China: Guns, Germs, and Steel

34 comments on “China: Guns, Germs, and Steel ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sanctuary 1

   14 February 2020 at 8:19 am

   China in it's current form is an Orwellian nightmare and an existential threat to all peoples who cherish their liberty and freedom. Simple as that.

   CORVID-19, the Taiwan election result, the Hong Kong rebellion – all are symptoms of a authoritarian system hopefully about to explode.
   • RedLogix 1.1

     14 February 2020 at 12:21 pm

     Entirely agree. The problem for the world is that China is in no position to reshape it's society without substantial social disruption. They are by far the most crazily indebted country on earth and an economy highly vulnerable to external events. Combine this with the chronic underlying liability of a very low trust society and I there are multiple reasons to be very concerned.

     If you are close to anyone Chinese in your life, now is the time to be connected and kind; many will be going through a difficult and worrisome time.
2. RedLogix 2

   14 February 2020 at 12:53 pm

   I linked to this latest Zeihan talk last night, it does have some considerable relevance. I realise his perspective and background does not make him a good leftie, or popular here. Nor do you have to agree with all of his analysis … but you don't learn by listening only to people you already agree with.

   While the core is his boilerplate talk, this one is quite recent and includes new material particularly on energy, renewables and especially China. The big takeaway is just how much credit the CCP have printed (hypersubsidisation) in order to keep stimulating their economy. If the law of gravity applies then an unthinkably large correction is going to happen.

   Zeihan has repeatedly said that he does not think China will exist as a unified nation inside 10 years.
   • lprent 2.1

     15 February 2020 at 10:09 am

     Good presentation. I disagree with some of the bits. But he deals with the basics. Demographics, energy, security of trade, capital, innovation, and the implications of doing a transition to a more sustainable economy
3. barry 3

   14 February 2020 at 7:03 pm

   It is easy to criticise China & its government for the reaction, but I wonder how any other country would have reacted. As a thought exercise I could imagine many doing a lot worse.

   Of course mistakes were made, and the local officials resorted to the old habits of covering it up to start with. However subsequently there has been an unprecedented sharing of information. It is not helped by the sharing of rumours and conspiracy theories.

   Basically the people of Wuhan in particular are having to make huge sacrifices to try to contain this virus so we, in New Zealand, can sit here in comfort and snipe from a distance.

   武汉加油
   • aj 3.1

     14 February 2020 at 8:00 pm

     It's hard to imagine two things. The USA putting cities with large population into lockdown for weeks on end. And the reaction by a well-armed and politically divided population.
   • RedLogix 3.2

     14 February 2020 at 8:21 pm

     My Chinese sources were adamant for the past week that the CCP was not releasing the true figures. Now in one day the numbers soar .

     Chinese politics lecturer at the University of California San Diego Victor Shih told Reuters the revised figures proved China had been keeping “two sets of numbers for confirmed infected all along”.

     “If that were not the case, the government could not have added so many new cases in one day,” he said.

     I have to agree that probably no nation on earth would respond 'perfectly' to an awful challenge like this; but political chicanery of this magnitude heavily underscorces the lack of trust in the CCP.
     • aom 3.2.1

       14 February 2020 at 8:48 pm

       Yeah – and you believe everything that you read is the gospel truth as long as it suits your way of thinking?
       • RedLogix 3.2.1.1

         14 February 2020 at 8:57 pm

         and you believe everything that you read is the gospel truth as long as it suits your way of thinking?

         What part of the above quote and it's reasoning are you disputing?
         • aom 3.2.1.1.1

           14 February 2020 at 9:06 pm

           …. and what evidence do you have that anything or everything claimed in your quotes is factual?
           • RedLogix 3.2.1.1.1.1

             14 February 2020 at 9:13 pm

             Here are the officially reported numbers.
             • aom …

               14 February 2020 at 9:19 pm

               What's that got to do with where you started and the responses?
               • RedLogix …

                 14 February 2020 at 9:35 pm

                 Unless you can be bothered to make an effort to explain yourself better I'm inclined to leave this here.
                 • aom …

                   14 February 2020 at 10:08 pm

                   Since you sprayed shit around rather than establish the credibility of the source you originally quoted, a source with a questionable track record, there is no point in furthering the discussion.
                   • RedLogix …

                     14 February 2020 at 10:12 pm

                     I produced an authoritative reference to the official numbers which show the obvious discrepancy that occurred yesterday. This discrepancy is what my original linked article is referring to.

