Yes. I am fully aware only an authoritarian government would be willing and able to forcibly lock down entire cities.
BUT
It stopped the spread in its tracks unlike the US and Europe who kept spreading for a year and a half. After a few months, most of China went back to normal. Wuhan itself is maskless with hospitals working under a normal load. The lockdowns worked.
Lockdowns and cat act tracing works, but only if everyone participates. Unfortunately it got political instead of following the science. Many preferred to let their fellow citizens die rather than wear a mask and stay at home when possible.
Authoritarianism is a horrible thing, but it has it uses during a viral pandemic.
Authoritarianism can always solve some problems -- always just for "the duration of the emergency" of course (now running well over 2 years in China). "The science" has absolutely nothing to do with the policy tradeoffs involved in deciding whether or not lockdowns are advisable. You're simply begging the question that reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 should be the only consideration on the table.
Are you suggesting that Chinese cities have been under continuous lockdown for the last two years? Because that's not the case.
Wuhan for example began its lockdown in Feb 2020 and ended it Apr 2020. There was a brief, limited lockdown in July of this year, but that's it.
Folks in China were able to freely mingle, eat out, etc. long before the West did. Reducing transmission is certainly not the only consideration, but the economy and public life are better by actually dealing with a deadly virus quickly than pretending it will just magically go away and dragging out its effects for two years (and counting).
But no one is "pretending it will just magically go away." You're contending with an obvious strawman here. They're simply judging that we do not need ongoing threats of lockdowns to control a virus with an IFR about 1.5x that of influenza, any more than we ever needed them for the flu.
No one except the President of the United States for the better part of a year in front of a large number of microphones, transmitted to millions of screens. Memories are short.
https://youtu.be/TgZAazfHo7k
Approximate US death stats via CDC, influenza vs covid-19:
2018-2019 - Influenza 34,200
2019-2020 - Influenza 25,000
2020-2021 - Influenza 700 - Covid 350,831 (Lockdowns in effect)
But by all means, explain how Covid-19's IFR is just 1.5x that of influenza. Please provide evidence from reputable sources that can reconcile these numbers.
Asset inflation ran quite high throughout QE. The same number of dollars might be obtained by selling half of what one purchased with borrowed money at the start of the program.
QE involved the Fed buying assets, not giving away money. What you're saying would suggest that the Fed made massive profits for the public, which is actually correct. Overall QE, apart from it's other effects, has been hugely profitable for the US government. Not so much here in Britain, unfortunately.
The government bought them from the banks, using money the Treasury created. When the assets are sold the created money is 'retired' and any profit returned to the Treasury.
IMHO QE in the US went too far, but it was absolutely a necessary programme that stabilised the US economy at critical moments. The increased reserve requirements on banks, while dragging on bank profits since, were prudent and seem to be working well, especially compared to Europe.
In fact, a loan on generous terms which causes the broader market to judge your entire industry as explicitly backstopped by the government, and thus lend you money at lower rates of interest than you would otherwise pay, is a gift that keeps on giving.
Are you equating this with the public policy choice to impose lockdowns?