Not really. There's also a lot of differences, like SARS didn't escape to be a global pandemic. I'd say that's a big difference. At this point zero covid is like trying to create a zero flu policy. That's very different from a zero measles policy.
Your claim that it doesn't work because of the "nature of viruses" seems belied by the facts on the ground.
See also: this article. What is happening in china right now is just slightly more advanced than what many countries and states did for themselves.
And no, there is no human right to be protected against the risk of disease.
Literally the first one is to life.
https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights#:~:text=Hum....
The UDHR you linked to mentioned freedom from detention, freedom of movement, the right to peacefully assemble, to work, leisure, and education, and to participate in cultural life. All of these rights were negatively impacted by lockdowns which many people did not agree with.
In the example of the pandemic: Would it have been better to offer support for the vulnerable (people with a 1 in 10 chance of dying if they caught it), rather than punish those who were not vulnerable (people with a 1 in 100,000 or greater chance of dying).
When is it ok for one person's rights to come at the expense of others? Is it ok for a few politicians to decide to impose on a bunch of unwilling people to do something they don't want to do? Should we lockdown every year for the flu, because some people will die? Should we allow the majority to force their views on the minority becuase they believe it is for the greater good?
I don't believe so. Not when there are other options.
> 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
Or is there some other clause you are referring to that this is actually violating?
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your comment. Are you saying that restricting rights to protect public health is more important than the right of freedom of movement and other rights?
This is why I mentioned the flu as an example of how difficult it can be to draw a line. Why don't we lock down everyone for the flu every year? Is it because the numbers are different? People still die. Even when people agree on the numbers they don't interpret the risk the same. Some people don't think covid was that big a deal, certainly not worth the impact lockdowns had on everyone. And I also mentioned the idea of helping protect the vulnerable without punishing those who don't feel they are vulnerable. I think a lot more could have been done in this regard.
I just don't get why some people feel justified imposing on the rights of others when there are other approaches. Different values, I suppose.
And besides, the UN is a joke. It's a nice little debating society, but otherwise in the real world no one takes it seriously.
China's decision to continue on the zero-covid route seems extremely unwise once it was clear that breakouts were happening across the globe and containment was no longer an option - but initially pursuing containment was an extremely wise policy.
It's now clear that the best strategy would have been to focus on protecting the most vulnerable, as recommended by leading experts back in 2020.
China has averted 3 million deaths and most of the country has been free of lockdown for the last 2 years once they got the virus under control. That is "scientific reality". Claims that China's numbers are problematic, while probably true, are not the same as saying that China has hidden millions of covid deaths, which basically nobody who studies this believes.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
The only human virus we have eradicated is smallpox. And that only worked because there were no animal reservoirs, and the vaccines were fairly effective at preventing infection and transmission. That situation does not obtain with SARS-CoV-2.
The countries that pursued an elimination strategy (a.k.a. zero-CoVID) have had orders of magnitude fewer deaths, and were able to enjoy long periods of time with virtually no restrictions on everyday life. Life in the vast majority of China has been basically normal for most of the last 2 years. People have been going to restaurants, holding parties, going to concerts, etc. without having to worry about the virus, because it hasn't been spreading in the country.
> recommended by leading experts
The Great Barrington Declaration isn't some sort of consensus of "leading experts." It's a document drawn up by a libertarian think tank, that a small number of academics signed. For political reasons, most Western countries have ended up following something close to this strategy since fairly early on in the pandemic, and the results (both in terms of deaths and economic impact) have been abysmal, particularly in comparison with the zero-CoVID countries.
It’s impossible to have zero Covid unless you vaccinate all mammals in the world.
Neither assumptions are backed by evidence.
To the contrary, there is no evidence to suggest that China has had the spread necessary to kill 3 million people nor any evidence suggesting that they have covered up 3 million deaths.
You might naively think we have no way of checking, but this level of spread would be trivial to infer from antibody tests of people traveling to China. We have seen no indication of a deception anywhere near the scale you are suggesting.
> this level of spread would be trivial to infer from antibody tests of people traveling to China.
Who is doing that testing?
If this disaster spreads to other Chinese metropolitan areas it would be devastating.
It simply doesn't do the job well enough, but good luck trying to make the Chinese leader choose an American product.
So the stubbornness of the regime is at fault, but with no limits on terms anymore, i see only bad things for the future of China.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/china-walvax-says-has-m...
Better late than never must be the motto China is going for.
We find Chinese confirmed infections match the distribution expected in Benford’s Law and are similar to that seen in the U.S. and Italy.
https://kevinbasset.medium.com/i-used-benfords-law-to-analyz...
Tough both are reporting on old data which tells nothing (good or bad) about the current situation.
Well either viruses typically are very good at killing you (SARS style) and so you can curb it fast or they aren't and stick around awhile until you can vaccinate a ton of the population and build immunity (measles). If they adapt too rapidly that they escape the effectiveness of a vaccine faster than you can develop and deploy them, you have the flu. Covid seems to be in the third camp rather than the other two.