3 ms·

It's simply zero covid working better than the best vaccines which will still lead to millions of deaths at PRC scale and with PRC's relatively lower per capita

It's simply zero covid working better than the best vaccines which will still lead to millions of deaths at PRC scale and with PRC's relatively lower per capita medical infra. Economically it sucks, but despite disruptions PRC exports booming and moving up the value chain until global slowdown due to UKR war, while being huge producer + cheap RU energy + reserves = slower growth + low inflation, and PRC is still doing relatively alright simply because most others are doing so shit. I imagine not even CCP knows how it ends long term except currently the cost benefit of waiting is worth it, especially with unknowns like long covid, or possibly useful excuse for impending global slow down that's going to impact PRC economy anyway. Might as well as weather it under guise of saving lives. TLDR is it's still sustainable status quo.

benj111 4y ago
>It's simply zero covid working better than the best vaccines Based on one metric. But ultimately it's self defeating. If you flush the economy down the toilet then there isn't the money for clean water, or hospitals etc. Further zero flu works better than the vaccine. Do you want to stop the world until every disease is eradicated. Lockdowns were never sustainable, in the context of a modern economy. It's a question of the least worst option. Vaccines mean it's no longer the least worst option.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  > Vaccines mean it's no longer the least worst option. Millions of dead, and 100s of millions taken out of workforce for ~2 weeks during infection, possibly multiple times, possibly with long covid effects for years after, or we're coming up on winter where immunity weakest. It's far from clear vaccines isn't the worst option short term (0-3 years). >flush the economy down the toilet I mean sure? Except with confluence of global factors PRC economy, while underperforming is still outperforming most of western countries, as stated above. Hence status quo is currently sustainable, there is less pressure to deliver economically when everyone else is sinking. Obviously sustainable not long term, but I can easily see another year or two, especially with global slow down. The broader point being, all the western MSM reporting on PRC wrecking itself economically is avoiding the fact that it's not wrecking itself as much as most developing countries with RU sanctions, or dealing with US dollar, and US dealing with end of cheap money. Zero covid + three red lines on real estate + tech crack down, etc all deliberate policy choices are not as devasting as 10% inflation or end of cheap credit causing housing sales + tech valuations to crash like in PRC. It's not world ending, PRC is collapsing stuff. >Do you want to stop the world until every disease is eradicated No I think PRC wants to stop this specific disease that has demonstrably kills many people with linger side effects even in wealthy countries with access to better health care. E: posting rate limited so @benj111 >So I don't even know what figures you are working with Studies conservatively extrapolating TW/SKR post living with covid + mRNA numbers to PRC with modifier for lower per capital med care access. I don't know what figures you are working with to conclude ~3M would get covid when it will be 100s of millions since no vaccine prevent spread and majority of pop have no natural immunity. Estimates from scientists who actually crunched the numbers: a few million dead, significant % of which due to overhelming hospital infra. 1. Millions of dead (conservative estimate is ~2+) is still factually a lot of dead to deal with. If that can be avoided with accepted costs (which I'm arguing, currently is) then why not. 2. It's worse in that it comes with millions of dead bodies and at least 10s of millions long covid. Maybe zero covid is sunk cost and those figures are inevitable, but still no compelling reason for lifting short term. 3. Covid = flu? Are linger side effects of flu as well understood as covid? Annual influenza deaths is fraction of covid deaths. Extrapolating from US annual flu deaths, in PRC, influenza would kill ~100,000 per year vs again millions of covid deaths in same period. Like if PRC can get away with only 500k hospitalizations, Xi could personally go smother each covid ICU patient and still spin it as a win.
  - benj111 4y ago
    >Millions of dead, and 100s of millions taken out of workforce for ~2 weeks during infection, possibly multiple times, possibly with long covid effects for years after 1. In a country of billions, 'millions' could mean fractions of a percent. 'millions' in this context is just emotive rather than factual. 2. What do you mean taken out of the workforce? From illness? That sound wrong. From isolating? How is that worse than it Chinese status quo? >No I think PRC wants to stop this specific disease that has demonstrably kills many people with linger side effects even in wealthy countries with access to better health care. Which is why I specifically gave the example of flu. A disease that kills and has lingering side effects. A disease that we live with currently. Millions of people in China probably due from flu every year. Which incidentally shows how flawed your use of the figure is. From what I can work out ~3m people would be expected to get covid in China if they were all vaccinated. ~500k would be hospitalised. And ~70k would develop long covid lasting at least 6 months. So I don't even know what figures you are working with.
