Chinese Economics Thread

[dingyibvs]

Disagree. First of all, you are not a disease expert, and it is invalid whether you bet or not. Second, from the situation of Wuhan and Shanghai in the first half of the year, it was the support of all parts of the country that suppressed the epidemic. After the liberalization, the whole country is full of epidemics. Where can we find the strength to support and where can we find the strength to re seal and control. For large countries with large populations, they can only coexist all the time after coexistence, and there is no regret medicine to eat! This involves the decision-making of the safety of 1.4 billion people, and we must be cautious.

Of course, none of our words matters in anything we discuss on this board. We're just exchanging ideas on topics that interest us. I can see your point of view, it is indeed difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. If a deadlier strain emerges, it would be hard to contain just that strain. I'll concede this point.

With that said, I'm betting on evolution, which is pretty hard science. Killing the host is not conducive to a virus' survival. This is not really debatable. There's a reason why it is novel virus that had never infected humans before that has killed so many people, and not one of the countless number of other respiratory viruses that have been infecting humans for ages.

Living with the Covid is a modern version of eugenics, survival of the strongest, fittest, etc, etc, are ideas leading all the way back to social Darwinism, which was right up on the list of shittiest of british brainfarts. If that survival of the fittest was practiced to the fullest extent, the brown guy who brought it in here wouldn't be born at all, or lead an altogether different life. Humans are not mere organism. We have a sense of justice and fairness. That's why we have hospitals, patient care, unlike the jungles, which has none, or the extremities of purest form of capitalism. Having a dynamic zero covid strategy is providing a social justice in public health. Yes, it does come with a cost, and all Chinese should be proud the nation is leading down that road.

Eugenics is nature, it's occurring and will always occur whether you like it or not. If zero-COVID is the right strategy, then China would be winning the eugenics race, if not, then it would fall behind. In other words, it's not that China is not playing the eugenics game, it's that China believes zero-COVID is the winning strategy in the eugenics game. Similarly, we're not debating whether China is engaging in eugenics, we're debating whether China is using the right strategy to engage in it.

 

[zgx09t]

Eugenics is nature, it's occurring and will always occur whether you like it or not. If zero-COVID is the right strategy, then China would be winning the eugenics race, if not, then it would fall behind. In other words, it's not that China is not playing the eugenics game, it's that China believes zero-COVID is the winning strategy in the eugenics game. Similarly, we're not debating whether China is engaging in eugenics, we're debating whether China is using the right strategy to engage in it.

It's quite fitting you claimed to be a doctor in cali, earliest pioneers of modern eugenics, who would think everyone in the same boat.
Do not project. China is saving her own citizens, with a righteous moral compass, blazing down a hard but morally correct road.

Well, Yippee-ki-yay!

 

[Fedupwithlies]

Of course, none of our words matters in anything we discuss on this board. We're just exchanging ideas on topics that interest us. I can see your point of view, it is indeed difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. If a deadlier strain emerges, it would be hard to contain just that strain. I'll concede this point.

With that said, I'm betting on evolution, which is pretty hard science. Killing the host is not conducive to a virus' survival. This is not really debatable. There's a reason why it is novel virus that had never infected humans before that has killed so many people, and not one of the countless number of other respiratory viruses that have been infecting humans for ages.


Eugenics is nature, it's occurring and will always occur whether you like it or not. If zero-COVID is the right strategy, then China would be winning the eugenics race, if not, then it would fall behind. In other words, it's not that China is not playing the eugenics game, it's that China believes zero-COVID is the winning strategy in the eugenics game. Similarly, we're not debating whether China is engaging in eugenics, we're debating whether China is using the right strategy to engage in it.

We've already had this discussion in the Coronavirus thread.

Read this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Overbom]

Not really, scmp is again misleading. It’s the figure for 16-24 urban youth which is also high last year, age and higher education are the most important reasons.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There is a big difference between 15.4% and 19.3% unemployment in such a big country as China. We could easily talk about an extra >1 million people unemployed

 

[badoc]

That article is not from Egypt. It is from Daily Express news from Sabah, a state in East Malaysia. Mainly read by the people of Sabah, has little national readers and practical no international readers.

I agree with @Bltizo that

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is a little over the top, but it does say some truths.

I guess you didnt read that article.
1st sentence in the article states.
"
West can’t believe nor accept China’s progress

AS an Egyptian, I have been studying China intensely for the past year — its government, society, history, and transformation. "
Ending with.
"
- Ismail Bashmori is an Egyptian China watcher "

@Nutrient did not say the article is from Egypt.
He clearly states "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

" or simply, an article from an Egyptian that may not necessarily be published from Egypt.

