> 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 a

> 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...