On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:24:25 PM UTC-4, frodo sam0 wrote:
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 2:09:09 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:17:00 AM UTC-4, paul polikos wrote:
WHO chief says China's zero-COVID policy not 'sustainable' | Reuters
China’a zero-COVID policy is commendable and exemplary. If only WHO can make it a standard to be followed by other countries all over the world, there would not be these wave after wave of the pandemic.
Instead of criticising China, WHO should live up to its name and look after the health of the world. That hasn’t been the case so far. From the first wave until now, each wave sweeps up the whole world. Shouln’t it be the role of WHO to prevent
this?
WHO should look at the worldwide statistics of the pandemic to see what an excellent job China has done in combating the pandemic.
WHO should be thankful to China for its zero-tolerance policy. If not for the policy, the worldwide statistics of the pandemic would be worse, showing more infections and deaths than it is now and more harmful variants would have appeared just in
China alone.
No doubt the zero-tolerance policy adversely affects China’s as well as the world’s economy. But without it, everything will it worse. The pandemic will cause the whole of China to be locked down, in which case the economic impact on China and
the world would be much worse.
The world should give recognition and appreciation to China's effort in controlling the spread of the pandemic. Being a West-dominated world, this will not be forthcoming. Instead the emphasis is that China should follow the Western way or it
should not do better than the West.
How sustainable is sustainable?
Sustainable has only meaningful if there is a well defined or well recognized break point.
For example, sell gadget X at price Y is unsustainable means at some point the marginal cost of X is bigger than Y. And company would lose more money by selling more X at price Y after that point.
In the case, there would not be any well defined or well recognized break point.
No. The WHO is no position to pronounce whether unless it is also predicting the Chinese government would collapse because of its dynamic zero-Covid policy. Don't believe the WHO has the expertise make that kind of eco-political pronouncement.
If the WHO is honest, it should simply say China's zero-Covid policy is not for other countries.
What is sustainable in this COVID pandemic? It's the wave-after-wave sequence of occurrence. This is going to go on-and-on. This is the result of the Western way of "living with the virus". It has resulted in over a million Americans dead and over 2
million Europeans dead. And the numbers are still counting up.
Western countries have failed to control the spread of the virus. Their values if democracy, individual freedom and human rights have failed them. Democracy means the party in government has to maintain a certain level of popularity. Individual freedom
means people should be free to do what they like. Human rights means government cannot be deemed to have infringe the human rights of people in the implementation of mitigating measures.
Liberal democratic value is developed under the influence of Christianity. The Christian
God is the ultimate provider of all blessings and assurances, not the government.
All these means a weak government which cannot lead the people to combat the spread of a disease.
Anything outside of being "liberal democratic," in some sense, is about "God's willing." Governments and
politicians of Christian heritage, therefore, could at least shirk their responsibility to some degree.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)