3 ms·

FTA: > By the end of May [2022] pupils in 13 countries were still enduring some restrictions on face-to-face learning—among them China, Iraq and Russia. Your

FTA: > By the end of May [2022] pupils in 13 countries were still enduring some restrictions on face-to-face learning—among them China, Iraq and Russia. Your suggested approaches aren't reflective of current circumstances. We have vaccines; yet, lockdowns affecting early education are still in effect.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
That statement is nearly meaningless, because it does not say how many students are facing restrictions. What fraction of Chinese students are currently doing in-person learning? This information is available - there are regular updates from every Chinese city about CoVID measures. The Economist is just too lazy to actually go tabulate the data, so what we get instead is a vague statement about "enduring restrictions," which affect some unspecified number of students. Are we talking about 10% of students, 1% of students, 0.1% of students? Hint: it's probably nearest to the final figure. It's not just The Economist that is lazy when it comes to reporting about China. Most Western outlets are. The standard of reporting is incredibly low, and it is colored by some massive biases. For people who actually know something about the country, it's incredibly frustrating.
- caminante 4y ago
  Here's an article, saying all of Shanghai shut down schools in March.[0] I don't have the figures. You're right. But, I'm betting against your gut feeling that the impact to the CN school population is a rounding error when mega-cities in CN are shutting down their schools due to CV19. [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-shanghai-shuts-schools-due-fresh-covid-19-outbreak-2022-03-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-shanghai-shuts-sc...
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    In Spring 2022, Shanghai had the most serious lockdown that any major Chinese city has had since Wuhan in early 2020. Shanghai's experience is the absolute most extreme case. The number of times any large Chinese city has taken anywhere near as strict of measures at any time in the last 2 years can be counted on one hand. But to put this in context, Shanghai makes up 2% of China's population. China reopened schools very early in the pandemic, all the way back in March-April 2020. That's because it ended (as in, zero new infections) its initial outbreak very quickly. Schools have been open in the vast majority of the country for the vast majority of the time since.
    - caminante 4y ago
      > But to put this in context, Shanghai makes up 2% of China's population. Acknowledging the impact as absolute and sizeable (millions of kids in Shanghai, CN alone) undermines any argument that the impacts are muted and immaterial (See your percentage basis rationale.) Tracing to the original thread, you're acknowledging the significance (and claims by the Economist) , which you opposed earlier. > That's because it ended (as in, zero new infections) its initial outbreak very quickly. I don't know man. That "zero new infections" might be true, but it's hard to take China's self-reported figures credibly. See this study showing how CN advertised a death/infection rate ONLY of 1 per 100,000 [0] when all peers are orders of magnitude higher. CN's claims are statistical anomolies. [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00484-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

That statement is nearly meaningless, because it does not say how many students are facing restrictions. What fraction of Chinese students are currently doing in-person learning? This information is available - there are regular updates from every Chinese city about CoVID measures. The Economist is just too lazy to actually go tabulate the data, so what we get instead is a vague statement about "enduring restrictions," which affect some unspecified number of students. Are we talking about 10% of students, 1% of students, 0.1% of students? Hint: it's probably nearest to the final figure. It's not just The Economist that is lazy when it comes to reporting about China. Most Western outlets are. The standard of reporting is incredibly low, and it is colored by some massive biases. For people who actually know something about the country, it's incredibly frustrating.

caminante 4y ago
Here's an article, saying all of Shanghai shut down schools in March.[0] I don't have the figures. You're right. But, I'm betting against your gut feeling that the impact to the CN school population is a rounding error when mega-cities in CN are shutting down their schools due to CV19. [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-shanghai-shuts-schools-due-fresh-covid-19-outbreak-2022-03-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-shanghai-shuts-sc...
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  In Spring 2022, Shanghai had the most serious lockdown that any major Chinese city has had since Wuhan in early 2020. Shanghai's experience is the absolute most extreme case. The number of times any large Chinese city has taken anywhere near as strict of measures at any time in the last 2 years can be counted on one hand. But to put this in context, Shanghai makes up 2% of China's population. China reopened schools very early in the pandemic, all the way back in March-April 2020. That's because it ended (as in, zero new infections) its initial outbreak very quickly. Schools have been open in the vast majority of the country for the vast majority of the time since.
  - caminante 4y ago
    > But to put this in context, Shanghai makes up 2% of China's population. Acknowledging the impact as absolute and sizeable (millions of kids in Shanghai, CN alone) undermines any argument that the impacts are muted and immaterial (See your percentage basis rationale.) Tracing to the original thread, you're acknowledging the significance (and claims by the Economist) , which you opposed earlier. > That's because it ended (as in, zero new infections) its initial outbreak very quickly. I don't know man. That "zero new infections" might be true, but it's hard to take China's self-reported figures credibly. See this study showing how CN advertised a death/infection rate ONLY of 1 per 100,000 [0] when all peers are orders of magnitude higher. CN's claims are statistical anomolies. [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00484-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...