4 ms·

While China's approach is heavy-handed it also has saved a lot of lives, even assuming some fudging of the data their death rate is the lowest of any large coun

While China's approach is heavy-handed it also has saved a lot of lives, even assuming some fudging of the data their death rate is the lowest of any large country. Countries like Japan and Thailand have managed to avert nearly as much death as China with very different approaches so there's a good argument that there are good alternatives. Countries like Sweden, England, or especially the US have done so much worse that they probably shouldn't be trying to give anyone any advice on the topic.

Dig1t 5y ago
The CCP is very well known for reporting numbers that make them look good, independent figures don't exist because the CCP wants to control their image. So it's pretty much impossible to trust any statistics on this stuff in China.
catchclose8919 5y ago
The only real measure of success is "customer satisfaction", and I'd dare to say that the majority of the people of Sweden, UK and US are quite satisfied and some would have preferred even less measures to be taken...
- alephnan 5y ago
  > majority of the people of Sweden, UK and US are quite satisfied Did that include the people who died ?
  - cameronh90 5y ago
    You can't protect lives at all cost. What's the point of living without quality of life? We certainly don't take the zero risk approach with other aspects of living. Just an anecdote, but I know far more people who are struggling with mental health problems as a direct consequence of covid lockdowns (myself included), and it seems practically impossible to get any reasonable mental health help any more. Even private services are overwhelmed. My partner works in the hospital and some days nearly all admissions are mental health, even during the peak of the second and third waves. I certainly wouldn't have wanted a strict China-style internal lockdown, and the more porous western internal lockdowns didn't seem to make a huge difference anyway. If anything seems to have made a difference, it's travel bans and quarantine hotels (despite WHO claims). However, against Omicron, everything seems useless.
    - bllguo 5y ago
      You are talking about the costs of half-hearted US lockdowns that accomplished the worst of both worlds. Meanwhile China's strict lockdowns allowed them to end said lockdowns extremely quickly. Things like welding doors shut were temporary measures that let them _avoid_ things like lockdown-induced mental problems and overwhelmed medical services. Until Omicron their policies were working splendidly, with life essentially at normal. Even with Omicron it's only Shanghai being drastically affected. Focusing on Shanghai ignores the >1billion other people that strongly approve of Chinese policy and who saw firsthand how their quality of life was _preserved_.
      - sharken 5y ago
        One thing that is left out is the efficacy of the Chinese vaccines Sinovac and Sinopharm. They are simple not good enough to stop COVID, to do that the Chinese regime would have to choose an American vaccine. Which they of course never will do, so one can ask if the Chinese regime really wants the best for their citizens ? https://myacare.com/blog/comparison-of-covid-19-vaccines https://myacare.com/blog/comparison-of-covid-19-vaccines
        dirtyid 5y ago
        [dead]

Dig1t 5y ago

The CCP is very well known for reporting numbers that make them look good, independent figures don't exist because the CCP wants to control their image. So it's pretty much impossible to trust any statistics on this stuff in China.

catchclose8919 5y ago

The only real measure of success is "customer satisfaction", and I'd dare to say that the majority of the people of Sweden, UK and US are quite satisfied and some would have preferred even less measures to be taken...

alephnan 5y ago
> majority of the people of Sweden, UK and US are quite satisfied Did that include the people who died ?
- cameronh90 5y ago
  You can't protect lives at all cost. What's the point of living without quality of life? We certainly don't take the zero risk approach with other aspects of living. Just an anecdote, but I know far more people who are struggling with mental health problems as a direct consequence of covid lockdowns (myself included), and it seems practically impossible to get any reasonable mental health help any more. Even private services are overwhelmed. My partner works in the hospital and some days nearly all admissions are mental health, even during the peak of the second and third waves. I certainly wouldn't have wanted a strict China-style internal lockdown, and the more porous western internal lockdowns didn't seem to make a huge difference anyway. If anything seems to have made a difference, it's travel bans and quarantine hotels (despite WHO claims). However, against Omicron, everything seems useless.
  - bllguo 5y ago
    You are talking about the costs of half-hearted US lockdowns that accomplished the worst of both worlds. Meanwhile China's strict lockdowns allowed them to end said lockdowns extremely quickly. Things like welding doors shut were temporary measures that let them _avoid_ things like lockdown-induced mental problems and overwhelmed medical services. Until Omicron their policies were working splendidly, with life essentially at normal. Even with Omicron it's only Shanghai being drastically affected. Focusing on Shanghai ignores the >1billion other people that strongly approve of Chinese policy and who saw firsthand how their quality of life was _preserved_.
    - sharken 5y ago
      One thing that is left out is the efficacy of the Chinese vaccines Sinovac and Sinopharm. They are simple not good enough to stop COVID, to do that the Chinese regime would have to choose an American vaccine. Which they of course never will do, so one can ask if the Chinese regime really wants the best for their citizens ? https://myacare.com/blog/comparison-of-covid-19-vaccines https://myacare.com/blog/comparison-of-covid-19-vaccines
      - dirtyid 5y ago
        [dead]