Author: Ming Shuyuan official account: Ming Shuzatan WeChat ID: laomingdashu
Yesterday, a self media article entitled “Ten Questions” was uploaded and broadcasted on the Internet.
The core of this article is to put forward various questions about the current epidemic prevention policy of “dynamic zeroing” implemented in China.
I have carefully looked at the “ten questions”, and most of them are common sense questions. Many of these questions have been answered repeatedly by relevant government departments, experts and media in the past.
Why does the article “Ten Questions” arouse the psychological and emotional resonance of many people?
——This reflects that quite a few people in the current Chinese society do not understand the scientific basis and decision-making logic behind China’s implementation of the “dynamic zero clearing” epidemic prevention policy. Because they do not understand it, they do not support it, and even have a strong rebellious mentality;
——This reflects that, because the epidemic has had a certain impact on all walks of life, and because the epidemic has had a certain impact on everyone’s life and work, many people are tired of the epidemic and eager to open up as soon as possible;
——This reflects that in other countries and regions, due to their special national and social conditions, they have had to open up, which has greatly stimulated some domestic people. They did not see the huge price paid by these countries and regions after opening up, but only saw the “normality” on the surface of these countries and regions, so they had a lot of confusion – “Why can’t China open up when others can?”
We should also see that before the Ten Questions came out, various “conspiracy theories” about China’s epidemic prevention policy had been spread on the Internet for some time. The main views include: “China’s epidemic prevention policy was kidnapped by nucleic acid testing companies”, “China implements strict epidemic prevention policy to control the people”, “China’s epidemic prevention is to prove the superiority of the socialist system”, etc. These specious “conspiracy theories” were secretly spread in all corners of the network, which also laid a certain social psychological foundation for the “popularity” of Ten Questions.
The quality of this article itself is not high, and it has the problem of catering to and provoking the public’s emotions, which has finally been restricted from spreading. However, this result just makes some people fall into the traditional mode of thinking again and make “malicious assumptions” about the government. They feel that the relevant departments are evading problems, “not solving problems, but only solving the people who raise problems”.
I believe that the relevant departments will elaborate on these issues again.
However, we should also be clear that “you can never wake those who pretend to sleep”.
I can see that some people oppose the “dynamic reset” policy, instead of discussing problems with facts and logic, it has become a dispute of positions and emotions, which is worth our reflection and vigilance.
Over the past period, I have written many articles on China’s epidemic prevention policy. My basic conclusions are as follows:
——There is a very clear scientific basis for China to implement the “dynamic zero clearing” policy at this stage. Its decision-making logic is to protect the life safety of vulnerable people in China to the maximum extent;
——The biggest challenge facing China’s epidemic prevention policy at this stage is that in some places, excessive epidemic prevention has had a very big side effect, leading to intensified social conflicts and serious emotional opposition. The introduction of Article 20 is to solve this problem and make China’s epidemic prevention more scientific, accurate, effective and sustainable.
The article “Ten Questions” boils down to one point: why does China still implement the policy of “dynamic zeroing” under the current circumstances?
Next, I will try to answer again using the scientific basis and facts I have mastered.
First question: On the role of the National Health Commission.
At present, the introduction and implementation of China’s epidemic prevention policy mainly rely on the “Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council”, which is a cross ministerial institutional arrangement, among which the National Health Commission is one of the most critical departments. In addition to statistics of epidemic data, the Health Commission has been organizing and strengthening research and judgment on viruses and epidemics, and constantly improving epidemic prevention measures and treatment plans, which have been reflected in the ninth version of the prevention, control and treatment plan.
To discuss the lethal rate of Omikjon, two issues need to be clarified:
——Because there are a large number of asymptomatic infected people, and many countries and regions do not carry out full nucleic acid testing, the number of infected people has been seriously distorted. It is not meaningful to talk about the mortality rate alone at this time, but the absolute number of deaths should be paid more attention to;
——Many people regard the fact that China has not lost many people due to COVID-19 in the past few years as evidence that the virus has been “harmless”, which is obviously wrong. There are not many deaths in China due to COVID-19. The reason is that the virus has weakened. More importantly, China has implemented a strict policy of “dynamic zeroing”, which has protected a large number of vulnerable people. At the same time, the severely infected people have basically received very comprehensive care and treatment in designated hospitals. In the case of sufficient medical resources and no large area of infection among vulnerable people, there is a big deviation to see the mortality rate of Omikjon.
