>which doesn't really care about the economy

I think investors don't buy this because long term population health and state capacity are significantly more important 10, 20, 30 years down the line than short term disruptions, and that is why investors are bullish on China.

Shutting a port down for one month is bad, having a hundred million people struggle with long covid is a lot worse. The bull case is pretty simple. The country has governance that is effective enough to tackle problems that most other places have given up on, even if it isn't particularly pretty in the short run.

Are you implying that approximately one out of ten people who get covid will suffer debilitation from long Covid?

study results seem to suggest about one in five to one in four people experiences long covid and further:

Shruti Mehta, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Looking at people who report they are not able to function in life, we’ve seen about 3 to 5 percent, which is still a large number.[..]My bottom line is, with a potential cost of $2.6 trillion, that’s so big that there’s nothing, no preventive action, that wouldn’t be worth doing to reduce the burden of long-Covid,” Cutler said.”

So I think one in ten being quite seriously affected is about in the right ballpark, if not too conservative.

https://observer.com/2022/05/long-covid-will-have-a-massive-...

Where did you come up with the 100 million number? Shutdowns have been proven to be ineffective - especially the kind they are implementing - which are counterproductive. People running out of food rations.. You don't shut down an entire city of 20 million when you see cases in the tens. Covid is here to stay, you can't be shutting down entire cities over your "zero covid" policy. Their vaccine is ineffective, and they have too much pride to accept western vaccines.