Yeah if you completely shut down private services there, then there's no way the government has the resources to help everyone. They'll end up killing and traumatizing far more people than they're saving from covid. Rather than forcing everyone to get a vaccine they do this--I mean if you're going to be a totalitarian system at least do it logically. Just goes to show you how shit the CCP logic is.
It gives more weight to Americans who opposed lockdowns too. This is the slippery slope argument coming to life, if you took lockdown to the extreme, and I think that was the biggest fear of those who opposed lockdowns.
> I think that was the biggest fear of those who opposed lockdowns.
Not for me, at least. I opposed lockdowns (and still do), even though I never thought it was realistic that we’d have a China-style one in NYC. I think what we did have was bad enough that it caused more unhappiness than it prevented.
There was a free and fair election followed by a basically peaceful transfer of power to the winning candidate. I get that the culture war stuff is a big deal in the US but it didn’t really seem very likely to me that the actual consequential things wouldn’t go as expected. But the thing you describe still doesn’t seem to me like it supports the slippery-slope argument so I don’t get it?
I think most everyone _is_ vaccinated. That is what makes this sadder.
Can we use some of this outrage energy that the world has summoned in this decade to hold governments like CCP to account? Or are they still untouchable because everyone still thinks that the CCP-managed economy is unstoppable and we need to reserve our place in line for the future scraps from that table?
I have been to Shanghai multiple times and have great friends suffering there. Being anti-CCP is neither racist nor anti-China. I dream of the day when all of China is as vibrant and powerful as Taiwan is today, or Hong Kong before Carrie Lam.
It's not. Check the statistics in Hong Kong, where hardly anyone died of they were boosted with the BioNTech vaccine, vs almost all the deaths occurring in unvaccinated or Sinovac vaccinated people.
What you're claiming is easily disproven, just by looking at the statistics.[1]
In Hong Kong, 3 doses of Sinovac or BioNTech came out almost exactly even in preventing death. In fact, Sinovac turned out to be slightly more effective, though that could be statistical noise.
I hope you pull through this, I would likely be in a similar position as I don’t stock food up often. Also ignore the GP he’s all over the thread defending hyper aggressive lockdowns like Shanghai is
doing and accusing the blogger of using the term “identity politics” as a “dog whistle” which is borderline paranoid (the kind of people you would expect to obsessively fear COVID and back extreme measures).
Thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately thoughts like the GP’s is still hold by the gov and the majority of people in this country out of Shanghai. They turned blind eyes to the humanitarian emergencies as always.
> The article provides no direct evidence of people starving, only that 'We cannot freely choose our recipes'.
What? The article clearly describes how people in Shanghai are barred from accessing the supplies they ordered because their buildings have been literally locked up and there is no way to get their orders past the outside gate.
From the article:
> Sometimes one of the people in the locked building yells to the dabai or anyone who passes, to hand over the vegetables she has ordered and who are now perishing at the locked gate of their building. But people don’t have the key and the ones who do may not necessarily care.
What is wrong with people like you? Seriously. There is bunch of content online that shows the severity of the situation in China. Here is one: https://twitter.com/cam_l/status/1512646118575812612
Regarding the fish, I think you have conveniently missed the most important part: "Three fresh fish, a good ‘catch’ for what we can still buy on delivery apps, although you need to check it all day and be extremely lucky you can grab something for the split second it’s available.".
Yes the author cannot freely choose their recipes and was able to buy three fish:
> a good ‘catch’ for what we can still buy on delivery apps
But they're able to work from home, likely wealthy and well resourced. They also mention this:
> we’re lucky — many people (because of the nature of their job) cannot and see their bank account go to zero, or their own business go bankrupt
If you can't work, earn money and (therefore) can't scour delivery apps for food you're going to starve (note also: they said they've had one small state-provided package of food for nine days)
That's setting a pretty high bar for the author, no? They're locked inside their apartment building and can't really go out and start knocking on doors and surveying the population at large - in fact I think that would get them into trouble pretty quickly. So we don't have anything but conjecture and common sense (and various reports, videos posted elsewhere in these comments) to go on.
I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that if there are people who are not able to earn money and there's spotty food provisions from the state, that people will be starving.
Given the bartering that seems to be going on, it sounds like the author has good connections with their neighbours, certainly enough to be aware of anyone actually starving - and I don't doubt they'd highlight specific cases in the article if they knew of any.
A reasonable assumption is still an assumption, but it may be that there are additional support networks (formal or otherwise) to help those most at risk.
Yeah it seems they have some contact with their neighbours who would likely have similar means as them. They are not the vulnerable population we're talking about though.
But I am glad you agree it is the more reasonable assumption and therefore more likely to be reality than the alternative (that everyone's being taken care of and it's all fine).
People ARE starving.
There is plenty of evidence of this, not everything has to be outlined in the OP's article. This is like how the Russian people are saying there's no proof the exact tanks which killed civilians in Bucha were Russian, since no one has been able to go in and verify the exact tanks in person yet, so therefore it didn't happen.
Your responses in this thread are really giving off wumao vibes.
One assumes he acquired the fish with the exchange of money, however some occupations actually still require your physical presence outside your bedroom. Do you see the catch-22?
Given the photo of food rations (unlikely to support an adult for a day) the implication is there is no financial support for Shanghai residents, but the author doesn't say.
Use logic. Do you actually believe the communist party in China has the resources to lock up 25 million people in their apartments and provide food and services for all of them over night? Of course people are starving.
I appreciate your insistence on evidence of starvation. Death from starvation generally requires 30 - 70 days without food, depending on starting weight, body fat, activity levels, etc. Shanghai has been under lockdown for 12 days. It is unlikely you will find any real evidence of starvation.
More interesting to me are the claims that food is scarce, grocery orders are unreliable, the government has not provided sufficient rations. Most importantly, the claim that the government insisted there would be no lockdown and arrested folks for disinformation when they predicted it, thus leaving the population unprepared.
Do you have any evidence that the government prepared the populace for this event? Do you have evidence they are supply sufficient rations?
I think you misunderstood my point which was that @somewhereoutth was insisting on evidence of starvation. I was noting that it was too early to see the most obvious effect, namely death.
You may have misunderstood which side I was on because I started my post by saying I appreciated their insistence on evidence. I was just trying to be civil and assume positive intent.
Right, I read your parent comment and think, "Well, we're 12 of 30 days in". Obviously people are going to fight back, they'd have nothing to lose but still enough energy left to act. The closer you get to 30 days, the dimmer the probability becomes.
Ouch. Seems like a really bad situation.