With regard to the mortality data of Omikjon, there are two cases for reference:
First, Hong Kong has a total population of more than 7 million. Since the fifth wave of the epidemic (mainly caused by Omikjon), more than 10,000 people have died. In the first half of this year, data from Hong Kong showed that for the elderly over 80 years old, if they were not vaccinated, the mortality rate would exceed 16% once infected. Even if they were vaccinated with two or three doses of vaccine, the mortality rate would still exceed 3%.
According to Shanghai statistics in 2020, there are 820000 people over 80 years old. If we do not implement “dynamic reset”, we can calculate how much it will cost the elderly.
Second, since April of this year (the prevalence period of Omicron) in the United States, the average number of deaths due to COVID-19 in seven days has basically remained around 400. It is conservatively estimated that so far this year, the number of deaths in the United States due to Omicron is about 120000. In the past ten years, the average number of deaths due to influenza in the United States has not exceeded 60000 in the worst years.
The example of the United States once again shows that although the personal harm of Omicron to healthy people has decreased significantly, because of its strong infectivity, which is much higher than the flu, it will cause a large number of vulnerable people to be infected and die in a short time, and its social harm is far more than the flu.
With regard to the “layer upon layer” and “one size fits all” problems that have arisen in some places, this has become a “street rat, everyone shouts”. The Central Committee also repeated repeated orders to require all regions to carry out precise epidemic prevention. The introduction of Article 20 is intended to correct this problem. Some local governments, in order to exempt themselves from responsibility and seek safety, have been engaged in long-term closure and control, which is a manifestation of inaction, blind action and lazy administration. It is not only the responsibility of a department of the National Health Commission to correct “layer upon layer” and “one size fits all”. First of all, the “top leaders” of local governments should strictly follow the requirements of the central government to prevent epidemics scientifically. At the same time, the national level can also send inspection teams from top to bottom to timely punish some “layer upon layer” behaviors that cause great public resentment, playing a role as a benchmark and model.
Second question: Why should we eliminate COVID-19?
Putting forward this question shows the lack of scientific common sense of the authors of Ten Questions.
China’s epidemic prevention has never said that it is necessary to eliminate COVID-19, but to control the epidemic caused by the virus to a certain extent, so as to avoid the situation of uncontrolled epidemic and mass casualties.
Indeed, humans have coexisted with influenza viruses, but there are three prerequisites:
——The death rate of influenza is low (about 0.1%), and its infectivity is much lower than that of Omicron, so the absolute death toll caused by influenza is much lower than that of Omicron;
——For influenza, there is a clear and effective vaccine. Before the peak of influenza in winter, vulnerable people can make an appointment for vaccination;
——There are specific and effective drugs for influenza, such as oseltamivir phosphate.
In short, the basic reason why human beings can coexist with influenza is that they already have scientific means to fight against influenza.
But obviously, at this stage, mankind is far from mastering the scientific means to fight against Omikjon, which is the fundamental reason why we cannot talk about coexistence with COVID-19 at present.
However, in the future, with the advent of the second generation vaccine with weaker pathogenicity and better protective effect after COVID-19 mutation and the emergence of COVID-19 specific drugs, human beings will surely coexist with COVID-19.
Only then will mankind coexist with COVID-19 without paying a heavy price.
In the absence of conditions, it is against science and irresponsible to call for coexistence with COVID-19.
Third question: Why are you still infected after three shots of vaccine?
This is more common sense. If the author pays a little attention to the scientific research data on vaccines, there will be no such doubt.
At present, all the COVID-19 vaccines in the world, whether the mRNA vaccine promoted by the West or the inactivated vaccine in China, are based on the original COVID-19. In the case of constant variation of COVID-19, the first generation vaccine is basically ineffective in preventing infection, but very effective in preventing severe disease and death.
A friend told me that at present China is speeding up the research and development of the second generation vaccine. For example, if based on Omicron BA. 4 and BA The bivalent vaccine of virus strain 5 will complete the phase III clinical test in the next few months. People who have been vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine may get a good immune effect as long as they are vaccinated with a booster shot.
I personally believe that the advent of the second generation vaccine will greatly accelerate the process of ending the epidemic.
Fourth question: the question of the death rate of Omikjon
I have already answered this question in the first question.
Again, Omikron does little harm to healthy people, but does great harm to vulnerable people. Hong Kong data shows that the mortality rate of the elderly aged 80 and over who have not been vaccinated, once infected, exceeds 16%.
