6 ms·

>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 omic

>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.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      I 100% agree with this. I'm Chinese (racially) so I know. That being said, it doesn't mean other "cultures" don't have the concept of "saving face". It's an inborn thing. Genetic. I haven't met anyone asian or not who admits their mistakes with ease. Think about it, 10 years of not apologizing is not that far off from never admitting a mistake. I will agree with you that from my own experience that this does effect the Chinese more than other people in general. But my argument here is simply that the Chinese had a superior response to other democratic countries when handling covid. The response ended up being from certain perspectives, mistaken, and the slow reversal of the response while, wrong, is something that governments (including rival governments) also do similarly. That's it.
      - refurb 4y ago
        It took me a while to wrap my head around it, but saving face is more than just "not admitting mistakes". It's the view that your social status and honor is based on not being wrong or admitting mistakes. A good example of the differences are apologies by Western governments for past wrongs. Doing so can actually increase social standing among the population. Admitting guilt and wrongdoing can be seen as a redeeming quality. But I do agree that not admitting fault is a pretty universal human thing. I think "saving face" has more to do with the social pressures around it.
        ashwagary 4y ago
        >A good example of the differences are apologies by Western governments for past wrongs. Do they apologize for their own past doings or does one US faction throw another faction under the bus through a half-hearted apology? It seems most of the US population considers an apology worthless at this point, atleast if it's not attached to financial compensation which is the case for the majority of mistakes or crimes. They are just considered political lip service.
refurb 4y ago
It was very clear what Omicron was by that point. China didn't really relax restrictions until December 2022. By May of 2022, most other countries had pretty much opened up and had Omnicron run rampant through their populations. My hypothesis is that China stuck with it so long because: 1) their vaccine wasn't that good and they refused superior mRNA vaccines and 2) their ego was all wrapped up in the "glory of the Chinese way" of dealing with Covid and letting it run rampant was tantamount to admitting their policy was wrong.
- onethought 4y ago
  It wasnt ego. There wasn’t ready supply of 3 billion doses of mRNA vaccines (its more than one dose)
  - refurb 4y ago
    Doubtful. Pfizer manufacturer 4B and Moderna almost the same. Plus Fosun-BioNTech partnership allowed manufacturing in Hong Kong. There was certainly capacity to produce enough or at least enough for a large percentage of the Chinese population. China just decided they weren't going to use it. It literally wasn't allowed. If China had used a mix of mRNA and other vaccines I might see the argument they had a lack of supply.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      The US didn't allow the Chinese vaccine to be used either. It's Also because of ego across the board. It still isn't allowed in the US. There were definitely supply problems in the US in the beginning.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Did China submit their vaccine to the FDA? Not as far as I’m aware. And before China opened up millions of doses were being destroyed by countries who bought too much. China absolutely could have gotten mRNA vaccines. Hell, Hong Kong had them. So like i said, they could have gotten access to some mRNA vaccines, they choose not to.

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.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    I 100% agree with this. I'm Chinese (racially) so I know. That being said, it doesn't mean other "cultures" don't have the concept of "saving face". It's an inborn thing. Genetic. I haven't met anyone asian or not who admits their mistakes with ease. Think about it, 10 years of not apologizing is not that far off from never admitting a mistake. I will agree with you that from my own experience that this does effect the Chinese more than other people in general. But my argument here is simply that the Chinese had a superior response to other democratic countries when handling covid. The response ended up being from certain perspectives, mistaken, and the slow reversal of the response while, wrong, is something that governments (including rival governments) also do similarly. That's it.
    - refurb 4y ago
      It took me a while to wrap my head around it, but saving face is more than just "not admitting mistakes". It's the view that your social status and honor is based on not being wrong or admitting mistakes. A good example of the differences are apologies by Western governments for past wrongs. Doing so can actually increase social standing among the population. Admitting guilt and wrongdoing can be seen as a redeeming quality. But I do agree that not admitting fault is a pretty universal human thing. I think "saving face" has more to do with the social pressures around it.
      - ashwagary 4y ago
        >A good example of the differences are apologies by Western governments for past wrongs. Do they apologize for their own past doings or does one US faction throw another faction under the bus through a half-hearted apology? It seems most of the US population considers an apology worthless at this point, atleast if it's not attached to financial compensation which is the case for the majority of mistakes or crimes. They are just considered political lip service.

refurb 4y ago

It was very clear what Omicron was by that point. China didn't really relax restrictions until December 2022. By May of 2022, most other countries had pretty much opened up and had Omnicron run rampant through their populations. My hypothesis is that China stuck with it so long because: 1) their vaccine wasn't that good and they refused superior mRNA vaccines and 2) their ego was all wrapped up in the "glory of the Chinese way" of dealing with Covid and letting it run rampant was tantamount to admitting their policy was wrong.

onethought 4y ago
It wasnt ego. There wasn’t ready supply of 3 billion doses of mRNA vaccines (its more than one dose)
- refurb 4y ago
  Doubtful. Pfizer manufacturer 4B and Moderna almost the same. Plus Fosun-BioNTech partnership allowed manufacturing in Hong Kong. There was certainly capacity to produce enough or at least enough for a large percentage of the Chinese population. China just decided they weren't going to use it. It literally wasn't allowed. If China had used a mix of mRNA and other vaccines I might see the argument they had a lack of supply.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    The US didn't allow the Chinese vaccine to be used either. It's Also because of ego across the board. It still isn't allowed in the US. There were definitely supply problems in the US in the beginning.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Did China submit their vaccine to the FDA? Not as far as I’m aware. And before China opened up millions of doses were being destroyed by countries who bought too much. China absolutely could have gotten mRNA vaccines. Hell, Hong Kong had them. So like i said, they could have gotten access to some mRNA vaccines, they choose not to.