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".
> 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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
The lockdowns enforced by those other countries/cities mentioned where way tame compared to what happened in China.
So no it wasn't comparable.
You wouldn't be at an amusement park and all of a sudden be forced to stay for hours so that everyone could be tested before you could leave. That definitely didn't happen... except in China. Neither would be left to rot to death without food and yet still not be able to go to a local supermarket because of "lockdown". Not the same.
> Their vaccine (sinovac) didn’t work very well… there was no point mandating it.
Okay…? How does this address my question about alternative vaccines? Including the fact that the PRC had a local company with an mRNA vaccine license? Was there scientific reasons for this? Lack of industrial ability and know-how? National pride?
Again, I do not have answers for these questions. But I keep being told that the government in Beijing is competent and that its actions were inevitable. To me, it stinks to high heaven and I believe mistakes were made (just like most governments did during the pandemic, like Boris Johnson stating that the NHS was well prepared in January 2020), but that there is an unwillingness to admit this and we get platitudes like “they had no choice”.
> Despite what you may have read Sweden also limited people’s movement and gathering and did localised lockdowns.
And were any of these actions even remotely like what we saw in the PRC? A cat and a lion both qualify as “cats” (felidae), but if you tell me I will share my room with a cat and I end up with a lion I think you will agree that I have both a right to complain and be somewhat surprised. Sweden to the best of my knowledge had government recommendations issued (at least I know that this was the case in Japan), with no criminal prosecution in the case of breaches. Are you really in good faith arguing that what we saw in the PRC was in any way comparable?
> 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.
No, I do not believe that the set of tools is as limited as you seem to believe and nor do I believe that you have showed this to be the case. On the contrary, the range of approaches we saw across the world over the last three years speaks in my favour.
> How does this address my question about alternative vaccines?
There is not enough of them. Even the local license doesn't mean china can suddenly manufacture 1 billion doses every 12 weeks.
> And were any of these actions even remotely like what we saw in the PRC?
Which country has remotely the kind of population and living density of china? India? Good example of what happens if you don't do what china did: Everyone gets sick, and hospitals fall over.
> No, I do not believe that the set of tools.
It was a question. What other tools do you think there were/are? Where did a country reduce burden on hospitals without either limiting human movement (lockdowns) or vaccinating the population (vaccines)?
I have tried to get through to you and clearly failed. You still keep repeating the same points: “no other tool” and “no other option”. I and others have demonstrated to you that far more lenient measures than those used in the PRC were applied across the globe, yet you keep on insisting that any level of forced isolation or even encouragements (without legal repercussions) are equivalent to what we saw Beijing roll out. At this point I will no longer assume that you are arguing in good faith and engage in discussions elsewhere.
I was arguing in good faith. You haven’t shown anything. You just kept repeating “a range of tools were used” but didn’t mention one.
This whole thread is standard anti-China rhetoric. It refuses to acknowledge the facts of the situation and prefers to go with the narrative of CCP are dumb and evil.
I don’t assume bad faith, I assume a kind of indoctrination of western group think. To have Americans (a large portion of folks replying here) look down their nose at chinas response while their own country had one of the highest deaths/capita is brainwash territory to me.
> You just kept repeating “a range of tools were used” but didn’t mention one.
Hogwash! I and many others have repeatedly pointed out to you that there was a spectrum of measures with and without legal consequences. Recommendations, lockdowns, police patrols, enforcing mask wearing, not enforcing mask wearing, closed borders, open borders, work from home, not work from home, closing restaurants early, etc. The list goes on and on and on. If you go back and read what I have written and open your mind somewhat, you will see that what I am objecting to is the perspective that Beijing had no other choice than going with what was arguably the harshest policies we have seen across the globe.
I doubly know that your facts about the world are faulty as I stayed in Japan throughout the pandemic and Japan arguably weathered it without any legal mandate at all and “only” closed borders. Now, you can argue that the PRC is not in any way akin to Japan in terms of its readiness, culture, political structure, etc. and that they had to use the policies they did based on those conditions. This is fine and I wrote as much in my very first reply to you (go ahead, read it again). Yet you have never engaged with this idea and simply gone off on tangents about “everyone did the same…”, etc. Which to me is supremely lazy thinking.
> This whole thread is standard anti-China rhetoric. It refuses to acknowledge the facts of the situation and prefers to go with the narrative of CCP are dumb and evil.
Hogwash – again! How about reflecting on your own behaviour and that you now paint me (a person you know next to nothing about) as soaked in anti-PRC rhetoric? Is it not conceivable that you are talking to a fellow human being that is trying to remain objective, while you instead carry somewhat of a PRC persecution complex?
