The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Author: Ian Welsh Page 123 of 437

Does Zero Covid In China Work?

So, we hear a lot of stories about Shanghai, where rolling lockdowns and administrative failures have lead to videos of people w/o enough food in lockdown, etc…

Shanghai is an interesting case, because Shanghai did not follow the normal Chinese zero-covid protocol. It didn’t shut down right away, but tried to do just do small shutdowns, and let the number of cases increase. This is not what other cities do.

I follow a maker account in Shenzen (the primary electronics manufacturing city in China and the world.) Since Covid they’ve occasionally written or done videos about the covid response in Shenzen, which has over 17 million people, plenty of trade, and lots of visitors from Hong Kong.

Wu says it better than I could.

I feel I’ve spent too much time on Covid recently, and do intend to move onto more interesting (if not always more important topics), but it’s IMPORTANT that people understand there were other options to dealing with Covid other than let’er’rip, whether or not most of the rest of the world’s actions were motivated by greed, psychopathy or incompetence, and regardless of how much 40+ years of neoliberalism have gutted our administrative capacity (it has been two years, we could have rebuilt a lot in those 2 years and we didn’t.)

Thatcher’s mantra was TINA (There Is No Alternative.) It has bred apathy and resignation. But if even the goddamn Chinese Communist Party can do better, then it’s obvious that there There Is An Alternative (TIAA?)

There are NO problems of any significance in the world today which are not a result of having a really, really bad elite and populations which are OK enough with them to let them keep doing what they do. There are also no problems we do not know how to deal with far better than we are right now.

As long as this is true, as a friend said just after Bush v. Gore, we’re going to ride this bucket all the way down to hell.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts (aka. Covid. Go wild w/Ukraine if you so desire.)

Immune And Vaccine Escape Covid Variants

It’s tedious to have to keep writing about Covid, but since we are absolutely determined not to use policies which will stop Covid, it’s necessary.

A new preprint study, published ahead of peer review, is pointing to why BA.4 and BA.5 are gaining ground: They can escape antibodies generated by previous infections caused by the first Omicron virus, BA.1, the variant responsible for the huge wave of infections that hit many countries in December and January. They can also escape antibodies in people who’ve been vaccinated and had breakthrough BA.1 infections, though this happened to a lesser degree than seen in people who’ve only been infected.

This is exactly as predicted here. Viruses adapt to challenges. To wipe it out we had to reduce it to nearly zero (as they mostly have in China, among a few other countries), so that it doesn’t have a lot of hosts. We chose not to do so (or our leaders did, as it’s making them fantastically rich), and so here we are.

Moderna has an Omicron booster coming out in autumn, which is to say at least four months from now, but because it was designed for the Omicron variant and not these new ones, it’ll likely be less effective than we’d like, though more effective than vaccines designed for the original (now essentially extinct) strain.

Given reports that Long Covid is far more prevalent than previously believed, it seems wise for those who can to keep taking precautions. There’s still a chance of death, but the chance of getting some sort of longer term health damage is not insignificant.

This mess could go on for years. We’re just gambling on a variant that does less damage becoming dominant, but given that Omicron Covid is already in the race for the most virulent disease known to mankind, and that it could keep mutating, that doesn’t seem like much of a hope, especially as viruses in general cause the sort of problems we see after Covid, just usually not quite as bad or widespread.

Long Covid research will be helpful, and perhaps we’ll come up with some sort of cure, and the best thing we can hope for is that that research and cure will be useful for effects from most or all viruses. If so, something good may come out of this mess.

As I, perhaps tediously, keep pointing out, this is a choice which has been made by our leaders — to let it spread, to make people go back to work, and to do nearly nothing to stop Covid’s ravages. Unless you’re actually in Ukraine, Yemen, Afghanistan, or a few other places, it remains your own leaders who are the greatest threat to your well being. People who are constantly doing things to make you sick or poor, or homeless or dead are conventionally known as “enemies.”

