3 ms·

In order to evaluate these two approaches to controlling spread we would have to have accurate infection, hospitalization and death data from China. I could be

In order to evaluate these two approaches to controlling spread we would have to have accurate infection, hospitalization and death data from China. I could be wrong on this. I don't think that data exists or was made public. I don't think we know how many people died in China. Do we? To a reasonable degree of accuracy?

FrenchAmerican 5y ago
I wonder if China had any choice in its Covid strategy. They used the only tool they had, e.g. their control of the population. When they had a vaccine, it proved of mediocre effectiveness. So they could not rely on it as the main strategy. And they still can't, obviously. The (still called) Communist Party is very aware of its citizens' opinion. When pollution became a constant muttering, they acted vigorously, so that no "green movement" arise. The Party has a huge power - but it is expected to deliver, otherwise social unrest ensue. Not being able to control a pandemy is unacceptable, since the dominance is justified by the common good. The control of the Party on the Chinese population is ambivalent: very real and quite fragile altogether. The Party knows that very clearly.
- aeternum 5y ago
  The CCP currently does seem to want to keep the population happy but I don't agree that it has to nor that the control is fragile. The bar for revolution is quite high, during Mao and Stalin, people were starving to death and there was massive unrest but still the parties generally kept power. The CCP clearly doesn't want anything close to that, but this demonstrates that no social unrest is a nice-to-have rather than a requirement for an authoritarian government. Russia is another example. Given the sanctions, economic turmoil, protests about the war it's pretty clear that this special military operation has been a huge net negative for most of the population. In an authoritarian government however there's little need to consider the populace as long as you're above the 'good enough not to revolt' bar. Most focus should be put on the politics of maintaining power.

FrenchAmerican 5y ago

I wonder if China had any choice in its Covid strategy. They used the only tool they had, e.g. their control of the population. When they had a vaccine, it proved of mediocre effectiveness. So they could not rely on it as the main strategy. And they still can't, obviously. The (still called) Communist Party is very aware of its citizens' opinion. When pollution became a constant muttering, they acted vigorously, so that no "green movement" arise. The Party has a huge power - but it is expected to deliver, otherwise social unrest ensue. Not being able to control a pandemy is unacceptable, since the dominance is justified by the common good. The control of the Party on the Chinese population is ambivalent: very real and quite fragile altogether. The Party knows that very clearly.

aeternum 5y ago
The CCP currently does seem to want to keep the population happy but I don't agree that it has to nor that the control is fragile. The bar for revolution is quite high, during Mao and Stalin, people were starving to death and there was massive unrest but still the parties generally kept power. The CCP clearly doesn't want anything close to that, but this demonstrates that no social unrest is a nice-to-have rather than a requirement for an authoritarian government. Russia is another example. Given the sanctions, economic turmoil, protests about the war it's pretty clear that this special military operation has been a huge net negative for most of the population. In an authoritarian government however there's little need to consider the populace as long as you're above the 'good enough not to revolt' bar. Most focus should be put on the politics of maintaining power.