I have a reasonably deep personal relationship with a number of PRC nationals and I would like to believe that this gives some nuance to my perspective as I know of their experiences throughout the pandemic. Likewise, have I ever argued for “dumb” or “evil”? No, I have argued that mistakes likely were made and things could have been done differently. Again, go back and read what I wrote and try to imagine that I am not some sort of “Western agent”. My perspective is very simple. I think that Beijing messed up, just like every other government. However, I know of no other government that is currently being able to shield itself with “we had no other option” in the way that they are and I think that is a load of crap. The PRC citizens as fellow human beings deserve better than this and thus I am countering this silly rhetoric whenever I see it.
> I don’t assume bad faith, I assume a kind of indoctrination of western group think. To have Americans (a large portion of folks replying here) look down their nose at chinas response while their own country had one of the highest deaths/capita is brainwash territory to me.
Maybe your indoctrination assumption is wrong? Also – spoiler – I am not an American and likewise certainly not defending any government as having the high ground. You remind me of how perplexed PRC nationals are when they have conversations with me and nod along as I criticise the historical and current hypocrisy of “Western” governments, only to somehow be surprised when I have another salvo ready for Beijing. Seemingly the complexity of the world allows there to be far more than simple binary positions and national cheerleading – funny that…
Actually this is the first time you’ve mentioned masks, or different closing times. You did mention countries being different but never expanded on those differences, in any of those replies.
But what you describe is still a lockdown, yes Japan could lower their spread without strict mandates. But it still told everyone to effectively stay inside.
This whole thread is anti China. You said yourself, all the countries mucked up in some way, I was pointing out they didn’t do anything that different to any other country. There was/is a harshness to some of the lockdowns in particular cities in China, but overall their response was not dissimilar to the rest of the world.
Maybe my indoctrination assumption is wrong. True, you’ve at least explained your own thinking. But it’s super clear others are just spouting crap. For instance anyone with any intellectual honesty would not refer to “Chinese Lockdowns” as a single things. Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Wuhan and their respective regions had massively different approaches to lockdowns. So when someone says “China did it wrong” - I know they are talking crap. It is equivalent saying “America did it wrong” as if Texas, New York and California all did exactly the same thing. So while you do want to take the high morale “fellow human being” ground… You still grouped up China as if it is one homogeneous thing, run by a single homogeneous government… it’s not… if any of that is surprising to you, then maybe my indoctrination assumption is not that wrong.
> Actually this is the first time you’ve mentioned masks, or different closing times. You did mention countries being different but never expanded on those differences, in any of those replies.
Okay…? So you claim that you were unaware of these things prior to me stating them? Yet you argued that there was near global homogeneity in terms of responses? Grouping together Singapore, Japan, the UK, etc. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I expect people in a discussion to do their own homework for their own basic facts.
> This whole thread is anti China. You said yourself, all the countries mucked up in some way, I was pointing out they didn’t do anything that different to any other country. There was/is a harshness to some of the lockdowns in particular cities in China, but overall their response was not dissimilar to the rest of the world.
I am just going to have to disagree with you on this.
> You still grouped up China as if it is one homogeneous thing, run by a single homogeneous government… it’s not… if any of that is surprising to you, then maybe my indoctrination assumption is not that wrong.
Pardon my French, but sod off. That is a low blow and putting words in my mouth and ascribing thoughts to my brain. Your holiness did not mention any diversity in terms of PRC responses until this very response; speaking about the PRC (and US for that matter…) as a single entity yourself. If I see your username in the future and remember this discussion, I will refrain from wasting my time with someone that throws ad hominem like that. You disappoint me deeply on a human level.
You are right that there is plenty of anti-PRC propaganda going around and people parroting it: screw them. However, you seem to me to be either a PRC-apologist or a good old anti-“West” propagandist and frankly I care just as little for these delusions and flavour of propaganda as I do for the anti-PRC one.
No ad hominem intended. Apologises where you read that. I’m neither PRC apologist nor anti west. China saved millions of people and deserve credit for it. They made mistakes, but their approach was logical given the constraints they had.
You shouldn’t be disappointed in people challenging your ideas. It’s the ideas I’m challenging, I’m sure you’re a great person. Even if we disagree on some subjects.
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.
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).
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.
You have no idea of how bad a Chinese lockdown can go. There are literraly two versions of lockdown in the world: the lockdown and the Chinese lockdown.
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.
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.
> 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.
No, my original point included Melbourne as well. Singapore and Taiwan both did lockdowns as well. Not as long as China true, so your point really is the semantics of length?