  - benj111 4y ago
    chinese population is ~1.4 billion https://health-study.joinzoe.com/post/risk-covid-after-vaccine https://health-study.joinzoe.com/post/risk-covid-after-vacci... >We saw that 2,394 and 187 people tested positive for COVID-19 more than two >weeks after their first and second jabs, respectively, with the chances of ?>becoming infected falling as time passed. >That’s the equivalent of one in 500 (0.2%) and one in 3,333 (0.03%) 1,400,000,000 x 0.002 = 2,800,000 (Note I actually misinterpretted this as applying to 2 different vaccines, of which I chose the least effective, whereas this is after just 1 jab.) based on double jab figures the figure would be around 0.5 million. >Reassuringly, only 104 people in the vaccinated group who tested positive for COVID-19 ended up in hospital (one in 2,500 or 0.04%). 1,400,000,000 x 0.0004 = 560,000 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/... >Estimates of the proportion of people who had COVID-19 that go on to >experience post-COVID conditions can vary: >13.3% at one month or longer after infection >2.5% at three months or longer, based on self-reporting >More than 30% at 6 months among patients who were hospitalized 2,800,000 x 0.025 = 70,000 (although this is based on the single jabbed figure, fully jabbed the figure would be 1400. >when it will be 100s of millions since no vaccine prevent spread Are you saying the vaccine doesn't stop you getting covid? that is false. It doesn't stop it 100% but it is significant, significant enough that outbreaks can die off on their own. Further i'm not sure if thats even relevant, the issue is how many it kills. its easy to get a cold, you don't need to worry about getting a cold because that won't kill you. so the relevant factor is how good is the vaccine at preventing major illness and hospitalisation. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... vaccines lower risk of infection by 60% - 80% vaccines lower the risk of symptomatic disease by 65% - 90% vaccines lower risk of hospitalisation by 90% vaccines lower risk of death by over 90%
xtranfer 4y ago
> It's simply zero covid working better than the best vaccines which will still lead to millions of deaths at PRC scale and with PRC's relatively lower per capita medical infra. If China was able to logistically handle zero covid, I would be more inclined to agree with you. However, each time a city in China has been locked down, it has been a logistical disaster that almost always resulted in: - extremely poor quarantine zones in unsanitary conditions (which defeats the purpose of being free of disease). This includes many people who were lucky enough to quarantine in their own homes as even their pets are not allowed to leave, they need to dedicate spaces in their home for their animals to defecate. - lack of basic necessities; food, heating, water leakage, insect problems, or even lacking a proper indoor building in some cases. - a lack of professionalism, discipline, or even respect of human decency among the staff. Attaching spikes to entrances to keep people from leaving by force, refusing to allow elderly access to medical care, threatening people with weapons, security bao'ans going on China social media laughing about all the new found power and control they have over the populace, beating people in a show of their power trips. - questionable policies, such as requiring everyone in a community to come together, line up, for a covid test, which increases the likelihood of getting covid, rather than go door to door. This has lead to more than just inconveniences, it's lead to death. Which is supposedly the very thing this is all supposed to avoid. The Chinese state has proven by experience, repeatedly, that it cannot logistically handle these strict policies. It is a failure of the zero covid policy and a failure of the Chinese Communist Party to administer its State in a competent manner.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  > able to logistically handle zero covid Seeing as we are almost 12+ months post delta/omicron and local outbreaks have consistently been contained to prevent uncontrolled geometric spread, yes PRC is logistically handling zero covid. Over many lock downs, of various sizes, across different regions, to keep spread at so-far managable levels. > logistical disaster / always resulted in / it's lead to death Of course, it's not a smooth 5star process, shutting down urban regions with millions fundmentally can't be. That's not a failure of policy, but acceptable baseline for competent epidemiologic management, competence being it contains spread and saves significantly more lives than it takes. Some pain/death is inevitable operating on the scale of hundreds of millions. The "very thing it's suppose to avoid" is millions of deaths due to uncontrolled spread and overwhelmed medical system, not a hundreds/thousands of incidental deaths because someone peoeple starved/suicided/bus crashed. Same with increasing chance of local spread to prevent higher order spread. Like these aren't exquistily managed bespoke interventions, they're coarse but by now tested methods that can be implemented in a snap. Of course it's not clean, but it's better than health system collapsing. The cost benefit analysis of maintaining zero covid, when one can, and PRC can, is obvious. So obvious that I'd argue they're politically trapped by repeated demonstrating ability to logistically execute zero covid.

