7 ms·

>The Chinese state is usually levelheaded; but every so often it succumbs to a manic episode, in which it grips the population, not relenting until it has shake

>The Chinese state is usually levelheaded; but every so often it succumbs to a manic episode, in which it grips the population, not relenting until it has shaken them out of their pots for backyard steel furnaces, out of their schools for class struggle, or out of their minds for dynamic zero clearing. What happened here isn't a case of the government going insane. What happened here is the case of the government making a hypothesis and then being completely wrong about the hypothesis. China isn't the only country that has been wrong. Parts of the US was definitely wrong about the pandemic in the initial stages and they suffered for it as a result. If omnicron turned out to be as lethal as ebola or equivalent than China took the right action. That is really all there is too it. They took appropriate action for a coming disaster and they turned out to be wrong about the disaster. The interesting thing here is not the fact that China was wrong. The interesting thing is that if China was right, then China is literally the only first world country with the capability to execute these drastic measures at a massive scale. From these massive lock downs to the creation of hospitals to deal with the fallout in mere weeks... illustrates the true controversies between authoritarian and democratic governments. As a US citizen I grew up indoctrinated on freedom and democracy. But the truth is actually not so black and white. Either way I know which government I'd rather be under if a zombie outbreak broke out.

jddj 4y ago
There's a bit of a glaring omission here. They persisted with covid 0 well into mid-late 22. It was very clear 2 and a half years into the pandemic that covid was not ebola. Hard-line initially is defensible, rationalizable. Later not so much. The other conclusions seem off too. Other Asian and South Pacific countries demonstrated their willingness to lock down and turn more authoritarian in the face of an unknown threat. They pivoted though.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  >They persisted with covid 0 well into mid-late 22. It was very clear 2 and a half years into the pandemic that covid was not ebola. It was not clear what omicron was. Anyway I don't entirely blame them for maintaining the hardline even well past the advent of conflicting evidence. This is actually normal human behavior. People cannot flip their opinions and beliefs in the exact instant they are presented with opposing evidence. Humans just don't work this way. There's no individual or government that will reverse a policy and admit a mistake instantly. Literally not one. It's not right, but I don't expect any other form of behavior from a human or humans running an organization. >The other conclusions seem off too. Other Asian and South Pacific countries demonstrated their willingness to lock down and turn more authoritarian in the face of an unknown threat. They pivoted though. Naw not at the scale of China. It's easy for a small island to execute lockdown. It's extremely hard for a landmass as large as china to execute the same thing.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jddj 4y ago
    I'd disagree with the first point there, they were very late to pivot. The rest seems internally inconsistent with where you were initially. I think it's because you might have stretched the kernel of wisdom, "authoritarianism may have some benefit in the kind of disaster which is only mitigated by authoritarianism" a bit further than it goes on its own merits. They screwed up by doubling down. Your main point would actually be a lot easier to defend if you separated it from the overextended Chinese implementation.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      > I'd disagree with the first point there, they were very late to pivot. Relax the US took 10 years to apologize to the Japanese people they threw into internment camps. That was a bigger fuck up than the china covid lock downs. >The rest seems internally inconsistent with where you were initially. I think it's because you might have stretched the kernel of wisdom, "authoritarianism may have some benefit in the kind of disaster which is only mitigated by authoritarianism" a bit further than it goes on its own merits. Internally inconsistent? No it's not. And you didn't point out where too. Just a vague, "seems inconsistent". It's also not really a stretch. Part of the speed and efficiency in China's response comes from central control. Part of Americas dying infrastructure comes from lack of centralized control, too many Nimbys, different motives and conflicting opinions. >They screwed up by doubling down. Your main point would actually be a lot easier to defend if you separated it from the overextended Chinese implementation. Yeah they screwed up. But my point still stands. Also it's not the biggest fuck up. Not by a long shot. Take a look at the US blowing up the nordstream pipelines. Holy shit a literal act of war/terrorism on an allied country. The US is no stranger to dark shit and huge fuck ups on a scale equivalent if not worse than china.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Relax the US took 10 years to apologize to the Japanese people they threw into internment camps. That was a bigger fuck up than the china covid lock downs. I wouldn't count on China ever admitting they messed up. That's just not how it's done there. Hands will be waved, stories will be spun and they'll talk like it was a perfect strategy. "Saving face" is very real in Asian cultures. If you can avoid ever admitting a mistake or fault, you do it. I saw it a lot while living there.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  It was clear for 2.5/3 years that covid0 was defensible as it enabled most of PRC to operate with relatively little disruption, wasn't until after omicron that the system became unsustainable. Persisting for another few months _ when able _ to figure things out understandable. It's a luxury other hard lock down countries didn't have, and who didn't pivot, they conceded to living with covid because they simply lacked state capacity to tackle omicron. Difference is PRC did, hence wasting a few months, or buying a few more months of insight, before calculation or reality forced throwing in towel as well. Fairly responsive as far as decision making goes.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    Not sure why you're downvoted but you're right.
