because business is anything but.

[kadioguy]

[From the The Economist website]

The last lockdown? What Shanghai lockdowns mean for China Inc
Apr 2nd 2022

[...] China is currently facing its worst outbreak since the pandemic started in the city of Wuhan in 2020. Thousands of new cases of the highly transmissible Omicron variant are being discovered each day. The large cities of Shenzhen and Shenyang, as well as the entire province of Jilin, have been locked down in recent weeks.

Now it is Shanghai’s turn. The two-phase lockdown of the city, whose 25m inhabitants have been mostly spared harsh containment efforts in the past two years, was announced hours before it began at 5am. The local government had gone to great lengths to avoid shutting down the metropolis, especially its wealthy central districts. In coming weeks it will find it difficult to project an image of business as usual—because business is anything but.

https://www.economist.com/business/what-shanghai-lockdowns-mean-for-china-inc/21808450
---
1. Considering "was announced hours before it began at 5am", why not "whose 25m inhabitants had been mostly spared harsh containment efforts"?

I assume that it's from the reader's view. That is, we read "whose 25m inhabitants have been mostly spared harsh containment efforts in the past two years" first, then "(The two-phase lockdown of the city) was announced hours before it began at 5am", so it makes sense to write that way. If we change the word order, it will make more sense to write this way:

The two-phase lockdown of the city was announced hours before it began at 5am. Its 25m inhabitants had been mostly spared harsh containment efforts in the past two years.

Do you agree?

2. Does the red text mean something like "because business is anything but (a lockdown)"?

 

[emsr2d2]

No. The relevant phrase is "business as usual". At the moment, business is anything but "usual" (ie it's not normal in the current situation).

 

[kadioguy]

No. The relevant phrase is "business as usual". At the moment, business is anything but "usual" (ie it's not normal in the current situation).

Thank you, emsr2d2. If you don't mind, could you please tell me about the first question?

 

[tedmc]

The two-phase lockdown of the city, whose 25m inhabitants have been mostly spared harsh containment efforts in the past two years, was announced hours before it began at 5am.

The present perfect tense is appropriate because the statement was valid until the moment of writing.

 

[kadioguy]

The present perfect tense is appropriate because the statement was valid until the moment of writing.

But that conflicts with "The two-phase lockdown of the city ... was announced hours before it began at 5am".

I mean, the two-phase lockdown of the city was announced, so the past perfect would be appropriate.

 

[tedmc]

Well, the timing doesn't have to be so precise, does it? If the lockdown started today, I would still use the present perfect tense.

 

[5jj]

But that conflicts with "The two-phase lockdown of the city ... was announced hours before it began at 5am".

It doesn't. There are two different times involved. The sparing of the inhabitants did not suddenly stop at the announcemnt of the lockdown.

 

[kadioguy]

There are two different times involved. The sparing of the inhabitants did not suddenly stop at the announcemnt of the lockdown.

Okay, but when the author is writing that article, the lockdown has been in place for hours. So,

The two-phase lockdown of the city, whose 25m inhabitants had been mostly spared harsh containment efforts in the past two years (before the lockdown), was announced hours before it began at 5am.

However,

Well, the timing doesn't have to be so precise, does it? If the lockdown started today, I would still use the present perfect tense.

Thus, the present perfect tense still makes sense in a loose way, I guess.

[Edit: improved content]

 

[Tdol]

The past perfect is OK for me, but it is about a current change of status for the residents of the city.