                     Do you have an alternative source of data that shows different numbers and no massive jump in cases yesterday?
4. Bob James 4

   14 February 2020 at 8:37 pm

   I have no love for the totalitarian Chinese government, but to be honest, I think they have been reasonably transparent in handling this episode. Most governments would probably wait for a month or so before announcing something like this —there is always a tricky balancing act on the one hand of overreacting too early and causing disruption, or on the other hand, allowing something to get out of hand.

   One simply has to look at the disastrous way the British govt handled mad cow disease.

   While we cannot be sure about the numbers within China, the fact that overseas cases remain relatively stable, with only 3 deaths out of hundreds infected (2 of them of Chinese citizens travelling from China), would lead one to believe that the measures taken within China are relatively successful.

   Furthermore the hike in numbers yesterday, was based, believably on a different criteria over who has the virus —-they are going for a wider definition. This, I thought would have been interpreted as a move towards greater transparency, rather than the other way round.
   • RedLogix 4.1

     14 February 2020 at 9:05 pm

     This, I thought would have been interpreted as a move towards greater transparency, rather than the other way round.

     Indeed, but of course it could also coincide with the recent arrival of overseas WHO experts on the ground. It also aligns with reports on Chinese social media for the past few weeks that the real numbers were much higher than being officially counted.

     Look at it this way … it's highly unlikely the Chinese medical authorities were able to accurately test for that many new cases in one day. In order for this new much higher number to make any sense, it is entirely reasonable to assume they had been collecting this data all along, but were massaging the public numbers much lower for political reasons.

     If you have any other logical explanation I'd love to hear it.
5. Bob James 5

   14 February 2020 at 9:24 pm

   "In order for this new much higher number to make any sense, it is entirely reasonable to assume they had been collecting this data all along, but were massaging the public numbers much lower for political reasons. "

   Agree they have these numbers all along. But not sure about the 'massaging'.

   The numbers provided previously were those confirmed to have coronavirus through testing. They have widened the criteria to include those who have pneumonia and lung scans – i.e they are including 'likely' cases in the figures, and not just cases confirmed by testing.

   So the numbers before simply reflect those tested, now they reflect those tested and likely to have the disease through the type of pneumonia they have.
   • RedLogix 5.1

     14 February 2020 at 9:42 pm

     So the numbers before simply reflect those tested, now they reflect those tested and likely to have the disease through the type of pneumonia they have.

     Exactly. But because they are only able to do a limited number of nucleic genetic tests daily, they must have known the figures being reported up until yesterday that relied only on these tests were completely bogus.

     A ten year old child can grasp this logic.
     • Bob James 5.1.1

       14 February 2020 at 10:11 pm

       "Exactly. But because they are only able to do a limited number of nucleic genetic tests daily, they must have known the figures being reported up until yesterday that relied only on these tests were completely bogus."

       Not bogus. Unproven. Its no different from what's happening in the rest of the world, including the US, Australia, and New Zealand. We are also only reporting cases that are proven as such through testing. There could indeed be other cases we are unaware of. So the previous criteria used by the Chinese is exactly the same as that used by other countries.

       I think the Chinese adjusted their methodology of recording cases, in acknowledgement that the tested cases did not reflect the facts on the ground. Its not necessarily dishonest, but a response to an evolving situation.
       • RedLogix 5.1.1.1

         14 February 2020 at 10:19 pm

         If your testing methodology is limited to say performing 2000 tests a day, then reporting that number when you know damn well there are far more cases is bogus.

         I recall the Soviets doing the same thing at Chernobyl, for about a week they reported back to Moscow the full scale number of the instrument when in reality the actual radiation levels were far higher.
         • Bob James 5.1.1.1.1

           14 February 2020 at 10:24 pm

           If one provides numbers and makes clears that the numbers represent those who have been tested and shown to have the virus, then that is not dishonest. Did they say that the figures they had before unequivocally represented all people who had the illness? Of did they simply say, these are the people we have tested positive for the coronavirus. If the latter, then that is not being dishonest.

           In science as long as you are clear what your criteria are, when displaying a trend or figures, that is not misrepresentation.