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      Analysis goes full stupid when it comes to PRC policies / decision making. Seemed exceedingly rational that something as infectious as omicron was all or nothing containment affair. Just like western mRNA wank despite mRNA failing to prevent spread post delta - their only distinguishing advantage that would have helped buy more time - if worked as advertised but didn't. As if PRC would spend months and billions to vax population on political unreliable western vax for what, a few % better severe case protection among high risk elderly. Or build up reserves of expensive paxlovid when to be blunt, that's luxury reserved for high income countries. The most prudent thing to do in lieu of omicron spreading to point that required massive lockdowns after dynmamic clearing couldn't contain was simply to abandon covid0 enmass - what everyone else did. I suppose people expected PRC could have done some sort of measured transitioned, which itself is recognition of PRC state capacity, but by my assessement is that's throwing good money after bad. CCP gambled a few months to see if dynamic clearing had a chance, it didn't, next best thing was just to live with omicron as fast as possible.
rippercushions 4y ago
> What happened here isn't a case of the government going insane. You're missing Dan's references to the two notable previous cases of the Chinese state adopting batshit insane policies and persisting with them for years, namely the Great Leap Forward ("their pots for backyard steel furnaces") and the Cultural Revolution ("out of their schools for class struggle"). Both were calamitous, directly leading to millions of deaths, and accomplished nothing at all of use.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  How am I missing those? Yes those are cases of the Chinese state being insane. But what does this have to do with the Chinese response to covid? My comment is specific to the example I quoted in the specific post. I think there's a bit a team mentality going on here. Pick a team. Team China or Team USA and the opposing side is a villain. What's really going on here is not a team situation. Just two different fruits: Apples and Oranges. Both can and Have gone rotten at times.
  - rippercushions 4y ago
    What Dan is saying is that the Chinese state has a track record of adopting policies and sticking to them for lengthy periods despite mountains of evidence that they're harmful, and their COVID response is only the latest example. Democracies generally have a harder time doing this, because they have checks and balances that prevent going to extremes (welding people into their homes etc) and the governments responsible will eventually get voted out if public opinion turns against them.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      > What Dan is saying is that the Chinese state has a track record of adopting policies and sticking to them for lengthy periods despite mountains of evidence that they're harmful, and their COVID response is only the latest example. I know. But that's separate from my point. Dan is not wrong about China. Additionally I would argue every government acts this way. It's human nature. When someone fucks up big time it takes them awhile to voluntary face that fuck up. Governments are no different. I mentioned this somewhere else but the US one time threw the entire japanese population in the states into internment camps. It took them 10 years to apologize. The internment camp thing is an epic fuck up. Epic. And it took 10 years the government to admit they were wrong. >Democracies generally have a harder time doing this, because they have checks and balances that prevent going to extremes (welding people into their homes etc) and the governments responsible will eventually get voted out if public opinion turns against them. This is garbage. Democracies are no strangers to dark dark shit. Again as I mentioned in a sibling comment on this thread, the US recently blew up the nordstream oil pipelines. Literal act of terrorism against an allied country. Germany is clamming up because they don't want to start WW3. Not to mention the CIA torture program or the CIA program of SELLING crack cocaine to americans to finance their foreign operations. Literally throw a dart and it will land on some atrocity conducted by the US, there are tons and tons of shit you can dig up. It's no different for China. Just apples and oranges. Humans aren't white knights, and operate in areas that are morally grey. This aspect of humanity is reflected in governments, independent of centralized or democratic organization.
iopq 4y ago
From 2020 to 2021 I would have agreed with you, but after the vaccine was out Chinese citizens mostly all got it. The remaining restrictions were absolutely unnecessary and actually ineffective. Even now, you need to wear a mask in public transit, and just to come into the country you need to take a COVID test before your flight. You get a COVID test after touching down. But for what? That's an unnecessary expense for the traveler since nobody does free COVID tests. My girlfriend paid $140 in the US for one, I paid $50 in Korea (it would have been $80 in the airport, but I wasn't at the airport at the time)
- pewpew2020 4y ago
  >>> but after the vaccine was out Chinese citizens mostly all got it. When the restrictions were lifted and the cases skyrocketed, it was because people hadn't taken Sinovac. Chinese don't trust chinese vaccines. Everyone was flocking to macau to take foreign vaccines
  - iopq 4y ago
    You are seriously misrepresenting what happened. The cases FIRST skyrocketed. The restrictions were still in place in October/December The country removed restrictions when everyone already had the virus, by December I knew nobody in China who didn't already get it

