China's Battle With the Wuhan Coronavirus is Shackled by a Toxic Relationship With Information (qz.com) 84
An anonymous reader shares a report: People are panicking. When a new disease is discovered, it's undeniably hard to identify and inform the public about it quickly. Yet China is making the problem harder to solve, even though it should have learned from the SARS outbreak in 2003, when the government admitted to underreporting cases in the initial stages. Nearly 800 people died in that epidemic, which saw desperate people emptying shops for Chinese herbal medicines and vinegar that would turn out to be ineffective. That frenzy was driven by the lack of accurate information and rumors because of a vacuum in top-down communication. The idea of wei wen, or maintaining stability in China's political system made "conceal as many as possible and keep it at the local level" a natural immediate response to a crisis like this.
That approach to information might work on other kinds of issues, but not when it comes to a potential epidemic. Trying to control information in that case becomes a kind of shackle in the face of something that can progress and change swiftly beyond one's control. Of course, there is one thing that's different than 17 years ago: WeChat. A tool connecting more than a billion users in China should be one the government can use to help keep the public up-to-date, and to debunk false information. Yet it too has become a hotbed for both rumors and information suppression amid China's broader regime of online censorship honed over the past decade. Already, a focus of social media discussion about the current virus crisis has been on how hard it's been to get correct information, and whether officials were slow to respond in the early stages, at least in Wuhan. While some international public health experts have commended China's information sharing as superior to 2003 in the face of a quickly evolving situation, others have expressed doubt that the country is being as transparent as it should be.
That approach to information might work on other kinds of issues, but not when it comes to a potential epidemic. Trying to control information in that case becomes a kind of shackle in the face of something that can progress and change swiftly beyond one's control. Of course, there is one thing that's different than 17 years ago: WeChat. A tool connecting more than a billion users in China should be one the government can use to help keep the public up-to-date, and to debunk false information. Yet it too has become a hotbed for both rumors and information suppression amid China's broader regime of online censorship honed over the past decade. Already, a focus of social media discussion about the current virus crisis has been on how hard it's been to get correct information, and whether officials were slow to respond in the early stages, at least in Wuhan. While some international public health experts have commended China's information sharing as superior to 2003 in the face of a quickly evolving situation, others have expressed doubt that the country is being as transparent as it should be.
Face masks (Score:4, Insightful)
For one thing, now they'll have to rescind that law banning face masks in Hong Kong.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Face masks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Face masks (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As the revolt of the Thirteen Colonies began to take off, tax collectors were tarred and feathered, there were riots against British officials, and Loyalists were targeted. When the Revolution started in earnest the Continental Army not only shot at Red Coats, but got the assistance of a foreign power.
Beijing seems intent on replicating the almost identical circumstances that lead to the British Empire's loss of the American colonies; through self righteous blind ineptitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Beijing seems intent on replicating the almost identical circumstances that lead to the British Empire's loss of the American colonies
Not really. In 1776, America has 25% of Britain's population, was 3500 miles away, and soon had the military support of France.
HK has 0.5% of the population of China, shares a land border with China, and has the outside support of no one.
Re: communism/socialism baby! (Score:1)
We all pretend, so it doesn't matter (Score:1)
They're actually authoritarian capitalists now, do try to keep up. They're communist in the same way the DPRK is a democracy...
And the UK is a kingdom. And the United States is a constitutional republic.
People in the UK pretend the monarch commands the kingdom. They have ceremonies and documents and speeches that treat the monarch's authority as real.
People in the US pretend government operates in a way consistent with the country's Constitution. They have ceremonies and documents and speeches that treat the Constitution's authority as real.
At least in the UK they know the monarch, and they know the monarch doesn't actually r
Re:Likely a US government bio-weapon (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
should be legal to set people like you on fire
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Protip: liberals are also concerned about China. This is a matter of national security. Learn to be patriotic and stop confusing domestic policy differences with patriotic national interest, because it merely makes you a tool, it isn't patriotic.
Re: (Score:3)
Then there's a "stain" on Pelosi for bringing up a baseless impeachment.
That seems highly unlikely since there's no stain on her from the first 6 or 7 times nor from any of the impeachment attempts on Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
This was released into China by the US government, with the intention being to torpedo their already tottering economy and force them to the table to make large concessions for a trade deal.