Worth a little meditation.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Civilization Ending Long Covid Levels?

So, via everyone’s favorite homnicidal Dalek, a study which finds that 51 percent to 80 percent of people who get Covid (pdf) get Long Covid. Often it’s asymptomatic, but asymptomatic cases still do damage to the body, just like you can have high blood pressure for a long time without knowing it or feeling anything. As the Dalek notes, this is potentially civilization ending now that we’ve decided to let everyone get Covid eventually.

The extra sauce on this idiot doomburger, is that each time you get Covid, you can get Long Covid and there is NO lasting natural or vaccine immunity to Covid. None. And each time you get Covid, any Long Covid you have can make it harder to resist Covid and can make your Long Covid worse.

The old figures for Long Covid ranged from 20 to 30 percent. Even those numbers, given repeated infections and compounding damage, were disastrous. These new numbers are catastrophic. Eventually, if we don’t control Covid (and remember, there have been multiple new variants since BA2) we may literally have billions of disabled people unable to work and needing care.

Probably you’ll know one of them, or be one of them. Probably someone you care about will have Long Covid. Then your government, which after all couldn’t be bothered to control Covid, will decide it costs too much to support them, will cut health care and disability care, and they’ll die. Probably miserably.

Welcome to the future.

Either replace your leaders, at any cost, or you and people you care about (I know most people don’t give a damn about strangers) will get sick, suffer immensely, wind up homeless in many cases, then die miserably.

Also India is having a heat wave in April/May which has spiked over 60 celcius (140f) in some locations, and where 40-50- celcius (104-122F) is routine. We’ll never know how many people it kills (India’s very bad at counting and doesn’t much want to), and on top of that, it’s causing crop failures. Given that we’re already in for a year with less food and higher prices than usual (thanks to the Ukraine war, Western sanctions related to the war, and various problems in China (and certainly other extreme weather events)), a lot of people are going to die from famine in the next year and a half, and there will then be massive political instability, probably including some revolutions and war.

We’ll talk more about this soon.

Your leaders are culling you. Deliberately. They know what they’re doing and they’re okay with it. Are you okay with it? You may not be able to do anything yet, but the first step is to understand, in your gut, that they are a threat to you; enemies of yours.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. (No Ukraine.)

The Possible Dire Consequences of NATO & Ukrainian Escalation

So, UK foreign secretary Trus has said that the war in Ukraine must continue until Russia is forced out of Ukraine entirely, including Crimea.

Meanwhile, the UK is shipping weapons to Ukraine that are capable of striking Russian cities.

As a moral matter, of course, the Ukraine has the right to strike Russia, same as so many countries have the right to assassinate American leaders and bomb American weddings in which “high value targets” might be involved.

But let’s consider the state of the war. Putin calls it a special military operation. Reserves have not been called up, and a great deal of care is being taken in the use of force. Unlike in Iraq, Russia has not taken out power, sewage, water systems, most roads, or rail. It has not unleashed level bombers for massive bombing of Ukrainian cities.

Russia has also not called up its reserves. Putin appears to think that would be unpopular. Russia has millions of men in its reserves. It could call up two million men and not exhaust them. They’re not the best troops, but they would swamp Ukraine.

Now, if Ukraine hits Russian cities, however fair that is, what will happen to Russian public and elite opinion? Imagine Iraq somehow managed to hit New York and cause real damage in the 2000s (if you want a scenario: perhaps they could have smuggled bombs into the harbor on cargo ships).

How would Americans have reacted?

That’s how Russians will react. Add in some atrocity propaganda (and there are plenty of videos of Ukrainian soldiers doing horrible things, they aren’t saints) and Putin will easily have all the backing he needs to go to total non-nuclear war. In fact, even if he doesn’t want to escalate, it would be difficult to avoid.