On the internet, obscure articles can have global reach, it only needs to be promoted to go viral.
.

 

[tygyg1111]

I guess you didnt read that article.
1st sentence in the article states.
"
West can’t believe nor accept China’s progress

AS an Egyptian, I have been studying China intensely for the past year — its government, society, history, and transformation. "
Ending with.
"
- Ismail Bashmori is an Egyptian China watcher "

@Nutrient did not say the article is from Egypt.
He clearly states "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

" or simply, an article from an Egyptian that may not necessarily be published from Egypt.

On the internet, obscure articles can have global reach, it only needs to be promoted to go viral.
.

I've seen the same article featured on various leftist sites, and also an American website "The American Conservative"

 

[dingyibvs]

It's quite fitting you claimed to be a doctor in cali, earliest pioneers of modern eugenics, who would think everyone in the same boat.
Do not project. China is saving her own citizens, with a righteous moral compass, blazing down a hard but morally correct road.

Well, Yippee-ki-yay!

And if China is successful at doing so, then Chinese genes will more likely be passed down than had it not been successful. In other words, the fittest would have survived. What China intends to do doesn't matter, whether China does what it does due to righteousness or eugenics doesn't matter, the end result is a game of eugenics because that's what all organisms engage in. It's just like how a virus doesn't intend to evolve to become more transmissible, the most transmissible simply die out less often. It's the law of nature, don't fight it.

We've already had this discussion in the Coronavirus thread.

Read this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Note how the article mentioned numerous examples of how a pathogen did not become significantly less virulent, but there was no example of a pathogen becoming significant more virulent. The pressure to evolve is survivability, and there is no advantage to survivability in becoming more virulent, which is why it does not happen.

 

[Coalescence]

Note how the article mentioned numerous examples of how a pathogen did not become significantly less virulent, but there was no example of a pathogen becoming significant more virulent. The pressure to evolve is survivability, and there is no advantage to survivability in becoming more virulent, which is why it does not happen.

But didn't we have the delta variant last year which is more severe than the original variant?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And death isn't the only factor in considering the severity of a virus, there's also long covid and excess mortality that is still not going back down to normal levels in many countries.

 

[dingyibvs]

But didn't we have the delta variant last year which is more severe than the original variant?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And death isn't the only factor in considering the severity of a virus, there's also long covid and excess mortality that are still not going back down to normal levels in many countries.

Sure, but it was then quickly replaced by less virulent variants, no? You see it with the flu as well. Some years the prevalent strains are deadlier than others, but they all vary around a mean that's not very virulent. You'll see the same with COVID, some strains will be more virulent, some less, but they'll settle around a mean that's not very virulent. Its transmissibility means that it'll never go away, just like the influenza virus, and its current level of virulence also means that there won't be sufficient evolutionary pressure for it to become significant more or less virulent.

 

[Fedupwithlies]

And if China is successful at doing so, then Chinese genes will more likely be passed down than had it not been successful. In other words, the fittest would have survived. What China intends to do doesn't matter, whether China does what it does due to righteousness or eugenics doesn't matter, the end result is a game of eugenics because that's what all organisms engage in. It's just like how a virus doesn't intend to evolve to become more transmissible, the most transmissible simply die out less often. It's the law of nature, don't fight it.


Note how the article mentioned numerous examples of how a pathogen did not become significantly less virulent, but there was no example of a pathogen becoming significant more virulent. The pressure to evolve is survivability, and there is no advantage to survivability in becoming more virulent, which is why it does not happen.

Fine

Read this then:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Your assertion that viruses become less virulent over time is not supported by data. You claim evolution is for it to become less virulent but, as we've previously discussed in the previous thread, thats only if transmission is a limiting factor. As this paper and several other papers have discussed, if transmission is high enough, there's no reason not to think viruses will become more lethal. (BTW, ebola and HIV have evolved more lethal strains over the years)

China is a densely populated country, as well as many other urbanized countries. If transmissibility is not controlled, there is no (as yet) model that says it will become less virulent.

(Read this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

In fact, the entire reason for the lockdowns and social distancing and all that is to FORCE the virus to become less virulent by reducing its transmission rate such that virulent strains DO die out before it develops.

Also you're using both the word and the concept of eugenics so wrong that I don't even know where to start. Other than that evolutionary change will not happen in our lifetime that we can see. This is not even close to a bottleneck event, and therefore human evolution has absolutely nothing to do with this. In fact you're so wrong in your use of "the laws of nature" that... I dunno. Dunno where to start.