quickly eliminated the virus. International travel is affected, but factories can run normally, people can go to work in person, public venues are open, etc. Second of all, if China had responded the same way as Europe and the US, it is likely that around 4 million people would have died in China. That's not "very few people."

by a0-prw 5y ago

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

There is currently no major city in China under lockdown. China relies much more heavily on contact tracing and mass testing than on large-scale lockdowns. At the height of the "wave" this winter (which means about 200 infections/day), about 20 million people in China were under lockdown, out of a population of 1.4 billion (that's less than 2% of the population). That "wave" was successfully contained, and the major city that was under lockdown, Xi'an, reopened (the lockdown lasted 3 weeks). The vast majority of people in China have not experienced a lockdown since April 2020. > Once Omicron gets into a country, that's it. China has already successfully controlled a few Omicron outbreaks. Omicron is a bit harder to control, because the serial interval (the time from one infection to the next in a transmission chain) is a bit shorter, but it's not fundamentally different. Your contact tracing has to be faster to control Omicron, and Chinese contact tracing is very fast. They identify all close contacts of an infected person within hours. > Denmark is back to normal. The vast majority of China has been back to normal since April 2020. The advantage of zero-CoVID is that it allows life for the vast majority of people to go back much closer to normal for the vast majority of the time. If your neighborhood has an outbreak or if you're a close contact of an infected person, you may have to quarantine, but outbreaks are few and far between in China, so these measures only ever affect relatively few people. Danish people have been living with on-and-off restrictions for two years. The average Dane's daily life has been more restricted than that of the average Chinese person. > Eventually, they will have to bite the bullet. Not in the way that most countries have "bitten the bullet." Chinese public health experts have said that they will reevaluate the policy when drugs and vaccines render SARS-CoV-2 less deadly than the flu. We're not at that point yet. When/if China allows the virus to spread, it will be much less deadly, and China will not suffer the same sort of enormous death toll that the US and Europe have suffered.

a0-prw 5y ago
I agree that the average Dane's life has been more affected (I live in Denmark). I am also not in any way a China basher. I have just experienced how fast it goes when Omicron gets a toehold. I don't believe they can keep it up. And more importantly, why? If very few people get seriously ill, why are economically destructive policies justified. I've felt that way from the beginning of the pandemic.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  > I don't believe they can keep it up. People have been saying this for a year, with every new variant, yet China has been perfectly capable of keeping CoVID-19 under control and 98% or more of the country open. Contact tracing, mass testing and the other measures China uses work. > And more importantly, why? Because the risks of letting CoVID-19 spread in China are poorly known but potentially massive. Looking outside China, the US is currently going through its 2nd most lethal CoVID-19 wave. There are more deaths per day now than there were at the height of the Delta wave. It's prudent to wait and continue to assess the situation, rather than gambling with public health, as most countries are doing. China is able to do so. > If very few people get seriously ill, why are economically destructive policies justified. I've felt that way from the beginning of the pandemic. Well, first of all, China has had better economic performance than any other major country during the pandemic. One of the reasons is that it has spent far less time under lockdown or with restrictive social distancing measures than most countries. That's because it quickly eliminated the virus. International travel is affected, but factories can run normally, people can go to work in person, public venues are open, etc. Second of all, if China had responded the same way as Europe and the US, it is likely that around 4 million people would have died in China. That's not "very few people."