This would mean, as a start, bombing every road and rail crossing leaving the Ukraine that Russia or Belarus doesn’t control, so more weapons can’t get into Ukraine. It would likely mean removing all power and water from western Ukrainian cities and forcing most of the remaining population in those areas to flee: 20+ million people. And it would mean taking major cities, which Russia will have the manpower to do.

Further, the idea that any Russian government would ever give up Crimea is insanity (that Russia would fight a war to keep Sevastopol is why I was able, in 2008, to predict the next war would be over Crimea).

https://twitter.com/simulacrax/status/1519361548313055235

This idea that NATO has that it can safely fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, without any chance of war-spillover is insane. Likewise, China CANNOT afford to let Russia be broken up. If it is, then China can almost trivially be blockaded and forced into subjugation. They need Russian oil, gas, coal, minerals, and food and without them they cannot survive a confrontation with the West. It is literally impossible.

What China sees is that the US wants to fight wars where they aren’t at risk. If there’s a war in Asia against China, without using nukes, China has little ability to hit the US mainland, while the US can hit China. Yes, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan (if they’re stupid enough to join in) get devastated, but the US laughs as the damage is done overseas.

https://twitter.com/NiMingda_GG/status/1518654812077932545

I strongly suspect the Chinese now see this as the US plan for them. The US has stated it wants to place hypersonic missiles in the first island chain off China, which includes Taiwan, the same sort of movement of weapons which contributed to Russia’s demands before the Ukraine war (the US is a year or two from hypersonic, but the placement of other missiles and ABM close to Russia has been protested by Russia for years), and recently there has even been talk of putting US troops in Taiwan as a trip wire similar to the one in South Korea.

This means China needs a conventional deterrent; they need missiles that can hit the continental US, and they need to increase their navy to the point where it can fight the US navy in international waters and win. Remember that China’s ship-building capacity is VASTLY larger than that of the US.

The US and UK, both of whom think that Russia and China can’t hurt them, are pushing this war in ways that are very dangerous. This is a bet, in fact, that Russia and Putin are entirely “rational”, despite the rhetoric and won’t risk escalation. But Putin is reputed to have spent hours watching the video of Gaddafi being sodomized by a bayonet before being killed, and the CCP knows that “regime change” is what the US wants for China.

Regime change in China will leave a lot of CCP members, and especially leaders, dead.

This is an existential issue for China and Russia. If they lose to America, their leaders are overthrown. Russia will be dismembered (this is what multiple NATO leaders have said they want), and China will be relegated to permanent 2nd tier status at best. Many of the leaders will die, and many of those will die ugly.

This is understandable for the US. They have a wasting asset: China, given enough time, will inevitably have a larger military, since it has the larger economy, and they are catching up in technology. The US Navy has been shrinking for decades and the US has lost the ability to build ships: they have had to cancel recent designs because on testing, they suck. The US’s ability to build planes is also in doubt: the F-35 was a massive mess and is far too expensive.

Since the US also judges that any escalation short of nuclear won’t hit them, except economically, and will hurt their enemies and their satrapies worse (making Europe weaker economically and stronger militarily is a win for the US), they have a great deal of incentive to escalate as much as possible, and just make sure it doesn’t go nuclear.

This isn’t in anyone else’s interest, but Europe is consumed with fear of Russia, and Western European leaders have accepted the narrative of Eastern Europe and the USA about Russia as a completely rogue power which must be destroyed, because it can never be trusted.

Meanwhile, the US’s ability to control foreign countries outside of Europe is dropping fast. Three of the four Gulf States (creations of the UK and kept in existence by the US) refused to side with NATO in the UN. Saudi Arabia has basically told the US to fuck itself. The Solomon Islands signed a military pact with China which spawned threats from Australia and the US of military action if a base is built because apparently the right to make military alliances and do what you want in your own territory is available only to would be American allies.

India has not gone along with sanctions and Malaysia is wavering.