That is some grade A, top shelf, prime cut, paranoia right there. All of you suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome need to make up your mind. Is Trump a bumbling idiot that needs his wife to dress him and tie his shoes? Or, is he an evil mastermind capable of simultaneously waging biological warfare on China, creating an underground neo-nazi antisemitic white supremacy shadow government to rig the elections in 50 states in his favor, communicate secretly with his "handlers" in Russia, while also creating the best economy in the USA since the post WWII economic boom?
I was under the impression that the US is not quite at the stage where its government's performance would be perfectly linked to the performance of its head of state (yet). Once it is your argument will make sense.
You're deranged... (Score:2)
Maybe he's just a very good businessman and manager that's been able to take some basic concepts he's learned in business over the last 50 years,
Spending a trillion dollars a year that you don't have may look like a good business plan to 'certain kinds of people'... But what happens when he declares bankruptcy and walks away leaving someone else holding the bag, like the 'good businessman' you claim he is?
Re: You're deranged... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Like our toxic relationship with information (Score:1, Insightful)
About climate change. Look, I know people engage in magical thinking, and really believe that ignoring a problem will make it disappear but the real world doesn't work like that. Pretending things aren't as bad as they are does not make things better, it makes them worse.
Reality doesn't give a flying fuck about your feelings, snowflake. Climate change will kill you whether you believe in it or not.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Reality doesn't give a flying fuck about your feelings, snowflake. Climate change will kill you whether you believe in it or not.
Hmmm, you clearly haven't lived through even one of the "in twenty years, global warming/climate change is going to destroy the planet" alarmism cycles. Not saying climate change isn't a problem, just that when so many of the predictions are as off as they've been, maybe the alarmists should stop crying wolf. As evidenced, of course, by the fact that we can all get 30 year mortgages _everywhere_.
Re:Like our toxic relationship with information (Score:4, Insightful)
Who said that in the seventies and eighties, the world would be over by 2000? I'm sure you can find a quote. Or maybe you're just full of shit.
Re:Like our toxic relationship with information (Score:4, Informative)
He's remembering magazine articles like "Omni" not actual scientific studies.
I remember them too. "The coming Ice Age".
But climate change is different. It's based on hard data collected by people practicing the scientific method.
Re: (Score:2)
More bullshit. Primary sources or shut the fuck up, dipshit. You climate change deniers are as bad as flat earthers. Your made up "experts" who are being paid by the fossil fuel companies are fucking idiots, and not very good at propaganda. Right wing is a fucking cult of ignorance.
Re: (Score:1)
Can you even _imagine_ what not having the internet, let alone having a computer or cellphone, was actually like?
Here's one from 1988 for you though: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/0... [nytimes.com]
I'm certainly not denying climate change, but the alarmism is - and has always been - bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that article wrong though? The scientist in question made this projection:
"If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. "
This projection looks completely accurate. So what's your problem with it?
Re: Like our toxic relationship with information (Score:1)
as of today (according to NASA - https://climate.nasa.gov/vital... [nasa.gov]) we stand at 1.8degF above the 1950-1980 mean, and 88 - being the âoehottest on record to that timeâ was, in fact, only about a half a degree below where we are now.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you read and comprehend English? I don't know how I can rephrase the quote to make you understand that we are not in 2050 right now, if you did not understand that from reading the quote itself. Do you engage your reasoning when you debate climate change, or is it just your gut telling you that you must be right? Because you just completely failed to comprehend a fairly simple sentence.
Again, The relevant portion of the quote: the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the y
Re: Like our toxic relationship with information (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We've had a 1.8 degree rise from the average at the time the article was published. Meaning, if we see another 1.2 degree rise before 2050, this prediction will be correct. Based on that, we seem to be right on course. 30 years for a 1.8 degree rise, and 30 more years to go until the prediction ends.
The stupidity of the climate change deniers is giving the flat earthers a serious run for their money.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. If the temp rises by 3F by 2050, the prediction is correct. The temp has already risen 1.6F. No, we can't count from 1988 exactly, just because that was the year the study was published. The study says rise over average to date. 1988 was exceptionally hot. Your math and/or reading comprehension skills suck. Fucking learn to read beyond the summary, you gibbon.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know if you're as smart as you think you are - those ARE Primary Sources - direct quotes.
Re: (Score:2)
Except they aren't. They are made up bullshit, like this quote: "I believe in anthropogenic climate change" --Anonymous Coward. See? You agree with me and I have a quote to prove it!
Re: Like our toxic relationship with information (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Party like it's 1999
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the saddest part of this cycle is the human suffering and species extinctions that have already happened, you sociopath. Stop crying crocodile tears and claiming you just want everyone to stop fighting, you utter circus clown.
Re: Like our toxic relationship with information (Score:1)
Most of us seriously donâ(TM)t care because weâ(TM)ve seen this before and the houses we bought 30+ years ago havenâ(TM)t even seen an ounce of the things the alarmists were claiming 30 years ago.
Nobody over here crying while all the rest of people like you are screaming at us.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
This lie again? Show the proof there have been cycles of climate change panic. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
The fuck is this grade school level website? Let me look. Aha, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's a piss poor propaganda site started by a wealthy northeastern elite idiot, in order to spread propaganda regarding "free market solutions to climate change."
Re: (Score:1)
If that is proof, then so is this: "You're wrong, fuckwit."
Re: (Score:1)
There's nothing sadder than a old bitter hippy.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is bitter? Sounds like you, by your tone. I'm angry, because willful stupidity pisses me off.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you twelve? Even for twelve, this is some bullshit banter. Give your nuts a tug ya titfucker.
Re: (Score:2)
You provided nothing, asswipe. Propaganda, false information created by a rich asshole who profits off of fucking over the earth. You are a useful tool for a sociopath.
Funny how all you asshole claim the liberals are getting rich off of climate chaneg, when it is the provable filthy rich fossil fuel industry who really rakes in the profits. This is all pure psychological projection on your part.
Re: Like our toxic relationship with information (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Reality doesn't give a flying fuck about your feelings, snowflake. Climate change will kill you whether you believe in it or not.
I agree. Now, what should we do about it?
Greta Thunberg says we should listen to the science. I agree with this as well. What does science say? Build more nuclear power plants.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/... [nasa.gov]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
In those articles there is also mention of continued reliance on wind and hydro needed to meet our future energy needs.
My litmus test on how informed someone is on energy policy is their stance on sol
Re: (Score:1)
Damn straight, modern nuclear is much safer with less waste. It's not a complete, long term solution to the problem but it is the BEST stop gap measure we have.
We need to crack down not just on the carbon drug abusers, like China, but the major pushers, like Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
"modern nuclear is much safer with less waste. It's not a complete, long term solution to the problem but it is the BEST stop gap measure we have."
No, it is not. Renewables plus storage are cheaper and involve less CO2 production than nuclear. That's why nobody is planning new nuclear projects, and everyone is planning new renewables projects.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes it really is. The reason why nobody is building nuclear projects is because it can take 20+ years to even get the first shovel in the ground because of the anti-nuke nuts and environmentalists. The same people raise their hands in thanks for renewables(wind and solar) which have a huge ecological impact for the materials required to make them, those same people who look like a deer in the headlights when you point this out as well.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a simple cost proposition that nuclear can't win. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
You are thinking of old school nuclear, with the huge concrete cooling towers. Modern pebble bed reactors are much cheaper than previous generations. You also must count the capacity factor. Nuclear is a 24/7 technology and requires no batteries. Batteries are necessary for renewables (except for hydro, which has it's own huge environmental costs) and batteries are toxic and environmentally destructive, especially lithium batteries.
When you say renewables are better for the environment, you are cherry pick
Re: (Score:2)
You're right in your implication that Australia is a major coal producer and exporter. But China also has a very large coal mining industry, in addition to importing a lot of coal (including a lot of Australian coal). Australia could stop exporting coal tomorrow and it woudn't greatly affect China's burning of coal, because they'd rapidly ramp up their own mining.
The Chinese are very well aware of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a Pig virus, not a Rat virus.
Also note that the Rat on the Chinese zodiac is not the Norway Rat that is a pest animal, but the Mountain Rat, a non-pest food animal.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-pest food animal?
Yum?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, that is why they eat it.
It has a diet and lifestyle similar to a rabbit.
Re: Year Of The Rat (Score:2)
Technically, the year of the rat hasn't started yet. It starts only tomorrow. /pedantic
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, it started in China. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect time for a plague, being Chinese year of the rat and all.
Rats got nothing on squirrels for plague.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, but close. Chinese New Year is a big thing in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Enough so that the country shuts down for two weeks - people travel back to their home towns and celebrate, then travel back to where they work or study. This mass migration is similar to say, Thanksgiving in the US, but on a much larger scale.
And it's even trickier because China has to close down cities because all this mass migration happening around will e
Screwed by bad information? (Score:1)
Hey, we got that beat, Trump wouldn't know the truth it it shit in his face. Which it does regularly.
Still an improvement (Score:2)
Ban "Toxic" (Score:1)