jddj 4y ago

There's a bit of a glaring omission here. They persisted with covid 0 well into mid-late 22. It was very clear 2 and a half years into the pandemic that covid was not ebola. Hard-line initially is defensible, rationalizable. Later not so much. The other conclusions seem off too. Other Asian and South Pacific countries demonstrated their willingness to lock down and turn more authoritarian in the face of an unknown threat. They pivoted though.

kilgnad 4y ago
>They persisted with covid 0 well into mid-late 22. It was very clear 2 and a half years into the pandemic that covid was not ebola. It was not clear what omicron was. Anyway I don't entirely blame them for maintaining the hardline even well past the advent of conflicting evidence. This is actually normal human behavior. People cannot flip their opinions and beliefs in the exact instant they are presented with opposing evidence. Humans just don't work this way. There's no individual or government that will reverse a policy and admit a mistake instantly. Literally not one. It's not right, but I don't expect any other form of behavior from a human or humans running an organization. >The other conclusions seem off too. Other Asian and South Pacific countries demonstrated their willingness to lock down and turn more authoritarian in the face of an unknown threat. They pivoted though. Naw not at the scale of China. It's easy for a small island to execute lockdown. It's extremely hard for a landmass as large as china to execute the same thing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jddj 4y ago
  I'd disagree with the first point there, they were very late to pivot. The rest seems internally inconsistent with where you were initially. I think it's because you might have stretched the kernel of wisdom, "authoritarianism may have some benefit in the kind of disaster which is only mitigated by authoritarianism" a bit further than it goes on its own merits. They screwed up by doubling down. Your main point would actually be a lot easier to defend if you separated it from the overextended Chinese implementation.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    > I'd disagree with the first point there, they were very late to pivot. Relax the US took 10 years to apologize to the Japanese people they threw into internment camps. That was a bigger fuck up than the china covid lock downs. >The rest seems internally inconsistent with where you were initially. I think it's because you might have stretched the kernel of wisdom, "authoritarianism may have some benefit in the kind of disaster which is only mitigated by authoritarianism" a bit further than it goes on its own merits. Internally inconsistent? No it's not. And you didn't point out where too. Just a vague, "seems inconsistent". It's also not really a stretch. Part of the speed and efficiency in China's response comes from central control. Part of Americas dying infrastructure comes from lack of centralized control, too many Nimbys, different motives and conflicting opinions. >They screwed up by doubling down. Your main point would actually be a lot easier to defend if you separated it from the overextended Chinese implementation. Yeah they screwed up. But my point still stands. Also it's not the biggest fuck up. Not by a long shot. Take a look at the US blowing up the nordstream pipelines. Holy shit a literal act of war/terrorism on an allied country. The US is no stranger to dark shit and huge fuck ups on a scale equivalent if not worse than china.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Relax the US took 10 years to apologize to the Japanese people they threw into internment camps. That was a bigger fuck up than the china covid lock downs. I wouldn't count on China ever admitting they messed up. That's just not how it's done there. Hands will be waved, stories will be spun and they'll talk like it was a perfect strategy. "Saving face" is very real in Asian cultures. If you can avoid ever admitting a mistake or fault, you do it. I saw it a lot while living there.
dirtyid 4y ago
It was clear for 2.5/3 years that covid0 was defensible as it enabled most of PRC to operate with relatively little disruption, wasn't until after omicron that the system became unsustainable. Persisting for another few months _ when able _ to figure things out understandable. It's a luxury other hard lock down countries didn't have, and who didn't pivot, they conceded to living with covid because they simply lacked state capacity to tackle omicron. Difference is PRC did, hence wasting a few months, or buying a few more months of insight, before calculation or reality forced throwing in towel as well. Fairly responsive as far as decision making goes.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  Not sure why you're downvoted but you're right.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    Analysis goes full stupid when it comes to PRC policies / decision making. Seemed exceedingly rational that something as infectious as omicron was all or nothing containment affair. Just like western mRNA wank despite mRNA failing to prevent spread post delta - their only distinguishing advantage that would have helped buy more time - if worked as advertised but didn't. As if PRC would spend months and billions to vax population on political unreliable western vax for what, a few % better severe case protection among high risk elderly. Or build up reserves of expensive paxlovid when to be blunt, that's luxury reserved for high income countries. The most prudent thing to do in lieu of omicron spreading to point that required massive lockdowns after dynmamic clearing couldn't contain was simply to abandon covid0 enmass - what everyone else did. I suppose people expected PRC could have done some sort of measured transitioned, which itself is recognition of PRC state capacity, but by my assessement is that's throwing good money after bad. CCP gambled a few months to see if dynamic clearing had a chance, it didn't, next best thing was just to live with omicron as fast as possible.

