world

Chinese cities announce further easing of COVID curbs

17 Comments
By Martin Quin Pollard

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2022.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.


17 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

"Experts say this perception is wrong," the article added, before emphasising that domestically made vaccines are "safe".

If the vaccine is "safe" why is the government refusing to release information about how many people are dying after taking the vaccine.

People no longer believe the lies and are refusing to take the vaccine.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Foreign COVID vaccines are not approved in China and Xi is unwilling to change that, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said on Saturday.

That is a big part of the problem. Jinping needs to wake up and realise that Western vaccines are miles ahead of Chinese attempts.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No mention of all the people that protested being tracked down by facial recognition and thrown in jail.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

If the vaccine is "safe" why is the government refusing to release information about how many people are dying after taking the vaccine.

Mostly because it is China, that refuse to release all kinds of information, It hardly conforms to the best standards of transparency all around, not something just related to vaccines.

People no longer believe the lies and are refusing to take the vaccine.

The vaccines developed in China are not thought to be specially dangerous, just not as effective as the best available right now, in any way not being vaccinated is much more dangerous than any vaccine approved for use on the population.

At this point there is no excuse for the Chinese government not pushing as strongly as possible for vaccination and boosting, at least for the most vulnerable population, they are hopelessly behind many other countries that have a much better control of the risk from the pandemic.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

At this point there is no excuse for the Chinese government not pushing as strongly as possible for vaccination and boosting

The public have clearly had enough.

90% full vaccination and they still have outbreaks and lockdowns.

The people know that it's the vaccinated that are catching it and spreading it and they also know that the 140 million unvaccinated Chinese can handle Omicron just fine.

Remember when the winter of 2021 supposed to be "the winter of death for the unvaccinated"

The US ended lockdowns and the millions of deaths of unvaccinated never happened. Their natural immunity handled the virus well.

Estimates for how many deaths China could see if it pivots to a full reopening have ranged from 1.3 million to over 2 million, though some researchers said the death toll could be reduced sharply if there was a focus on vaccination.

"Experts" predict... whatever.

Nobody believes the lies anymore.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

The public have clearly had enough.

Enough of what? the best vaccines available? that is completely false, because they are not available in China.

90% full vaccination and they still have outbreaks and lockdowns.

"full vaccination" with a subpar vaccine and with anybody with two doses considered like that, even if not a single booster has been recieved.

Also, outbreaks after actual vaccination are no longer a burden for public health, and lockdowns are not supported by science at this point, vaccines and effective treatment are the best policy according to international experts.

Remember when the winter of 2021 supposed to be "the winter of death for the unvaccinated"

Unvaccinated still have a much larger risk of dying compared with vaccinated people, even after the protective effect of widespread vaccination also included unvaccinated people.

The US ended lockdowns and the millions of deaths of unvaccinated never happened.

Who exactly said that millions of unvaccinated would die even after large amount of the population were actually vaccinated and the already described shift by the variants?

"Experts" predict... whatever.

That is the huge difference between rational people that listen to the science and people with unscientific bias that refuse to believe the information.

Nobody believes the lies anymore.

Antivaxxers still do, regularly, repeating false information all the time, even when it has been debunked completely.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The Chinese vax seems less effective that the western ones, but it's also safer, so who knows which is better in the long run.

Unvaccinated still have a much larger risk of dying compared with vaccinated people, even after the protective effect of widespread vaccination also included unvaccinated people.

That is not true.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

If the vaccine is "safe" why is the government refusing to release information about how many people are dying after taking the vaccine.

Safe seems to be true.

Effective at around 50% according to non-Chinese testing around the world. China is more about saving "face" than following facts.

Statistics from outside China provide proof that being unvaccinated is 4.1x more deadly than being vaccinated when it comes to COVID-cased deaths. I can't believe this is even a question still. People have their heads in buried too deeply, if they don't believe all the statistics from 100+ countries.

Saying something isn't true, when it clearly is, just makes someone appear to be motivated by something else, not facts.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Wick's pencil

The Chinese vax seems less effective that the western ones, but it's also safer, so who knows which is better in the long run.

Being safe and ineffective makes it less safe from an outcomes point of view. People who got Sinovac were 5 times more likely to develop severe symptoms from COVID-19 than those who received the Pfizer.

Unvaccinated still have a much larger risk of dying compared with vaccinated people, even after the protective effect of widespread vaccination also included unvaccinated people.

That is not true.

Actually true.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Chinese vax seems less effective that the western ones, but it's also safer,

In what data do you base this claim? one of the worst things about the Chinese policies is that they do not release the information necessary to say this. And no, since the infection is by much the one that represents more risk it is perfectly possible that a lack of efficacy would be much worse in the short, medium and long term, even if (a big if) it was safer, because after all the best vaccines available already have a very good safety margin, so improving on that would be a tiny advantage that would not offset the huge disadvantage of lower efficacy.

That is not true.

It is according to every respectable institution of science or medicine and the data they use to claim this, you not being able to accept something do not make it "not true".

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

In recent days, numerous cities have announced easings of lockdowns, testing requirements, and quarantine rules.

Congratulations China for having the foresight to protect your citizens and your economy while other countries went into recession and saw millions of citizens die. Why anyone would criticize a country for saving millions of lives is beyond logic. Especially when global health professionals advice was to lockdown, and such advice was followed with success by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and to a limited degree Australia and New Zealand, which gave up too soon and saw their infection and death rtes skyrocket, while China had the lowest rates in the world.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

How many millions of Chinese have died from covid and prison-like lock-ins?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Congratulations China for having the foresight to protect your citizens and your economy while other countries went into recession and saw millions of citizens die.

The existence of better examples with perfectly adequate control without needing the use of lockdowns (as you have recognized) means there is no foresight involved, just persistence in outdated, unnecessary measures that have been improved by other countries from many months ago.

You have also provided no source that proves the pandemic is the only factor affecting economies, so your claim that the zero covid policy is solely responsible for the economic differences is false, global experts have instead explained how the zero covid policy acts against the economy of China, not for it.

 Why anyone would criticize a country for saving millions of lives is beyond logic.

Which nobody is doing, what experts criticize about China is that they could have done the same without causing deaths with the lockdowns, as other countries proved can be done. Even the example of Sweden that according to yourself did better than China by not using negative measures like lockdowns.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Chinese are like the British with a low tolerance for non sense. The UK did away with the masks and had it up to here with Covid long ago. Enough is enough 

Residents of these cities are in the same way fed up with Covid and the lockdowns yet they have that Japanese side of respect and obedience to the government and authorities, There is respect but they also have the fear of the authorities which the Japanese don’t seem to have. 

In my opinion, it’s that fire and the lockdown responsible for the lost of lives in Xinjiang that led to the easing.

They also need to admit their vaccines may not have yielded the expected and desired results.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The existence of better examples with perfectly adequate control without needing the use of lockdowns (as you have recognized) means there is no foresight involved, just persistence in outdated, unnecessary measures that have been improved by other countries from many months ago.

No country used a strategy with greater success than China so the conclusion is that China's method is the best, and this is also proven by government statistical data.

Which nobody is doing, what experts criticize about China is that they could have done the same without causing deaths with the lockdowns, as other countries proved can be done. Even the example of Sweden that according to yourself did better than China by not using negative measures like lockdowns.

Except that you are persistently criticizing China for saving millions of lives. But if you are not, then you are acknowledging they saved millions of lives. It's one or the other.

And Sweden is a bizarre example to use, especially when they experienced 4 times the total of covid relate deaths than China. Unless you are supporting Sweden's no^vaccine approach; then again, you also pushed for the natural immunity strategy.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

China probably has the highest number of deaths because of covid. No monthly death figures like in other countries.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No country used a strategy with greater success than China so the conclusion is that China's method is the best, and this is also proven by government statistical data.

According to you Sweden did,

https://japantoday.com/category/features/kuchikomi/more-kids-showing-signs-of-premature-aging#comment-3257354

And they actually have a clear control of the pandemic without causing ruin, deaths and loss of human rights as China have done. Those are clear arguments (including your own) that disprove this claim.

When a government systematically underreports deaths as China does then you have no argument, specially when China has failed to report any death caused by their policy, even when they are well described even by Chinese experts.

Except that you are persistently criticizing China for saving millions of lives.

Can you quote exactly where I supposedly did so? making up imaginary things nobody has said clearly shows you have no argument, so you have to make up things.

 But if you are not, then you are acknowledging they saved millions of lives. It's one or the other.

The criticism is that the measures used by the Chinese goverment are unnecessary, and many countries reached control of the pandemic without causing the damage the Chinese goverment said was necessary, except that now they recognize it never was, because the situation that supposedly made them indispensable now makes them unnecessary.

And Sweden is a bizarre example to use

It is not, because it is the example you qualified as excellent because it did not have the use the unsustainable, counterproductive measures that China said were necessary, are you now arguing you are wrong? because that works both ways, meaning you can be wrong by opposing the opinion of the global experts as well as what you yourself have written about them.

you also pushed for the natural immunity strategy.

Again making up things nobody said? what is the point of making up stuff? just breaking the rules to taunt the moderation?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites