Sure, but this doesnt affect my main argument that it would have been unfeasible, even for the CCP, to impose a Wuhan-style lockdown on all of China.

But you don't need to. They did a Wuhan lockdown because it originated in Wuhan. The other provinces had infections but didn't need a lockdown because of all the things they did outside of the Wuhan lockdown.

Your point only makes sense if it assumes that the rest of the provinces had no cases.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 23 2021 02:45pm

If it had already spread enough to the other provinces, only locking up Wuhan would NOT have been enough to contain the virus in mainland China - and that's exactly the situation most other countries found themselves in when they realized they had significant community spread. The time window to emulate the Chinese approach had already closed by the third week of February 2020 in Western countries.

"Significant community spread" is a pretty broad qualifier.

Community spread can be halted by mass testing, social distancing mask compliance, etc. etc. In China's case, they did this and more. South Korea had the same number of cases we did for a while and had greater travel from the point of origin, and they did fine. So that's more evidence against your assertion. Same with Australia, significant community spread, closer proximity, better handling, and better results.

Really, South Korea proved that mass lockdowns are not even necessary to control community spread. Quick testing, isolation, and contact tracing done by SK were the gold standard of handling the pandemic.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 23 2021 02:57pm

The "and more"-part is key though.


SK had the same number of confirmed cases, disregarding the dark figure. SK is one of the most test-happy countries in the world, so if the number of offical (per capita) cases in SK and the US were identical, it's safe to assume that the real number was significantly higher in the US.


Community spread in Australia was not on the level seen in Europe or NA. Furthermore, Australia has the unique advantage that its population centers are all hundreds of miles away from one another. This saved Australia's butt last summer, when carelessness and incompetence by local officials caused the Victoria outbreak. They could contain it with a hard, months-long lockdown for just one state, but didnt have to lock down the rest of the country. Had a similar outbreak happened in the middle of Europe, or on the American east coast, this would have been impossible.


Sure, quick testing and isolation can control the virus. I highly doubt, however, that you can stop the spread without lockdowns once a certain, very low threshold of community spread has been exceeded.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 23 2021 03:25pm

Eventually, sure, but not when it was so early that there was no widespread testing. They ramped up testing far faster than we did and that resulted in lower long-term numbers.

The fact is spread started at the same time for South Korea, and the United States, and we didn't ramp up testing, contact tracing, or isolation like South Korea did. We ended up with huge community spread because we didn't ramp those things up.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 23 2021 04:51pm

The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are Asymptomatic

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6976

Conclusion:
Available data suggest that at least one third of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic. Longitudinal studies suggest that nearly three quarters of persons who receive a positive PCR test result but have no symptoms at the time of testing will remain asymptomatic. Control strategies for COVID-19 should be altered, taking into account the prevalence and transmission risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

it's a study, still serious, good to know.

Loled so hard

That's interesting, but the more important question is how much asymptomatic cases contribute to the spread of the disease, as opposed to presymptomatic patients.