China



gards2

Striker
It's all going off over here this year. Never known so many protests and it 's getting ugly.

-Protests against the building development companies
-Protests against the Covid policy
-Foxxconn
My city is in lockdown again nearly three years since the shit-show started. Shanghai went through terrible treatment for two months, then Beijing and still is. The sudden surge in cases is just that, very sudden and fast spreading. It's ridiculous. If one person in your building is infected. Everyone is treated as infected. Carted off to prison/quarantine. The data in my province claims most of the current cases are asymptomatic. We have over 1500 cases as of yesterday. Staff and students are either trapped in schools or 'if they're lucky'... waiting it out at home.
 

poid

Central Defender
Everybody is banging on about Qatar and Saudi at the minute, but China is the first country we should disassociate ourselves with, unfortunately we have sold our soul to the fuckers
I see a BBC reporter has been arrested, it's amazing that they and the likes of Sky are fully behind these protests, but any that happened in this country were called worse than shite by the same people.
 
Last edited:

Mackem DJ

Striker
You have to wonder, given it’s origin, why China are loathed to let it spreas and loathed to get any kind of herd immunity.
 
Everybody is banging on about Qatar and Saudi at the minute, but China is the first country we should disassociate ourselves with, unfortunately we have sold our soul to the fuckers
I see a BBC reporter has been arrested, it's amazing that they and the likes of Sky are fully behind these protests, but any that happened in this country were called worse than shite by the same people.
I mean they’re really not one and the same

In this country people protested because they couldn’t go to the pub…people in China were being sealed inside their homes.

The reason I dislike the UK anti lockdown types is because they were just upset the shops were closed, because they value their personal freedom over the health and well-being of society at large…they were happy for more people to get COVID and die so long as they could have a pint

Horrible, horrible people
 
Last edited:
Whatever you believe or think about the origins of COVID-19, the inalienable truth was that once it had infected enough people, it was unstoppable, and all we could do was slow it down and alter its course.

I am fully aware that there were very ugly scenes during lockdown. People dying alone, people unable to access healthcare they needed.

Those scenes are awful, but please tell me, what do you think the country would have looked like if we hadn't locked down? If COVID-19 is spread by social contact, and we're allowed to freely go about our business, mixing with others as we please, we're going to be spreading COVID-19 everywhere, aren't we?

Approximately 70,000 deaths were caused by, or related to, COVID-19, before we started the vaccination programme in late 2020. If we hadn't had any lockdown at all, do you think that would have been more than 70,000, or less than 70,000?

If you think that having no lockdown at all would have reduced deaths between March and December 2020, I'd be particularly interested to hear your basis for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

anitdontmajanow

Central Defender
Absolutely. Some people were against them because their trip to Vegas got postponed.


Whatever you believe or think about the origins of COVID-19, the inalienable truth was that once it had infected enough people, it was unstoppable, and all we could do was slow it down and alter its course.

I am fully aware that there were very ugly scenes during lockdown. People dying alone, people unable to access healthcare they needed.

Those scenes are awful, but please tell me, what do you think the country would have looked like if we hadn't locked down? If COVID-19 is spread by social contact, and we're allowed to freely go about our business, mixing with others as we please, we're going to be spreading COVID-19 everywhere, aren't we?

Approximately 70,000 deaths were caused by, or related to, COVID-19, before we started the vaccination programme in late 2020. If we hadn't had any lockdown at all, do you think that would have been more than 70,000, or less than 70,000?

If you think that having no lockdown at all would have reduced deaths between March and December 2020, I'd be particularly interested to hear your basis for it.
Well having holidays cancelled etc was a pain in the arse but I'm afraid I'm looking at the bigger picture.
 
Well having holidays cancelled etc was a pain in the arse but I'm afraid I'm looking at the bigger picture.
Then I'll ask you the same question. COVID caused or contributed to the deaths of over 70,000 people between March 2020 and December 2020.

Do you think having no lockdown would have reduced that number? If so, please explain how.
 
***************************************
It would certainly have been higher, and a lot more people in hospital too.

You can contest the death toll, but on what grounds? What's your evidence?

Some people's lives will have been ruined by lockdown, I'm sure. Likewise, there are people alive now who wouldn't have been, if they'd caught COVID before they were vaccinated.

The last I checked, the official death toll from vaccine side effects, using the same methodology as used to count COVID deaths (mentioned on the death certificate as an underlying or contributory cause) is around 55.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kermit

Central Defender
Absolutely. Some people were against them because their trip to Vegas got postponed.


Whatever you believe or think about the origins of COVID-19, the inalienable truth was that once it had infected enough people, it was unstoppable, and all we could do was slow it down and alter its course.

I am fully aware that there were very ugly scenes during lockdown. People dying alone, people unable to access healthcare they needed.

Those scenes are awful, but please tell me, what do you think the country would have looked like if we hadn't locked down? If COVID-19 is spread by social contact, and we're allowed to freely go about our business, mixing with others as we please, we're going to be spreading COVID-19 everywhere, aren't we?

Approximately 70,000 deaths were caused by, or related to, COVID-19, before we started the vaccination programme in late 2020. If we hadn't had any lockdown at all, do you think that would have been more than 70,000, or less than 70,000?

If you think that having no lockdown at all would have reduced deaths between March and December 2020, I'd be particularly interested to hear your basis for it.
We should have protected the old and vulnerable where the vast majority of deaths occurred and allowed the fit and healthy to go about their business and build herd immunity naturally. I remember Chris Whitty saying as much near the beginning. Then it suddenly changed. I know you dont like to hear these facts but hes on camera im afraid.


Also I remember Neil Ferguson saying,

“It’s a communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought. And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”

Lockdowns are the kind of thing China does. It is not something that should even be considered in a western democracy. In addition, any protections for the old and vulnerable should be voluntary. The inconvenient truth is that morbidity due to this virus is heavily weighted towards the old and vulnerable. Again, I know you dont like that fact but it is borne out by the figures. Government ministers knew this and that is why they never perceived the virus as a threat as they partied in Downing Street every week. Even the most committed Covidians are backtracking on lockdowns as its now obvious they were catastrophic. In 5 years i would imagine it will be very difficult to find any media figures willing to to admit to having supported lockdowns. Quite remarkably you double down on your position even now.
 

Pete the Pirate

Central Defender
Didn't know this sub forum was still in use!

So let me guess, the debate on this thread is to whether UK Covid "deniers" and Chinese Anti-lockdown protesters, constitute the same thing? No?

My ten cents on it is that in Britain, even with the lockdowns, we never had anything of the sort of the highly arbitrary and uncompromising nature of China's lockdowns.

When we were "locked down" in 2020, we could still leave our homes as we wished. We could go for a walk, we could go to some shops, and you could even see that some people still met each other even if they weren't supposed to.

In China however, the lockdown is a harshly imposed event wherein literally everything shuts and you aren't allowed to leave your home at all. How arbitrarily this is enforced varies upon the zealousness of the local authorities and the attention given to the situation by the state hierarchy.

There's no going out for a walk, there's no going to the shops, let alone discreetly meeting friends.

In the big Shanghai lockdown around May/June (one of the most ludicrous and ridiculous things they did, given it's the largest city in the world by proper population) some people couldn't even acquire proper food supplies.

The only time you get to leave, is when you're going out for a test.

Even if you're a city that is deemed too politically important to impose a proper lockdown (such as Beijing) your life is being forced to get a test every several days (oh, and you can't leave the city).

My knowledge, and direct knowledge that is, is that the Chinese people are absolutely demented and sick of this policy by an overwhelming majority.

However, the sentiment is geared towards stopping the arbitrary lockdowns, not that there should be no measures to control or manage covid whatsoever (such as some in this country)

It's a popular display of discontent against an over-zealous policy of bureaucratic insanity from a state which is known for being heavy-handed, opaque and uncompromising nature in its decision making processes.
 