           A ten year old child can grasp this logic.
           • RedLogix 5.1.1.1.1.1

             14 February 2020 at 10:27 pm

             It was an obvious misrepresentation. I'd say you've earned your 10 cents now …
             • Bob James …

               14 February 2020 at 10:29 pm

               It was an obvious misrepresentation.

               Only in your mind.

               If it was they would not be so obvious about it.
               • RedLogix …

                 14 February 2020 at 10:46 pm

                 You avoid the obvious point; in order to report a second much higher number yesterday … in order for that new number to have any accuracy at all then it is logically necessary to have been recording the correct type of clinical pneumonia cases all along. These I understand are from CT scans.

                 To have this data and not include it, when any competent clinician must know it is relevant, is blatant misrepresentation by omission.
                 • Bob James …

                   14 February 2020 at 11:14 pm

                   "in order for that new number to have any accuracy at all then it is logically necessary to have been recording the correct type of clinical pneumonia cases all along"

                   Agree. In fact I already agree with you on this point from above. Its not blatant mispresentation though because they did say the numbers previously reported were those tested to have the virus. If they had actually tested a shit-load more people for the virus, but reported lower figures for that, then that would be misrepresentation.

                   Only China is reporting pneumonia cases as coronavirus. No other place in the world is doing so. So their criteria is now wider than what the rest of the world is using. This is to facilitate more rapid care of people who have not yet been proven to have the virus. That is enhanced transparency. Not reduced.

                   “To have this data and not include it, when any competent clinician must know it is relevant, is blatant misrepresentation by omission. “

                   They must have seen that the likely actual cases were getting ahead of the tested. They then made the decision to change the reporting criteria in response to an evolving situation. This may have happened in only the past week or past couple of weeks. That is a pretty quick response.
                   • RedLogix …

                     14 February 2020 at 11:27 pm

                     Its not blatant mispresentation though because they did say the numbers previously reported were those tested to have the virus.

                     Nah … they were clearly representing these test results as the real number.

                     Actual transparency would have looked like " We have been able to do a limited number (x) of genetic tests and returned (y) positives. In addition we have (z) chest scans that we are evaluating, that will likely indicate a much larger number of cases. This means the data we are reporting today is preliminary and very likely to be revised upward."

                     Or something like that.
         • McFlock 5.1.1.1.2

           14 February 2020 at 10:54 pm

           We-ell it could all be that, but it's not like pneumonia in old people stands out like dogs' bollocks. It could also be a diagnostic procedural shift after someone noticed a boost in "late winter old people with pneumonia" incidence, sort of thing, and it turned out to be C-19. It does happen in NZ, too. It's usually just hyper-specialised stuff when someone bungs out a change in diagnostic pathways or whatever the doctor cheatsheets are called (can't remember the name atm – flowcharts to help figure out wtf is going on).
           • RedLogix 5.1.1.1.2.1

             14 February 2020 at 11:04 pm

             Nah … on Monday the outside WHO people get to see what is happening on the ground and by Wednesday they insist the numbers are reported correctly.
             • McFlock …

               14 February 2020 at 11:17 pm

               Possibly – or the extra advice is why WHO are there…

               Either way, more accurate data is always best. I wouldn't be surprised if the CCP end up shooting a few hospital directors for corruption or incompetence when the worst of it is over, just to claw back some faith from the populace. Like they do to generals every so often.
               • RedLogix …

                 14 February 2020 at 11:31 pm

                 Yes … as with all authoritarian tyrannies, the first instinct is to blame the people at the coal face, and defend the corrupt system at all costs. This is precisely the Chernobyl effect all over again.
6. Josh 6

   14 February 2020 at 10:37 pm

   Can't see democracies handling this situation any better. After all the US let the 2009 influenza epidemic get out of hand and it went on to kill around 200,000 people world wide.

   New Zealand stuffed up their handling of measles, and allowed it to be exported to Samoa where it killed 80 babies (equivalent of about 1600 deaths in NZ, proportionately)

   So we can't get too self-righteous about the way the Chinese are handling this epidemic. They do need to crack down on the wildlife trade though and wet markets –that is a cultural problem.
   • RedLogix 6.1

     15 February 2020 at 1:33 am

     Do you get paid per name or per post?
     • lprent 6.1.1

       15 February 2020 at 10:14 am

       It'd be hard to have a useful KPI based on that content..or on measuring convinced people.

       TrollCommenter has to measure their success on something!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS