Author: Ming Shuyuan official account: Ming Shuzatan WeChat ID: laomingdashu
1) The epidemic has lasted for three years, and now it can be said that it has reached the most difficult time. All kinds of statements about “Omikjon is not terrible” are rampant. The fact that most parts of the world have been liberalized, coupled with the rising social and economic costs of epidemic prevention, is causing a serious impact on the consensus of Chinese society on epidemic prevention. To put it simply, “people have different ideas on epidemic prevention”, and even “confusion of understanding”. Against this background, more and more people do not understand, support or even cooperate with the current epidemic prevention policy, and the risk of social confrontation, mass incidents and extreme malignant events that may be triggered by epidemic prevention is rising. To get out of the current “predicament”, it is urgent to rebuild the consensus on epidemic prevention in China.
2) After all, the epidemic is a public health event. To rebuild China’s consensus on epidemic prevention, we should return to science and answer the two key questions, “Why should China adhere to the epidemic prevention at this stage” and “What important harm will China bring if it does not fight against the epidemic at this stage”. The answers to these two questions are based on the latest research results of scientists around the world on COVID-19, as well as the experience and lessons of epidemic prevention around the world. It is hoped that virologists will speak more, public health experts will speak more, and clinical medical experts involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients will speak more. The media’s comments have a certain effect, but at this stage, they are often interpreted as an official attitude and policy orientation, which cannot replace the rigorous demonstration of experts based on science and data.
3) During this period, many people have told me that they hope that Chinese experts can speak out comprehensively and systematically to help Chinese people understand where Omikjon really harms China and other countries in the world? What is the fatality rate? Is there a serious run on medical resources after “lying flat”?
4) To rebuild the consensus on epidemic prevention in China, it is necessary to let the people know clearly what are the successful experiences and lessons of epidemic prevention in other countries? Now, we have a perceptual understanding of the harm of “lying flat” in the United States, Britain and other western countries. The COVID-19 has killed 1.09 million people in the United States, and nearly 300000 people have died this year alone. But what is the situation in Singapore? What are the experiences and lessons learned from the current epidemic situation in Hong Kong? It is expected that the answers to this series of questions can better help people understand why China has adopted such epidemic prevention policies.
5) At present, one of the most basic judgments about Omicron is that its pathogenicity has decreased, but its infectivity has greatly increased. The latest branch BF under BA. 5 The R0 value of 7 has exceeded 20. Therefore, some people believe that China’s epidemic prevention is mainly to protect the elderly, children, pregnant women, people with basic diseases and low immunity. Is this statement accurate? If it is just to protect vulnerable people, can we make great efforts to solve the problem of vaccination rate of vulnerable people, or even consider directly isolating and protecting vulnerable people, and then let other parts of Chinese society gradually open up and return to normal?
6) As for Omikjon himself, there are different opinions among the people now. Some people say that Omikjon is a “big flu”. Even if he gets sick, the vast majority of healthy people just drink hot water. At most, they can take some antipyretic drugs and cold medicines for symptomatic treatment, and he will fully recover in a week or two. However, there is also a saying that although he does not attack people’s lungs, he attacks people’s immune system, just like a “small HIV”. Others said that Omicron would make people repeatedly infected, often with mild symptoms for the first time, and then become more and more serious, which may even lead to death or obvious sequelae. In the current situation, it is particularly necessary for relevant experts to come forward and use science, data and facts to clarify what kind of virus Omicron is and what harm it will bring.
7) The Chinese people generally have a strong sense of trust in Academician Zhong Nanshan. These days, Academician Zhong Nanshan has a Cantonese video at least a few months ago. It is not terrible to talk about Omicron. The video has been cut off and widely spread on the Internet, which once again strengthens some people’s ideas about “Omicron is not terrible” and “we should not spend so much effort on epidemic prevention”. Academician Zhong Nanshan is very old and has been rushing to the front line of epidemic prevention. But at this moment, China especially needs such experts with high authority and high trust among the people to speak out. Their detailed, systematic and comprehensive elaboration is crucial for rebuilding the consensus on epidemic prevention in China. In addition, although Dr. Zhang Wenhong is controversial, many people still trust him. Academician Zhang Boli of traditional Chinese medicine is also highly respected. Let the expert system trusted by the public be comprehensive. Speak clearly, and you will get a particularly good effect. The Chinese people also need to pay attention that no expert is omniscient. Their knowledge of viruses and advice on epidemic prevention policies are based on local scientific knowledge at that time. The virus has changed, and the human understanding of the virus has been updated and improved. The relevant opinions and suggestions of experts should also keep pace with the times. No one should take out of context and criticize an expert’s view a year or two ago. More attention should be paid to their latest views and the scientific evidence behind them. In particular, the Chinese society should not allow those anti intellectual and populist statements that wantonly attack experts to become popular. This will only disrupt the consensus of the Chinese society on epidemic prevention, and will also make experts more afraid to speak out.
8) Some people also suggested that the current epidemic situation continues to develop. Do we have to plan for the worst? If the core of epidemic prevention is to ensure that there is no run on the medical system, so that the critical patients and other critical patients with COVID-19 can be treated in time, should we vigorously promote the hierarchical diagnosis and treatment system now? In other words, we have not seen any progress in this regard. What are the difficulties and difficulties? What is the next step for all regions to speed up the construction and reserve of medical resources? All this information can ease the anxiety of the people.
9) Recently, the chaos of nucleic acid testing has occurred frequently in many places across the country, and the public’s resentment towards nucleic acid testing companies and distrust of nucleic acid testing are rising. Some extreme views even believe that “when the Dragon King sells umbrellas, the rain will never stop”, implying that nucleic acid testing companies may be a factor in the protracted epidemic situation in various regions. For such views, we should not only stay at the level of speculation, but also return to the facts. Next, the relevant parties need to sort out the possible problems and risks in the nucleic acid testing process as soon as possible, and disclose them to the whole society in a timely manner. If there are illegal, illegal, even corruption, benefit transfer and other problems in nucleic acid testing, it is also necessary to crack down with thunderous means. To rebuild China’s consensus on epidemic prevention, we must first rebuild the Chinese people’s trust in nucleic acid testing.
10) The fundamental goal of epidemic prevention in China has always been to minimize the social and economic costs of epidemic prevention while ensuring the health and life safety of the people. Next, can we take clear disciplinary measures in accordance with the law to create a deterrent effect for “layer upon layer” and “one size fits all”? Many people suggested that if the epidemic prevention was not effective at the beginning of the epidemic, the officials would step down. At this moment, excessive epidemic prevention has caused public resentment and even led to serious social confrontation. Should the relevant responsible persons also be punished? In addition, can there be more direct subsidies and assistance for flexible employees, self-employed people, small and medium-sized business owners, migrant workers, unemployed people, vulnerable groups, etc. who are directly affected by the epidemic? A lot of readers told me that frequent closures led to their lack of income, while the pressure on housing and car loans was high, which was the root cause of their anxiety and irritability. How many people need to be rescued? At this stage, can local governments provide precise rescue resources? If not, what are the difficulties? Is there any other way to help these people?
Many people are also particularly concerned about the progress of the second generation vaccine research and development? How about the effect? When can it be approved for epidemic prevention? How about the development of therapeutic drugs for COVID-19?
P. S. In the past three years, from the experience and lessons of epidemic prevention around the world, there is a remarkable conclusion that the success or failure of a country’s epidemic prevention policy depends not only on the scientific nature of the epidemic prevention policy itself, but also on the implementation of the epidemic prevention policy. It depends more on whether the whole society has reached a consensus on epidemic prevention and whether it trusts and supports the epidemic prevention policy. No matter how good the policy is, if the people do not understand and support it, it will not succeed in the end.
At this moment, there are too many questions about epidemic prevention within Chinese society, which need systematic, comprehensive and in-depth answers from relevant experts. This kind of answer can not only rely on the traditional media to do one or two interviews and send one or two comments. It needs to use more ways that are more acceptable to the public, such as official account and short videos. It needs to be promoted throughout the network, leaving no gaps, and reaching everyone as far as possible. This kind of answer is not a one-time one. The relevant parties need to dynamically track all kinds of statements, disputes, doubts and problems about China’s epidemic prevention on the Internet, constantly improve the social communication plan for epidemic prevention, and promptly solve doubts, add trust and solve doubts.
I always believe that the starting point of China’s epidemic prevention is to serve the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. The introduction and implementation of China’s epidemic prevention policies have been rigorously and scientifically demonstrated. Now we need to make clear to the overwhelming majority of the people all aspects of China’s epidemic prevention and the scientific basis for decision-making. Chinese epidemic prevention, like other major tasks, is all for the people and all needs to rely on the people. Only when the broadest and strongest consensus on epidemic prevention is reached among the overwhelming majority of the people can China’s epidemic prevention win the final victory.
It is only for reference.