Since the infectivity of Omicron is much higher than that of influenza (R0 of the latest virus strain is about 20), if it is “laid flat”, it will cause a large number of vulnerable people to be infected in a short time, which will inevitably cause a large number of vulnerable people to die.
In the past three years, the United States has experienced one round of epidemic peaks and more than one million people have died. Theoretically, the vulnerable groups in the American society have been sacrificed in this cruel social Darwinism screening, but until now, the average daily death toll in the United States is still about 400-500.
No matter what theory you use, China’s medical resources are far less than those of the United States, and the number of vulnerable people in China is far more than that of the United States. Even if other factors are not taken into account, China will die at least 1600-2000 people every day, and this process is likely to last for a year or two, or even two or three years.
Why do you think that China will choose to “lie flat” without paying any price?
Question 5: Will China’s epidemic prevention measures continue?
This is a concern of many people.
Will China’s epidemic prevention measures continue indefinitely? In what year and in what month?
It can be clearly said that China’s epidemic prevention measures will be adjusted, optimized and liberalized in the future. Any epidemic will come to an end, and the COVID-19 epidemic will certainly be no exception.
Personally, I think that on the whole, the COVID-19 epidemic is in its final stage, and it is not too far away from the final end.
There are three factors to end the epidemic:
First, the virus continues to weaken;
Second, the second generation vaccine has been launched, which has greatly improved the success rate in preventing infection;
Third, effective drugs are on the market.
At present, the virus is indeed weakening, and the second generation vaccine should not be too far from the market, but the challenge of specific drugs is greater.
But the good news is that if the virus continues to weaken, we may not need specific drugs at all in the end.
The existing therapeutic drugs are basically enough for the treatment of severe cases. Mild symptoms can be relieved basically with traditional Chinese medicine and common anti cold drugs, and most people can heal themselves.
Q: How are the three recent deaths in Beijing infected? Does the presence of influenza lead to positive nucleic acid test?
I didn’t go to the source of infection and transmission chain of these three deaths.
Beijing has previously published the infection chain of almost every case that can be identified. The elderly are most likely to be infected by their families, or by community transmission.
Viruses cannot appear out of thin air.
The author asked whether the presence of influenza would lead to a positive nucleic acid test, which again shows the lack of basic scientific knowledge of the author.
Influenza virus and COVID-19 are two completely different types of viruses. Humans have clearly identified them, and it is impossible for influenza patients to be mistakenly detected with COVID-19.
Question 7: What is the scientific basis of China’s epidemic prevention policy?
The scientific basis of China’s epidemic prevention policy has always been based on the understanding of the virus itself and the research on the development of epidemic situations at home and abroad.
Both Zhong Nanshan, Zhang Wenhong and Zhang Boli have actively participated in the prevention and control of the epidemic in China, and they all support the “dynamic zero” policy.
Epidemic prevention is a scientific issue, which is neither necessary nor “politicized” in China.
The view that China implements the “dynamic zeroing” policy on the basis of what “conspiracy theory” is completely ignorant.
Again, COVID-19 itself does little harm to healthy people, but because of its strong transmission, it will cause a large number of vulnerable people to be infected in a short time, so it is very harmful to society.
Omikjon is definitely not a “big flu”. The death toll in Hong Kong and the United States has already explained this problem.
Question 8: Why can Hong Kong be liberalized? Is there a medical run in Hong Kong?
Hong Kong has never conducted full nucleic acid testing, nor has it implemented a strict centralized isolation policy.
In essence, Hong Kong’s epidemic prevention policy is a measure that must be taken because of the special social conditions in Hong Kong, and its cost is very obvious.
In particular, the constant epidemic in Hong Kong has brought great pressure to the epidemic prevention in neighboring Shenzhen and other Guangdong regions, which is also a cost.
Hong Kong is a special economic zone, and its social situation will be closer to the Western capitalist model. Hong Kong has no ability to implement “dynamic reset”, and Hong Kong people do not support “dynamic reset”. The final result is that Hong Kong had to open up, but after opening up, more than 10000 people died in the fifth round of the epidemic alone.
The population of Shanghai is more than three times that of Hong Kong. Those Shanghainese who want to refer to the liberalization of Hong Kong can ask themselves, if it is completely liberalized, 30000 or 40000 people will die in Shanghai within a few months. Can you accept it? Which old people should die? Should we pay the price of life for letting go?
