Are you saying 1) that the public media subject to content control are also the primary forms of administrative communication/bureaucratic knowledge Or 2) that authoritarianism blocks information flow as lower-levels are reluctant to report up ?
-
-
Replying to @lilychumley @zeynep
Both assumptions are inaccurate. Xi apparently ordered containment two weeks before the public announcement. According to Dr. Li Wenliang, the key problem was not lack of information at the top but lack of publicity
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @lilychumley
There was leaked a speech way after-the fact that claimed that, but what alternative does he have? Could he admit? Also the leak of that speech was highly unusual. Plus, the stark difference in behavior before and after Jan 20. Dr. Wenliang's testimony supports my assertion imo.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I don't agree, the leaked speech is indeed an ineffectual scramble to contain public anger, but that doesn't mean it's doctored. In most cases of containment that have provoked the most public anger there is another evidence of knowledge at the top
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lilychumley @zeynep
The problem is not that they don't know, but that they are more interested in protecting themselves than protecting people But sadly that is a widespread feature of bureaucratic power regardless of political systems
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @lilychumley
I find that unpersuasive *at the top* given the SARS experience. Look at how draconian the measures were after January 20th! Anyone (Xi) who understood the stakes enough to shut down tens of millions in one day just sat on the information when it was much much easier to contain?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
Well they also shut down information on melamine in milk for months in 2008, to avoid ruining the Olympics. The capacity to tolerate some people's deaths is the fundamental cruelty (but keep Flint in mind before you argue that is a unique feature of the CCP)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @lilychumley
Agree. I’m not at all arguing this is unique to them but an epidemic is a good test because it cannot be contained—the other examples are local. Given 2003 SARS, Xi should know. And their actions *after* January 20 certainly fit what they would do once they knew at the top.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
You can't assume "what they would do once they knew" because 1) there's a long history of knowledge+inaction, and 2) shutting down a city of 12 million people is a huge project and not to be trivialized (What would it take to get Cuomo to shut down NYC?)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lilychumley @zeynep
So lack of central Politburo action is not evidence of ignorance
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Given the stakes, and the inevitable fact that they would get to this point, I think it is. It’s one thing to not act when you can just sweep something under the rug—and get away with it. This wasn’t that. I think the case as I lay out still stands.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @lilychumley
I think Zeynep's idea that Xi would have acted v. quickly if he knew makes sense for additional reasons. It's not only public health involved. People at v. top of govts are sensitive to patterns that might be called reputational–any beliefs that might have deleterious effects. +
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
As we see, the fact of a pending epidemic, and the current quarantines, have already affected cargo shipping, scientific and commercial conferences, air transportation (and probably finance and currency markets, altho I haven’t checked these.) Reputational damage plus fear +
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.