No, I'm not from China, but that has little to do with any point I've made. Vaccines were never an option for Chinese, they had a locally made one that didn't work well enough, and they could have never secured the number required of mRNA. If it refused them, then how did HK get them?
They were an option. China refused to approve Pfizer despite having distribution rights in HK/Macau/China, and manufacturing facilities to produce it in China. Instead opting for local vaccines.
You claim Singapore / Taiwan had extended lockdowns > This is false.
You claim China could never secure mRNA vaccines > This is false.
You claim Chinese are free to travel to HK (to get the vaccine) > This is false.
Singapore locked down from early April to June… 2 months. You don’t think that’s a lockdown? Did China have a lockdown last more than 2 months? I don’t think so. Shanghai was probably the longest and was roughly 2 months long (hard to tell because it started in suburbs only, unlike Singapore that was the whole city), or Wuhan itself in the beginning. So what are you talking about? Pretending that I’m making false statements. You invented this bullshit “extended lockdown” term then didn’t realise Singapore actually did do a longer lockdown than almost all Chinese cities. Good one. :D
Taiwan locked down very early in all cases taking spread to zero and then blocked anyone entering the country. Similar to New Zealand. You don’t call that a lockdown?
Show me where 6 billion doses of mRNA are being produced every 12 weeks? Then I’ll believe China could have procured them.
Chinese are free to travel to hk. There are exceptions of course. But the majority can visit (assuming they had the means) - but that wouldn’t change the fact that HK only had a few million doses so couldn’t possibly help on the mRNA front
> Singapore locked down from early April to June… 2 months.
Your point? Let's look at the difference.
In China when in lockdown, you cannot leave your apartment, period. There's no food delivery. You rely on the government to delivery food packages to you, if they aren't dumping it. You have daily covid testing, if you test positive you get taken away.
Singapore lockdown, leave home to buy food or see doctor, if you have elderly who are dependent on you, you may go visit them or take supplies to them. If you work in the food industry you can continue to work, including delivery drivers.
Taiwan lockdown, same as Singapore.
> Show me where 6 billion doses of mRNA are being produced every 12 weeks? Then I’ll believe China could have procured them.
I don't understand what part you do not get.
China > Refused > To > Allow > Western > Vaccines > From > Being > Used > In > China.
China had the facilities and rights to produce the Pfizer vaccine in China. It was not allowed to produced and used in China because China did not approve the vaccines for use.
They opted for their own home grown vaccine instead of a western one.
How hard is this to understand?
> Chinese are free to travel to hk.
No they were not allowed to freely travel to HK. There were exceptions for /some/ people to travel to HK.
And it doesn't matter if they go to HK and got an mRNA vaccine as China DID NOT RECOGNIZE IT and REQUIRED you to get THEIR vaccine. Even people in Singapore who needed to travel to China were required to get sinovac to go to China as their moderna / pfizer vaccine certs were not recognized.
You are describing lockdowns in “China” when you really mean Wuhans first lockdown, and Shanghai’s last lockdown. Guangzhou for instance was just like Singapores almost identical.
China does not require people to get the vaccine, that depends on local government policy not central government. Unless you are talking about international/returning people.
China invested in its own vaccine which was quicker and easier to keep and distribute (no cold requirement) it also turned out to be a failure. To re-pivot and set up manufacturing of mRNA that late would have been costly and still taken too long，leaving them with Covid0 as their only choice. I have seen no evidence they could have produced the required doses (initially 2 billion, and then ongoing 1 billion/quarter). If they had of tried purchasing it would likely significantly effect their economy… hard to know without understanding the pricing Pfizer were offering them.
lets Get into the real differences though:
Taiwan is an Island. Singapore is an island. The options available to you when you can effectively shutdown/control your borders lets you control people movement in a massively more effective way.
Let’s compare, somewhat comparable geographies:
- China
- Australia
- United States
Australia is a big island. So it could do a Taiwan and stop flights. But it still suffered an internal problem of people travelling between states. So what did they have to do? Super strict lockdowns.
United States also stopped flights (eventually). But its domestic and historic politics didn’t allow it to perform lockdowns nation wide, so instead it did localised ones, and spread was essentially uncontained. Lots of people died.
China suffered all the same things as the US, but could mandate lockdowns nationally. Bear in mind these lockdowns were implemented differently in every city. It saved millions of people, if the US lost 1 million with its half-assed lockdown, China would have lost more than 5 million people… insane that people are frowning at China here given their numbers were nothing close to that bad.
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".