Earlier this year, at the peak of the epidemic in Hong Kong, there was an obvious run on medical resources. A mother holding a child with a high fever went around for medical treatment, but was unable to get timely treatment. The situation of a large number of infected people sleeping in hospital corridors, corridors and even parking lots is also vivid.
Don’t just see the normality of Hong Kong after its opening up, and don’t look at the price Hong Kong has paid.
For all those who want China to open up immediately, think about it. Your elderly are the most vulnerable. If your children have a high fever, but can’t buy medicine or see a doctor, can you accept it?
Question 9: Most countries have opened up. Are they all fools?
Indeed, the vast majority of countries in the world have liberalized, which is determined by their political systems, social conditions and epidemic prevention capabilities. However, all countries that have liberalized have paid a heavy price.
If China is willing to pay for the death of 1 million and 2 million people, it can also open up, but can socialist China do so?
If we also engage in the capitalist style, let the old, the weak, the sick and the disabled die, and let the young people drink and sing, is it humane?
Question 10: How about epidemic prevention in India and Nigeria?
Simple answer, not very good.
In India, at the peak of the epidemic, a large number of people died, and they had to burn everywhere in parks and on the roadside. How long has it been? Have you forgotten?
India has killed 530000 people so far. Considering the extremely poor medical conditions in India, and the extremely corrupt and inactive grassroots government, this data is not worth consulting at all. With India’s population and medical conditions, the death rate will only be higher than that of the United States, but not less.
Still, if we don’t care and sacrifice millions of old, weak, sick and disabled people, we can also let go at any time, but this release is cold-blooded and cruel. Is it the result we want?
In a word, Ten Questions is not a reasonable discussion article, but full of factual fallacies. It is widely spread, mainly because it caters to a part of the sentiment against the “dynamic reset” policy, rather than how much insight it has.
The epidemic is about to enter its fourth year. Everyone is really tired, but now is definitely not the time to give up, because the dawn is just around the corner.
At last, I would like to make some conclusions, just for reference:
1) Make sure that your elderly are vaccinated. Most elderly people should be vaccinated and can also be vaccinated. If your elderly have various basic diseases, you should not expect the doctor to tell you whether you can fight or not, but you should choose whether to fight or not. From the current situation, for the vast majority of the elderly, even if there are basic diseases, the immune protection that can be obtained after vaccination is much more beneficial than the possible side effects. There is no perfect choice in this world. As a rational person, the lesser of the two evils is the right.
2) Omicron is definitely not a “big flu”. The number of deaths it has caused in the United States is at least three or four times the annual number of deaths caused by the most serious flu.
3) Other countries have opened up, not because they have sufficient scientific basis for opening up, but because they have no choice but to do so according to their social conditions. It is not worth learning that any country that is open to the outside world is at the expense of a large number of old, weak, sick and disabled people. So far, neither the World Health Organization nor the global mainstream epidemic prevention experts have said that “the epidemic has ended” or that “epidemic prevention is unnecessary”. On the contrary, President Biden of the United States still does nucleic acid almost every day, especially for the people around him. Doesn’t that explain the problem?
4) The epidemic situation will definitely end, and the current epidemic prevention policy will also have the possibility of optimization, adjustment and relaxation. As long as scientific evidence shows that the virus is weakening further, the epidemic prevention policy cannot remain unchanged. My personal expectation is that the second generation vaccine will come into the market as soon as possible, which will greatly accelerate the process of ending the epidemic.
5) Don’t attribute all the problems you encounter to the epidemic prevention policy. The world politics and economy have entered a very turbulent period. Geopolitical confrontation has become more intense, and the pace of scientific and technological progress has stagnated, which has greatly weakened the development potential of the world economy. In the short term, we should no longer fantasize about the great prosperity that can make everyone happy. With the liberalization of the United States, the value of the technology stock market has dropped by trillions of dollars, and layoffs in “Silicon Valley” have continued. This is the new normal. Every ordinary person’s life will be more difficult than in the past, which is not entirely a problem of epidemic.
6) Adjust your mind and do what you should do. Many people say that the epidemic is a war in peacetime. If you really encounter a war, can you take vacations, go on business trips and work without being affected?
7) If I have to predict when the epidemic will end, I dare to study and judge: once the second generation vaccine is launched, it will be at the turn of spring and summer next year at the earliest. With the mass vaccination of the second generation vaccine, the epidemic will gradually decline and the Chinese society will gradually open up. Again, the epidemic will definitely end, but this process is really painful, but we have already completed the 25000 li Long March and should not give up at the last moment.
Let’s encourage each other.