@yogthos Your point is? Because both countries appeal to politics: in China, the desire to achieve zero-covid regardless of costs, and in Canada, the desire to appeal to a fed-up electorate. But China clearly does it more, as shown from their skewed data (given omicron's higher transmissibility) and their unscientific approach (of resorting to lockdowns: shutting down essential services and congregating on frequent PCR tests). (n.b. I am from Shanghai but now live in Canada.)

@austin in China the desire was to protect public health, and they achieved that. China took necessary measures and eliminated covid.

Meanwhile, Canada took half measures that tormented the public for over two years now, and at this point nobody gives a shit anymore.

Canada did this because that's what was good for the capitalists who made record profits during the pandemic. I'll take Shanghai measures over what I lived through already any day.

@yogthos China "eliminated" covid? If so then why are they still locking down various cities? Does being obsessed with numbers help, seeing omicron's transmissibility (if the numbers are even true)? How many excess deaths were caused by pandemic measures?
Meanwhile, Canada encouraged vaccination and, in the face of an omicron wave (globally consistent), the death rate remained low. That doesn't mean they're impeccable, but you can't put everything onto an ideological conflict...

@austin China still exists in a world where covid runs wild. Having a lockdown for a few weeks when you have an outbreak is how you ensure it doesn't run wild throughout the country the way it's happening in most of the world right now.

And it's pretty clear that any deaths caused by pandemic measures don't even begin to compare to the deaths caused by taking no measures. Over a million people died in US already.

Meanwhile, we're just learning what long covid will do to people.

@austin doing anything other than what China did is frankly insane and the long term impact on society, healthcare, and economy is going to be incredible.

We're still learning what covid does to people, and everything we learn is not good. Here's an example for you

@yogthos First, you *could* have good measures (including lockdowns, see Australia), but what China is doing is not "good measures," judging by the inconsistency in distributing essential resources and unnecessary congregation (PCR tests & quarantines). Second, science moves ahead, we got new drugs to cure covid, and now that kids can get vaccines (responding to your source), these measures (whose purpose is to protect hospitals from influxes of patients) should be phased out.

@austin last I checked covid is running wild in Australia now as well. Your idea of good measures seems to be to apply ineffective measures.

What China is doing is effective because it's working at scale. It's not without problems, but it has to be compared to the alternatives which all failed spectacularly.

The reality of the situation is that roughly one in six people get long covid, and we don't have any cure for that currently.

@austin the strategy of preventing hospital overflows does not address the larger problem of having a large portion of the population become disabled. The fact that you continue to dismiss the stunning human cost of this approach is frankly surreal.

@yogthos It's up to individuals to do what they think is best for themselves & others, because even if you have good measures, you cannot fully address fed-up people without going into authoritarianism vs. democracy (which is grossly opinioniated, to say the least). Also, once again, science changes, so observations from the past with more severe variants and less vaccination etc. may not apply now (after all, humans will go extinct if viruses mutate forever for the worse).

@austin individualism is precisely what's causing the collapse of western society as we speak. The whole reason we live in groups is because people realized that cooperation for common benefit is more efficient than living in a Darwinian competition where everyone is on their own. Evidently some people still can't wrap their head around this.

Meanwhile, authoritarianism is an utterly meaningless term. Every government has implicit authority by virtue of having a monopoly on violence.

@austin and of course what science tells us is that covid is a dangerous disease that results in long term complications for 17% of people who catch it. This has not changed, and individual measures are not effective at containing it.

You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but these are the facts.

@yogthos Sure, individualism is bad, but public health measures can't fly without people abiding it? Also, again, science does change, we cannot debate on speculations of the current situation through past observations (which may no longer be applicable under current context eg. omicron which is indeed more transmissible but less severe, at least according to current consensus). (But vaccines do reduce severity! So why spend tons of money in testing instead of vaccination?)

@austin People are shaped by the environment they live in, and in turn they shape their environment. When people see measures work, then majority sees value and abides by them. When people see half measures that fail to produce meaningful results then they don't.

Meanwhile, the fact that we don't know what the long term implications are is precisely the reason why we should not let the pandemic run wild. We're running a large scale experiment that can result in horrific outcomes.

@austin omicron being milder also shouldn't be in any way confused with it being mild. It's still a very severe disease that's causing long term damage to a substantial portions of the populations.

Vaccines are also far less effective against omicron

@yogthos That's infection, I said severity. Which makes the measures even more futile: If they no longer pose a risk to healthcare, then why treat them as if they're symptomatic (as in alpha/delta)? Sure, they may still pose a risk to others, but then we're back to individualism ie. their compliance to measures. Also, no, if people are easily shaped by the effectiveness of the measures, then they'd take the vaccines (which, again, reduces severity, not infections), but we have the convoy.

@austin severity is such that 38% of all of Canada's reported COVID hospitalizations and 28% of reported ICU admissions to date have been in the last 4 months.

Your argument is entirely at odds with the actual facts.

Again, compliance can't be an individual choice. This has to be a collective effort that's actually enforced the way China is doing right now. Any other approach is sheer insanity.

Canada failed to handle this pandemic.

@yogthos Yes, winter is the flu season and where stats peak. Yes, omicron being more transmissible makes all the numbers go higher. Your point? Have we eradicated flu viruses? Btw, yes, people are shaped by the environment, including pandemic fatigue. So again, vaccination reduces severity, as in to reduce the odds of hospitalization when infected, which is the case here, and thus should be encouraged. So what's your end game? The virus can come back immediately when you end lockdowns, no?

@yogthos Since you are going back to square one, my point: lockdowns are not sustainable, and their results are temporary and fragile, more so given omicron's 1-to-20~25 transmissibility. Also, compliance *is* an individual choice, and challenging human nature like this is out of touch with reality. (Finally, if we insist on stats, then "died of covid" does not equal to "died with covid.") To end this, you're entitled to your own opinions, let's stop the speculations see how science works out.

@austin you continue to make false statements in this discussion. Lockdowns clearly are sustainable. You isolate an area where you have an outbreak and then you stop the outbreak. China has been doing this successfully for over two years now.

As a result, Chinese economy is the only major economy to show any significant growth during the pandemic.

This clearly demonstrates that the strategy of doing lockdowns and taking measures has far less impact on society overall.

@austin compliance is is a matter of public safety and not an individual choice. Just like many other things aren't an individual choice in western countries. It's not an individual choice to get a driver's license. It's not an individual choice to smoke indoors, and so on. Creating a threat to the general public absolutely should not be an individual choice, and it's sheer absurdity to argue otherwise.

Show newer
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!