Complete silence and no communication is likely worse than some communication even if it might end up being for nothing.
At the end of the day, it was judged by the people at the top in China, that some communication and this meeting with Blinken is better than not.
I know what you mean. Even if uncooperative some communication prevents miscalculation. And talking is free.
But I do not agree with that. Talking is not free. Any move to talk will actually be used for ammo for escalation. Example, US purposefully give a provocative statement on Taiwan. China forced to reply in certain statements according to its principle. US then misrepresent that statement and use that as ammo for domestic propaganda.
Secondly US does not actually desire a shooting war with China for the most part. But they are very interested to provoke China for domestic interest and international diplomacy. With that in mind, US is unlikely to start certain actions that gaurantee a shooting war, talk or no talk.
The problem being US is unsure of where that bottom line is, so they need communication with China to gauge Chinese response. They want to optimally provoke as much as possible, but not start a war directly. When China cut off the communication, US is forced to create a safety buffer. They can no longer tell what degree of provocation is optimal. They then need to create a buffer of "unsure, too risky move to test" to avoid. Had they be able to communicate, they could keep testing out until the response is too risky. Then instead of provoking they use Chinese response as evidence for aggression.
Once you read it this way, there is no longer any benefit for China to provide feedback on its bottom line. US must be cautious and play it safe, or fuck around and find out. US can play it safe as it should, or it could overextend and get punished. Either way is preferable outcome over providing US the guardrail.