Alipay.

Esperanto is not a particularly easily learnable language to most of the world. It's a very parochial language made by someone whose exposure to language was all European and very strongly focused on specifically East European languages both phonetically and grammatically. English, to take a horrifically terrible language at random, is not much harder to learn for, say, a Chinese speaker than Esperanto would be, but it would be a million times more useful given the rather pathetically small number of Esperanto speakers out there.

If you're going to use a constructed IAL (as opposed to de facto lingua francas like have been historically the case), make one that isn't filled with idiotic things like declension by case, by gender, by number, by tense, by ... Or you're going to have most people in the world ignoring it. Like you already have for Esperanto.

No. Just bluntly no.

I did try using Dvorak. I got pretty good at it. After about four months I could finally type as quickly and effectively on Dvorak as I could on QWERTY.

On. One. Computer.

I sit down at a friend's computer or a family member's? Newp. I use a phone or a tablet? Newp. I use a work computer (where I'm not permitted to install my own software)? Newp.

So that's four months of reduced capacity to type, plus having to keep QWERTY in my muscle memory anyway (with the attendant confusion and error rate that causes!) all for ... not really getting much more speed than I was able to do with QWERTY in the first place.

Show me now a picture of people walking around public spaces reading papers.

I think you should at least open the link and check the video description and comments. Probably it might surprise you.

I'll do so when I have some spare time. (Last night was a non-starter. I got injured working out so my night was spent mostly whining quietly in my corner. :D)

Harvard study made that very clear, and to every single person I have mentioned it as a response to “haha but gubmint evil CCP bad no freedom”, each of them has acted like a denialist. I always tell them as an asterisk that CPC does not get to fund Harvard, so they should use better arguments to convince me.

As a general rule of thumb, when I see people use "CCP" I map in "ignorant asshole". It's kind of … ballsy … to claim expertise in a subject when you can't even get the name right, after all.

One more question here. Since Russia and other socialist countries also have “authoritarian” governments yet clearly have had a response failure, why is China so different? Socialist countries generally have people in solidarity, so I want to make sense of that.

Rice culture.

No, really. It's a thing.

When the main crop of the bulk of your society is rice, and has been for thousands of years, cooperation is in your genes and memes. Rice is not a crop you can farm large-scale individually. Using ancient techniques, for a village to even farm enough rice to feed itself (not to mention an excess for use in trade) it takes a lot of cooperative behaviour that is not needed if you're, say, farming wheat or potatoes or such. Any person not doing their thing kills the whole. Villages that didn't learn that lesson starved to death and stopped the spread of their genes and their cultural memes. Farming rice turns out to be a powerful vaccination against maladaptive selfishness.

Russia (which is not particularly socialist right now, and maybe never really was) doesn't have that need to cooperate hammered into its very genetic and memetic structure. Japan and South Korea (neither of which is even remotely socialist) both do. This is why Russia fared pretty pathetically in facing a threat that was society-wide and J/SK fared relatively well.

(As a side note, whenever someone opens with "I am not X, but..." my brain automatically finishes that with "...I totally am X." You might want to work on that.)

If you "know" more than people with boots on the ground there is simply no hope of convincing you. I've learned since the Great Wuhan Lockdown not to argue with people who are convinced and can't be unconvinced. I just break out the popcorn and enjoy their lamentations.

But the fact is that my direct social sphere numbers in the thousands (courtesy of 16 years of teaching … that's a lot of students, and in China students keep in touch). With my family (spread out over about four cities here—including Wuhan), my friends (mostly just Wuhan), my colleagues (again mostly Wuhan), and my former students I know nobody directly who has had a case of COVID-19. None of their family or other people important to them have had cases. And take that another degree of separation and still, thus far, not a single reported case.

I'm also in a few QQ and WeChat groups that have people spread around the country. These groups have participation measured in six figures or more. Not a case reported. My Weibo interaction is smaller, but that's another 50,000 or so people, from a brief eyeballing, that have no reported cases.

Oh and somewhere along the way I also managed to completely fail to fall over the stacks of bodies that would be required for some of the more hysterical death estimates. (Some fuckwits are saying 21 million dead because mobile phone cancellations.)

Oh, sorry. I lied. I do know a friend who got COVID-19.

In Poland.

Not a single person in China.

So … your dad is a doctor, but he's not a doctor IN CHINA. He has not seen what mitigation efforts were used IN CHINA. He has not seen the behaviour of people IN CHINA. He is, to put this bluntly, not a source of information. He is at best a slightly better than average source of speculation.

But speculation don't mean shit in the face of actual information and experience.

Here's a few clues, however, to help you through your confusion.

… unless they literally locked people away in their homes …

When the Great Lockdown occurred in Wuhan, there were no locks. But yes, people were required to remain in their domiciles for all but a very small number of very specific activities. For two months my world was my apartment with my wife, my son, and my mother-in-law. We were permitted to leave only to drop off refuse, and to pick up food deliveries (in timed small batches of people) from the compound gate. When we had a lockdown, it wasn't that cosplay shit the west called a lockdown. It was a genuine lockdown. For two months. Dead streets. Dead businesses. Dead parks. Dead everything. The only things that moved were ambulances, police vehicles, and the delivery trucks.

(The story of those delivery trucks alone is worth a fucking movie. They were the real heroes of Wuhan, topping even the health workers by a small margin!)

Is it because asymptomatic testing was avoided entirely?

The exact opposite. In the summer of 2021 when we had a Delta outbreak in Wuhan, the entire population of Wuhan (11 million people) were tested. Twice. Inside of two weeks. Again, the Chinese didn't do the cosplay shit the rest of the world did in fighting COVID-19. When a case was found (note: A CASE, singular!), a large district of the city was shut down in a mini-lockdown, contract tracing was turned back on, everybody was tested (twice, as I said), and that was kept up for a few weeks until it was clear the Delta spread had been stopped. Then life returned to normal.

I live here. Which specific lies are you thinking of? Let's see if I can't put any of them to bed for you.

"Banned from Twitter" is usually code for "right-wing extremist" IME. I mean look at Gab or Parler and see what's mostly in there.

Correction: all those labels I quoted had meaning. Meaning in language is determined by usage, not by fiat. (If you don't agree, I'd ask you to point me to the authority you recognize for language meaning…) In usage outside of very specific technical contexts they have all lost meaning because grandstanders and ignoramuses love to reach for the worst word they used when dismissively labelling someone with whom they disagree.

Why reach for "authoritarian right-winger", after all, when "YOU'RE A LITERAL NAZI!" packs a more solid punch (in their minds)? Why reach for "authoritarian left-winger" when you could screech "TANKIE!" at the top of your lungs?

Terms which become epithets follow this inevitable downhill path: term of the art → symbolic term → epithet → "person with whom I mildly or greatly disagree, along with an annotation of my tribal involvement".

You seriously can't fathom the notion of disagreeing respectfully? Of respectful criticism? Really?

As with most political slurs, while originally having some (albeit often overstated) meaning, "tankie" boils down today to "you person with whom I disagree". C.f. "Nazi" or "SJW" or "MAGAt" or any number of other tribal signalling mechanisms.

Generally I find people who resort to such political slurs prone to using them in place of thoughtful discourse, so upon hearing them used—no matter which political ideology is being slurred thusly—I assume the person using them has nothing valid to say and skip to the next post. As such I advocate strongly for people using them as often as they like. It helps me bypass the chaff that much more quickly.