Last edited:

stapler

Central Defender
Whats that got to do with anything....all I'm saying is I don't and or never will agree with lockdowns it's just my opinion and the way I see it everyone's different
Since the issue upon which you were commenting was a comparison between reactions to the lockdowns in the UK and China, whether the two situations are comparable has everything to do with it.

The response "It's only my opinion" from somebody who takes every opportunity to hurl abuse at anybody he disagrees with is hollower than a production of Agatha Christie's "The Hollow" performed in a hollow tree in Sleepy Hollow.

And, again with the greatest of respect, your opinion is fundamentally irrational and obviously wrong. Anybody who rules out lockdowns in all circumstances is beyond the reach of reason. Fancy a bit of ebola anybody? The only rational answer is "it depends". Thankfully you are not in charge of anything.
 
We should have protected the old and vulnerable where the vast majority of deaths occurred and allowed the fit and healthy to go about their business and build herd immunity naturally. I remember Chris Whitty saying as much near the beginning. Then it suddenly changed. I know you dont like to hear these facts but hes on camera im afraid.


Also I remember Neil Ferguson saying,

“It’s a communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought. And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”

Lockdowns are the kind of thing China does. It is not something that should even be considered in a western democracy. In addition, any protections for the old and vulnerable should be voluntary. The inconvenient truth is that morbidity due to this virus is heavily weighted towards the old and vulnerable. Again, I know you dont like that fact but it is borne out by the figures. Government ministers knew this and that is why they never perceived the virus as a threat as they partied in Downing Street every week. Even the most committed Covidians are backtracking on lockdowns as its now obvious they were catastrophic. In 5 years i would imagine it will be very difficult to find any media figures willing to to admit to having supported lockdowns. Quite remarkably you double down on your position even now.
You say "we should have protected the old and vulnerable" whilst "allowing the fit and healthy to go about their business and build herd immunity naturally". The government quickly abandoned the herd immunity strategy, so I'm not sure what you hope to gain from quoting Chris Whitty? Considering last month you thought Chris Whitty was a liar compromised by alleged conflicts of interest, I'm rather surprised he is now the lynchpin of your argument.

How would you expect this system to work, where the "old and vulnerable" are somehow protected, whilst the virus is allowed to freely spread amongst everyone else? The old and vulnerable are approximately a third of the UK population, and at the time of enacting this policy you have no idea when or if a vaccine is coming.

So you'd be asking a third of the population to remain shielding, for an indeterminate amount of time, whilst society moves on around them. This third of society happen to be the third of society that are most dependent on the help of the other two thirds though. How would care settings function, when the virus is freely circulating in the working-age population - care assistants, nurses and doctors included.

Hospital-acquired and care home-acquired COVID killed very significant numbers of old and vulnerable people in the UK, and your proposed policy would effectively turbocharge that, because you're letting the virus freely circulate in the population that provide care for the old and vulnerable.

As you say "morbidity due to this virus is heavily weighted towards the old and vulnerable", a population who, thanks to your policy, face an even greater risk of being infected with COVID than they did under the lockdown that actually did happen, because you've abandoned attempts to contain the virus in the working-age population, and naively expected that the old and vulnerable will somehow look after themselves.
 

Kermit

Central Defender
You say "we should have protected the old and vulnerable" whilst "allowing the fit and healthy to go about their business and build herd immunity naturally". The government quickly abandoned the herd immunity strategy, so I'm not sure what you hope to gain from quoting Chris Whitty? Considering last month you thought Chris Whitty was a liar compromised by alleged conflicts of interest, I'm rather surprised he is now the lynchpin of your argument.

How would you expect this system to work, where the "old and vulnerable" are somehow protected, whilst the virus is allowed to freely spread amongst everyone else? The old and vulnerable are approximately a third of the UK population, and at the time of enacting this policy you have no idea when or if a vaccine is coming.