US hegemony is breaking. Western hegemony is breaking. As alarmed and scared as Chinese and Russian elites are, American and Western elites are furious: absolutely livid that anyone dare challenge them, or that the days of their hegemony may soon be over. Right now, calculating that the costs of wars to stay in charge will not primarily be born by them, they are willing to escalate recklessly.

Since passions are up, I note that this is not a moral analysis about who is good or bad. There was certainly moral justification for going to war against the USSR at various points, but we didn’t and we avoided escalating beyond certain levels because we knew that war with them was unthinkable.

War with Russia is still unthinkable. War with China is abominable.

Our time is done. We sold our patrimony to the Chinese from the 90s thru the 10s, so that our elites could break our working class and get richer than if they had to pay 1st world wages and costs. That’s the truth. Our elites thought they were international elites, not national elites, and they were wrong. The Chinese knew they were a national elite, and, in effect, bribed our elites to give away the most important sources of their real power: having the largest industry, and having a huge tech lead.

Our elites gave it all away, for a few trillion dollars, and China paid happily. Our elites now see that their only chance to retain power is to use the waning asset of military supremacy. First they need to take out Russia, then they can choke China out.

This is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. Even if it doesn’t blow into nuclear war, it can easily blow into hot war. American allies in Asia, I would suggest, would be well advised to decouple militarily. This especially goes for Japan: build your own nukes and conventional deterrent and sit this one out. China can’t reach the US mainland yet, but it can reach you.

On top of all of this extraordinarily dangerous nonsense is the opportunity cost: we should be spending trillions on preparing for climate change and ecological collapse, not playing war games. NATO and Russia, over the last 10 years should have been disarming near mutual borders, not rushing troops, missiles and planes to the borders.

We are acting insane, chimpanzees trying to maintain dominance, locally or globally. And we are going to pay for it, even if we avoid nuclear war, with hundreds of millions, probably billions, of unnecessary deaths.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

 

Poland Refuses To Pay For Russian Gas In Rubles, Russia Cuts Them Off

Well, well.

But, so far it looks like Germany will just buy extra (paying in rubles) and ship it to Poland. Me, if I were Putin, I’d refuse to sell Germany more than its usual amount (what is contracted for) and see how long it takes Poland to break. Granted it’s not winter, but so far as I can see Europe can’t switch off Russian natural gas in less than about two years, though perhaps a few countries could (and pay more, since the Russians sell for less than anyone else will.) Natural gas prices (as of this writing) are up about 10% on the news, though it doesn’t mean much.

I remain convinced that sanctions will do far more harm to Europe than to Russia.

Meanwhile, Malaysia has said they will sell Russia semiconductors. They aren’t as good as Taiwanese ones, but they’ll be good enough for now, and China is crashing semiconductor tech anyway, for its own reasons. In a decade, the West and its allies won’t have much of a gap in semis compared to the rest of the world, if any.

Update: seems the news Malaysia would sell semis is probably not correct.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

The Bottom Line On Ukraine As An Example Of Decision Analysis

I could write a lot of words on this, but let’s keep it simple.

First: Russia keeps taking land.

Second: Putin has far more reserves he can commit than Ukraine does.

Third: this means that the decision about whether to win or lose is Putin’s.

Which do you think he’ll choose.

Oh, there’s considerations around acceptable costs and a possible guerilla war later, but this it the essence of the invasion.

This is a fairly basic but important style of analysis. Ask yourself:

1) Who makes the decision?

2) Do they have sufficient resources and power to enforce their decision?

3) What do they think the right thing to do is? (This isn’t always about self interest, though it often is.)

4) What decision are they likely to make?

You can add bits to this, like “does anyone have a veto?” but this is the essence of it.

This is why I have said for years that nothing would be done about climate change till too late, because the people who have the power to make the decision don’t think it affects them, and do think that the status quo is good for them, so they aren’t going to do anything.

Most reasonably reliable analysis comes down to simple heuristics like this one. Complicated heuristics for social decision making rarely work.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Page 123 of 437

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén