10 ms·

But Taiwan, HK, Singapore, and Melbourne all did the same thing, extended lockdowns. This wasn't autocracy, this was logical health policy: Do you overwhelm ho

But Taiwan, HK, Singapore, and Melbourne all did the same thing, extended lockdowns. This wasn't autocracy, this was logical health policy: Do you overwhelm hospitals, potentially causing them to fail, or do you limit personal freedom? That's the question that they had to answer. China had the added complication of not having a vaccinated population. Partly due to them having too many people, partly due to their population being skeptical of "Western Medicine".

ninjin 4y ago
> This wasn't autocracy, this was logical health policy: Do you overwhelm hospitals, potentially causing them to fail, or do you limit personal freedom? That's the question that they had to answer. Except, the choice was nowhere as binary as you present and/or perceive it. If you look across the world you will see many different responses to the very same problem, but with different answers based on political, cultural, etc. differences. I kept and keep hearing the usual responses as to why the PRC had to respond in a highly authoritarian manner: the citizens can not handle freedom as they are morally weak. This may be true, but is it not awfully convenient that this always leads to the answer being politically empowering the CCP? Cui bono?
- onethought 4y ago
  I didn't say it was anything to do with being "Morally weak". And you didn't see a "many different responses" -- you saw 1: Lockdowns. The whole world did them. Where they didn't do them, hospitals got trashed and lots of people died. Lockdowns ended when vaccines began, China never got that option, because its population didn't take up any of the vaccines to a high enough percentage. Also, there was never enough mRNA vaccines available to supply the whole world + china, until recently (maybe still not even now). It 100% was as binary as I present it. Italy, UK, Canada, US, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Korea... the list goes on: They all did lockdowns to some degree to slow spread, and help their hospitals. It had nothing to do with culture or politics... except in the US.
  - ninjin 4y ago
    > I didn't say it was anything to do with being "Morally weak". My apologies, I did not mean to imply that you did. Merely that this is the usual response I hear from those supporting the PRC position. > Lockdowns ended when vaccines began, China never got that option, because its population didn't take up any of the vaccines to a high enough percentage. Also, there was never enough mRNA vaccines available to supply the whole world + china, until recently (maybe still not even now). So, why did the PRC population not vaccinate? Could the government not mandate vaccines? If so, why not? Could it not better educate the population? Was the path via Sinovac the only option? Fosun International in Shanghai [1] had a license to produce Comirnaty as early as 2020 [2] for example. These are just a few decisions that could have been made differently and yet were not. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosun_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosun_International [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID%E2%80%9119_vaccine#Manufacturing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID%... I am not claiming to have answers here as for there being a better path through this chaos. However, I do want a healthy debate about the decisions and outcomes; I simply am not buying how you (and Beijing) are largely portraying the decisions as inevitable. > It 100% was as binary as I present it. Italy, UK, Canada, US, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Korea... the list goes on: They all did lockdowns to some degree to slow spread, and help their hospitals. It had nothing to do with culture or politics... except in the US. I strongly disagree. While I am not a scientist in this area, I am very familiar with the great differences between say the UK, Japanese, and Swedish responses for the people on the ground. Debating excess deaths, efficiency, economic impact etc. is something that I will leave for better scientists to iron out over the years to come, but it is inarguable that the responses (and outcomes) were far more nuanced than you describe them. This – to me – is enough to solidify my position that the whole “There was no other option”, which is commonplace for governments worldwide, is a load of hogwash in this case as much as it has always been.
    - onethought 4y ago
      Their vaccine (sinovac) didn’t work very well… there was no point mandating it. Despite what you may have read Sweden also limited people’s movement and gathering and did localised lockdowns. What other technique do you think is available to stop a contagion spreading? You limit people’s proximity or their susceptibility … that’s it. That’s the whole tool belt, you don’t need to be an expert, just intuitively it’s easy to understand.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
Taiwan, SH, MB did not do batshit insane things like spraying bleach on the streets, dna swab testing imported fish, metal vehicle surfaces, not to mention welding doors of apartment complexes shut, barricading entire neighborhoods, requiring full neighborhoods to take pcr tests en masse, quarantine camps, etc.
- onethought 4y ago
  Oh you're upset about the testing fish. Agree, that's crazy, we should all be up in arms about the unnecessary fish testing! Melbourne, 100% did lock people in their apartments, they didn't used welders, just Police, Guns, and force. They also required mass PCR tests, and had Quarantine Camps (though they used hotels).
  - Laaas 4y ago
    Maybe Australia wasn't a good example of what to do under a pandemic.
    - onethought 4y ago
      Right, who was a good example? Before you fall for the trap, know that if you pick someone that used lockdowns... you're strengthening my point.
opinionsonly01 4y ago
Taiwan and Singapore did not do extended lockdowns. They had lockdowns, but we could still order food delivered, still go out to buy food or go to the doctor, and we had constant updates on the number of infections, as the rate went down, restrictions were relaxed.
- onethought 4y ago
  That is still a lockdown. So the argument isn’t against Chinese doing lockdowns, it’s “how” they did them?
  - opinionsonly01 4y ago
    You claimed they had extended lockdowns. That is not true. I said they had lockdowns, they did not have extended lockdowns. Please stop spreading misinformation. Edit: I also reframed for your last comment > China had the added complication of not having a vaccinated population. Partly due to them having too many people, partly due to their population being skeptical of "Western Medicine". But since you're defending it. People in China prefer paid western vaccines over free local ones. The CCP refused to allow western vaccines to be used in China for COVID.
    - onethought 4y ago
      You are now entering a pretty minor argument of semantics. Extended lockdowns vs non-extended? Melbourne did lockdowns for effectively 4 months, longer than any single Chinese lockdown. So even on that point you are incorrect. This isn’t misinformation. It didn’t refuse vaccines, you can get them in HK, and Chinese are free to travel to HK (for a variety of reasons). There is not enough of them, that’s the problem.
      - opinionsonly01 4y ago
        > Melbourne did lockdowns for effectively 4 months You claimed Singapore and Taiwan has 'extended' lockdowns. I called you out. Now you're back peddling and trying to justify your statement with "but but but melbourne, you didn't mention melbourne and they had long lockdown!!!" > It didn’t refuse vaccines, you can get them in HK, and Chinese are free to travel to HK. It does refuse, and clearly you're not from China or you're just lying because China didn't recognize citizens who returned home with vaccines that were not Chinese. Not everyone is allowed to travel to HK. So your statement is completely false.

ninjin 4y ago

> This wasn't autocracy, this was logical health policy: Do you overwhelm hospitals, potentially causing them to fail, or do you limit personal freedom? That's the question that they had to answer. Except, the choice was nowhere as binary as you present and/or perceive it. If you look across the world you will see many different responses to the very same problem, but with different answers based on political, cultural, etc. differences. I kept and keep hearing the usual responses as to why the PRC had to respond in a highly authoritarian manner: the citizens can not handle freedom as they are morally weak. This may be true, but is it not awfully convenient that this always leads to the answer being politically empowering the CCP? Cui bono?

onethought 4y ago
I didn't say it was anything to do with being "Morally weak". And you didn't see a "many different responses" -- you saw 1: Lockdowns. The whole world did them. Where they didn't do them, hospitals got trashed and lots of people died. Lockdowns ended when vaccines began, China never got that option, because its population didn't take up any of the vaccines to a high enough percentage. Also, there was never enough mRNA vaccines available to supply the whole world + china, until recently (maybe still not even now). It 100% was as binary as I present it. Italy, UK, Canada, US, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Korea... the list goes on: They all did lockdowns to some degree to slow spread, and help their hospitals. It had nothing to do with culture or politics... except in the US.
- ninjin 4y ago
  > I didn't say it was anything to do with being "Morally weak". My apologies, I did not mean to imply that you did. Merely that this is the usual response I hear from those supporting the PRC position. > Lockdowns ended when vaccines began, China never got that option, because its population didn't take up any of the vaccines to a high enough percentage. Also, there was never enough mRNA vaccines available to supply the whole world + china, until recently (maybe still not even now). So, why did the PRC population not vaccinate? Could the government not mandate vaccines? If so, why not? Could it not better educate the population? Was the path via Sinovac the only option? Fosun International in Shanghai [1] had a license to produce Comirnaty as early as 2020 [2] for example. These are just a few decisions that could have been made differently and yet were not. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosun_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosun_International [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID%E2%80%9119_vaccine#Manufacturing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID%... I am not claiming to have answers here as for there being a better path through this chaos. However, I do want a healthy debate about the decisions and outcomes; I simply am not buying how you (and Beijing) are largely portraying the decisions as inevitable. > It 100% was as binary as I present it. Italy, UK, Canada, US, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Korea... the list goes on: They all did lockdowns to some degree to slow spread, and help their hospitals. It had nothing to do with culture or politics... except in the US. I strongly disagree. While I am not a scientist in this area, I am very familiar with the great differences between say the UK, Japanese, and Swedish responses for the people on the ground. Debating excess deaths, efficiency, economic impact etc. is something that I will leave for better scientists to iron out over the years to come, but it is inarguable that the responses (and outcomes) were far more nuanced than you describe them. This – to me – is enough to solidify my position that the whole “There was no other option”, which is commonplace for governments worldwide, is a load of hogwash in this case as much as it has always been.
  - onethought 4y ago
    Their vaccine (sinovac) didn’t work very well… there was no point mandating it. Despite what you may have read Sweden also limited people’s movement and gathering and did localised lockdowns. What other technique do you think is available to stop a contagion spreading? You limit people’s proximity or their susceptibility … that’s it. That’s the whole tool belt, you don’t need to be an expert, just intuitively it’s easy to understand.

throwawaymaths 4y ago

Taiwan, SH, MB did not do batshit insane things like spraying bleach on the streets, dna swab testing imported fish, metal vehicle surfaces, not to mention welding doors of apartment complexes shut, barricading entire neighborhoods, requiring full neighborhoods to take pcr tests en masse, quarantine camps, etc.

onethought 4y ago
Oh you're upset about the testing fish. Agree, that's crazy, we should all be up in arms about the unnecessary fish testing! Melbourne, 100% did lock people in their apartments, they didn't used welders, just Police, Guns, and force. They also required mass PCR tests, and had Quarantine Camps (though they used hotels).
- Laaas 4y ago
  Maybe Australia wasn't a good example of what to do under a pandemic.
  - onethought 4y ago
    Right, who was a good example? Before you fall for the trap, know that if you pick someone that used lockdowns... you're strengthening my point.

opinionsonly01 4y ago

Taiwan and Singapore did not do extended lockdowns. They had lockdowns, but we could still order food delivered, still go out to buy food or go to the doctor, and we had constant updates on the number of infections, as the rate went down, restrictions were relaxed.

onethought 4y ago
That is still a lockdown. So the argument isn’t against Chinese doing lockdowns, it’s “how” they did them?
- opinionsonly01 4y ago
  You claimed they had extended lockdowns. That is not true. I said they had lockdowns, they did not have extended lockdowns. Please stop spreading misinformation. Edit: I also reframed for your last comment > China had the added complication of not having a vaccinated population. Partly due to them having too many people, partly due to their population being skeptical of "Western Medicine". But since you're defending it. People in China prefer paid western vaccines over free local ones. The CCP refused to allow western vaccines to be used in China for COVID.
  - onethought 4y ago
    You are now entering a pretty minor argument of semantics. Extended lockdowns vs non-extended? Melbourne did lockdowns for effectively 4 months, longer than any single Chinese lockdown. So even on that point you are incorrect. This isn’t misinformation. It didn’t refuse vaccines, you can get them in HK, and Chinese are free to travel to HK (for a variety of reasons). There is not enough of them, that’s the problem.
    - opinionsonly01 4y ago
      > Melbourne did lockdowns for effectively 4 months You claimed Singapore and Taiwan has 'extended' lockdowns. I called you out. Now you're back peddling and trying to justify your statement with "but but but melbourne, you didn't mention melbourne and they had long lockdown!!!" > It didn’t refuse vaccines, you can get them in HK, and Chinese are free to travel to HK. It does refuse, and clearly you're not from China or you're just lying because China didn't recognize citizens who returned home with vaccines that were not Chinese. Not everyone is allowed to travel to HK. So your statement is completely false.