benj111 4y ago

>It's simply zero covid working better than the best vaccines Based on one metric. But ultimately it's self defeating. If you flush the economy down the toilet then there isn't the money for clean water, or hospitals etc. Further zero flu works better than the vaccine. Do you want to stop the world until every disease is eradicated. Lockdowns were never sustainable, in the context of a modern economy. It's a question of the least worst option. Vaccines mean it's no longer the least worst option.

dirtyid 4y ago
> Vaccines mean it's no longer the least worst option. Millions of dead, and 100s of millions taken out of workforce for ~2 weeks during infection, possibly multiple times, possibly with long covid effects for years after, or we're coming up on winter where immunity weakest. It's far from clear vaccines isn't the worst option short term (0-3 years). >flush the economy down the toilet I mean sure? Except with confluence of global factors PRC economy, while underperforming is still outperforming most of western countries, as stated above. Hence status quo is currently sustainable, there is less pressure to deliver economically when everyone else is sinking. Obviously sustainable not long term, but I can easily see another year or two, especially with global slow down. The broader point being, all the western MSM reporting on PRC wrecking itself economically is avoiding the fact that it's not wrecking itself as much as most developing countries with RU sanctions, or dealing with US dollar, and US dealing with end of cheap money. Zero covid + three red lines on real estate + tech crack down, etc all deliberate policy choices are not as devasting as 10% inflation or end of cheap credit causing housing sales + tech valuations to crash like in PRC. It's not world ending, PRC is collapsing stuff. >Do you want to stop the world until every disease is eradicated No I think PRC wants to stop this specific disease that has demonstrably kills many people with linger side effects even in wealthy countries with access to better health care. E: posting rate limited so @benj111 >So I don't even know what figures you are working with Studies conservatively extrapolating TW/SKR post living with covid + mRNA numbers to PRC with modifier for lower per capital med care access. I don't know what figures you are working with to conclude ~3M would get covid when it will be 100s of millions since no vaccine prevent spread and majority of pop have no natural immunity. Estimates from scientists who actually crunched the numbers: a few million dead, significant % of which due to overhelming hospital infra. 1. Millions of dead (conservative estimate is ~2+) is still factually a lot of dead to deal with. If that can be avoided with accepted costs (which I'm arguing, currently is) then why not. 2. It's worse in that it comes with millions of dead bodies and at least 10s of millions long covid. Maybe zero covid is sunk cost and those figures are inevitable, but still no compelling reason for lifting short term. 3. Covid = flu? Are linger side effects of flu as well understood as covid? Annual influenza deaths is fraction of covid deaths. Extrapolating from US annual flu deaths, in PRC, influenza would kill ~100,000 per year vs again millions of covid deaths in same period. Like if PRC can get away with only 500k hospitalizations, Xi could personally go smother each covid ICU patient and still spin it as a win.
- benj111 4y ago
  >Millions of dead, and 100s of millions taken out of workforce for ~2 weeks during infection, possibly multiple times, possibly with long covid effects for years after 1. In a country of billions, 'millions' could mean fractions of a percent. 'millions' in this context is just emotive rather than factual. 2. What do you mean taken out of the workforce? From illness? That sound wrong. From isolating? How is that worse than it Chinese status quo? >No I think PRC wants to stop this specific disease that has demonstrably kills many people with linger side effects even in wealthy countries with access to better health care. Which is why I specifically gave the example of flu. A disease that kills and has lingering side effects. A disease that we live with currently. Millions of people in China probably due from flu every year. Which incidentally shows how flawed your use of the figure is. From what I can work out ~3m people would be expected to get covid in China if they were all vaccinated. ~500k would be hospitalised. And ~70k would develop long covid lasting at least 6 months. So I don't even know what figures you are working with.
- benj111 4y ago
  chinese population is ~1.4 billion https://health-study.joinzoe.com/post/risk-covid-after-vaccine https://health-study.joinzoe.com/post/risk-covid-after-vacci... >We saw that 2,394 and 187 people tested positive for COVID-19 more than two >weeks after their first and second jabs, respectively, with the chances of ?>becoming infected falling as time passed. >That’s the equivalent of one in 500 (0.2%) and one in 3,333 (0.03%) 1,400,000,000 x 0.002 = 2,800,000 (Note I actually misinterpretted this as applying to 2 different vaccines, of which I chose the least effective, whereas this is after just 1 jab.) based on double jab figures the figure would be around 0.5 million. >Reassuringly, only 104 people in the vaccinated group who tested positive for COVID-19 ended up in hospital (one in 2,500 or 0.04%). 1,400,000,000 x 0.0004 = 560,000 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/... >Estimates of the proportion of people who had COVID-19 that go on to >experience post-COVID conditions can vary: >13.3% at one month or longer after infection >2.5% at three months or longer, based on self-reporting >More than 30% at 6 months among patients who were hospitalized 2,800,000 x 0.025 = 70,000 (although this is based on the single jabbed figure, fully jabbed the figure would be 1400. >when it will be 100s of millions since no vaccine prevent spread Are you saying the vaccine doesn't stop you getting covid? that is false. It doesn't stop it 100% but it is significant, significant enough that outbreaks can die off on their own. Further i'm not sure if thats even relevant, the issue is how many it kills. its easy to get a cold, you don't need to worry about getting a cold because that won't kill you. so the relevant factor is how good is the vaccine at preventing major illness and hospitalisation. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... vaccines lower risk of infection by 60% - 80% vaccines lower the risk of symptomatic disease by 65% - 90% vaccines lower risk of hospitalisation by 90% vaccines lower risk of death by over 90%