So you'd be asking a third of the population to remain shielding, for an indeterminate amount of time, whilst society moves on around them. This third of society happen to be the third of society that are most dependent on the help of the other two thirds though. How would care settings function, when the virus is freely circulating in the working-age population - care assistants, nurses and doctors included.

Hospital-acquired and care home-acquired COVID killed very significant numbers of old and vulnerable people in the UK, and your proposed policy would effectively turbocharge that, because you're letting the virus freely circulate in the population that provide care for the old and vulnerable.

As you say "morbidity due to this virus is heavily weighted towards the old and vulnerable", a population who, thanks to your policy, face an even greater risk of being infected with COVID than they did under the lockdown that actually did happen, because you've abandoned attempts to contain the virus in the working-age population, and naively expected that the old and vulnerable will somehow look after themselves.
Whitty is not a lynchpin of my argument. He is, evidently, one of your covid superheroes. You clearly have a lot of respect for his opinion but not so much when he was actually telling the truth about the risk this virus posed. Care homes etc could have been protected, a "protective ring" could have been thrown around them. Instead people were discharged from hospitals into them, seeding the virus there. The old and vulnerable would always need to be protected but there was no need for 20 year olds to not be attending university or 9 year olds not to be attending school. The virus could have been allowed to pass through these age groups with very little death. Indeed, anyone up to 50 in good health was in very little danger. This cohort would have accounted for the parents etc of the school and university students.

In addition, this idea that health is anyone elses responsibility is dangerous. If i was 80 year old, never in a million years would i expect a 16 year old to stay at home to protect me. Their lives are to be lived. You cannot live in fear being scared to die.
 
Whitty is not a lynchpin of my argument. He is, evidently, one of your covid superheroes. You clearly have a lot of respect for his opinion but not so much when he was actually telling the truth about the risk this virus posed. Care homes etc could have been protected, a "protective ring" could have been thrown around them. Instead people were discharged from hospitals into them, seeding the virus there. The old and vulnerable would always need to be protected but there was no need for 20 year olds to not be attending university or 9 year olds not to be attending school. The virus could have been allowed to pass through these age groups with very little death. Indeed, anyone up to 50 in good health was in very little danger. This cohort would have accounted for the parents etc of the school and university students.

In addition, this idea that health is anyone elses responsibility is dangerous. If i was 80 year old, never in a million years would i expect a 16 year old to stay at home to protect me. Their lives are to be lived. You cannot live in fear being scared to die.
You haven’t engaged with what I’ve said though.

Your proposal creates two groups - a third of the population who are older or vulnerable and two thirds who are school and working age, amongst whom you’d let the virus freely circulate.

How do you protect the older and vulnerable third, when they rely on the other the two thirds for their care?

This is your proposal and you should be able to answer it. If the virus is freely circulating in the working age population, then what about the working age people whose jobs it is, to look after the old and vulnerable?

You can moan about Whitty or hoy some soundbites like “protective ring” but I’m asking you to explain how your proposal would work.
 

Kermit

Central Defender
You haven’t engaged with what I’ve said though.

Your proposal creates two groups - a third of the population who are older or vulnerable and two thirds who are school and working age, amongst whom you’d let the virus freely circulate.

How do you protect the older and vulnerable third, when they rely on the other the two thirds for their care?

This is your proposal and you should be able to answer it. If the virus is freely circulating in the working age population, then what about the working age people whose jobs it is, to look after the old and vulnerable?

You can moan about Whitty or hoy some soundbites like “protective ring” but I’m asking you to explain how your proposal would work.
I would propose they be part of the bubble in the way they were during the actual pandemic. Many staff in care homes were living on site. Hospital and care home staff can have the best PPE and be subject to rigourous testing and hygiene protocols. Hospital staff were working in an environment that was already probably carrying one of the highest risks of infection. If protocols are followed properly there is little reason why these places could not function as they actually did during the pandemic (the numerous failures notwithstanding i.e PPE procurement, discharging patients from hospitals) while the public at large cracked on.
 
Last edited:

Top