rippercushions 4y ago

> What happened here isn't a case of the government going insane. You're missing Dan's references to the two notable previous cases of the Chinese state adopting batshit insane policies and persisting with them for years, namely the Great Leap Forward ("their pots for backyard steel furnaces") and the Cultural Revolution ("out of their schools for class struggle"). Both were calamitous, directly leading to millions of deaths, and accomplished nothing at all of use.

kilgnad 4y ago
How am I missing those? Yes those are cases of the Chinese state being insane. But what does this have to do with the Chinese response to covid? My comment is specific to the example I quoted in the specific post. I think there's a bit a team mentality going on here. Pick a team. Team China or Team USA and the opposing side is a villain. What's really going on here is not a team situation. Just two different fruits: Apples and Oranges. Both can and Have gone rotten at times.
- rippercushions 4y ago
  What Dan is saying is that the Chinese state has a track record of adopting policies and sticking to them for lengthy periods despite mountains of evidence that they're harmful, and their COVID response is only the latest example. Democracies generally have a harder time doing this, because they have checks and balances that prevent going to extremes (welding people into their homes etc) and the governments responsible will eventually get voted out if public opinion turns against them.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    > What Dan is saying is that the Chinese state has a track record of adopting policies and sticking to them for lengthy periods despite mountains of evidence that they're harmful, and their COVID response is only the latest example. I know. But that's separate from my point. Dan is not wrong about China. Additionally I would argue every government acts this way. It's human nature. When someone fucks up big time it takes them awhile to voluntary face that fuck up. Governments are no different. I mentioned this somewhere else but the US one time threw the entire japanese population in the states into internment camps. It took them 10 years to apologize. The internment camp thing is an epic fuck up. Epic. And it took 10 years the government to admit they were wrong. >Democracies generally have a harder time doing this, because they have checks and balances that prevent going to extremes (welding people into their homes etc) and the governments responsible will eventually get voted out if public opinion turns against them. This is garbage. Democracies are no strangers to dark dark shit. Again as I mentioned in a sibling comment on this thread, the US recently blew up the nordstream oil pipelines. Literal act of terrorism against an allied country. Germany is clamming up because they don't want to start WW3. Not to mention the CIA torture program or the CIA program of SELLING crack cocaine to americans to finance their foreign operations. Literally throw a dart and it will land on some atrocity conducted by the US, there are tons and tons of shit you can dig up. It's no different for China. Just apples and oranges. Humans aren't white knights, and operate in areas that are morally grey. This aspect of humanity is reflected in governments, independent of centralized or democratic organization.

iopq 4y ago

From 2020 to 2021 I would have agreed with you, but after the vaccine was out Chinese citizens mostly all got it. The remaining restrictions were absolutely unnecessary and actually ineffective. Even now, you need to wear a mask in public transit, and just to come into the country you need to take a COVID test before your flight. You get a COVID test after touching down. But for what? That's an unnecessary expense for the traveler since nobody does free COVID tests. My girlfriend paid $140 in the US for one, I paid $50 in Korea (it would have been $80 in the airport, but I wasn't at the airport at the time)

pewpew2020 4y ago
>>> but after the vaccine was out Chinese citizens mostly all got it. When the restrictions were lifted and the cases skyrocketed, it was because people hadn't taken Sinovac. Chinese don't trust chinese vaccines. Everyone was flocking to macau to take foreign vaccines
- iopq 4y ago
  You are seriously misrepresenting what happened. The cases FIRST skyrocketed. The restrictions were still in place in October/December The country removed restrictions when everyone already had the virus, by December I knew nobody in China who didn't already get it