xtranfer 4y ago

> It's simply zero covid working better than the best vaccines which will still lead to millions of deaths at PRC scale and with PRC's relatively lower per capita medical infra. If China was able to logistically handle zero covid, I would be more inclined to agree with you. However, each time a city in China has been locked down, it has been a logistical disaster that almost always resulted in: - extremely poor quarantine zones in unsanitary conditions (which defeats the purpose of being free of disease). This includes many people who were lucky enough to quarantine in their own homes as even their pets are not allowed to leave, they need to dedicate spaces in their home for their animals to defecate. - lack of basic necessities; food, heating, water leakage, insect problems, or even lacking a proper indoor building in some cases. - a lack of professionalism, discipline, or even respect of human decency among the staff. Attaching spikes to entrances to keep people from leaving by force, refusing to allow elderly access to medical care, threatening people with weapons, security bao'ans going on China social media laughing about all the new found power and control they have over the populace, beating people in a show of their power trips. - questionable policies, such as requiring everyone in a community to come together, line up, for a covid test, which increases the likelihood of getting covid, rather than go door to door. This has lead to more than just inconveniences, it's lead to death. Which is supposedly the very thing this is all supposed to avoid. The Chinese state has proven by experience, repeatedly, that it cannot logistically handle these strict policies. It is a failure of the zero covid policy and a failure of the Chinese Communist Party to administer its State in a competent manner.

dirtyid 4y ago
> able to logistically handle zero covid Seeing as we are almost 12+ months post delta/omicron and local outbreaks have consistently been contained to prevent uncontrolled geometric spread, yes PRC is logistically handling zero covid. Over many lock downs, of various sizes, across different regions, to keep spread at so-far managable levels. > logistical disaster / always resulted in / it's lead to death Of course, it's not a smooth 5star process, shutting down urban regions with millions fundmentally can't be. That's not a failure of policy, but acceptable baseline for competent epidemiologic management, competence being it contains spread and saves significantly more lives than it takes. Some pain/death is inevitable operating on the scale of hundreds of millions. The "very thing it's suppose to avoid" is millions of deaths due to uncontrolled spread and overwhelmed medical system, not a hundreds/thousands of incidental deaths because someone peoeple starved/suicided/bus crashed. Same with increasing chance of local spread to prevent higher order spread. Like these aren't exquistily managed bespoke interventions, they're coarse but by now tested methods that can be implemented in a snap. Of course it's not clean, but it's better than health system collapsing. The cost benefit analysis of maintaining zero covid, when one can, and PRC can, is obvious. So obvious that I'd argue they're politically trapped by repeated demonstrating ability to logistically execute zero covid.