Following the “New Ten Measures” optimization policy, China’s epidemic prevention and control policy entered a new phase — truly stepping into the post-pandemic era. This year, the call to “celebrate the New Year locally” is unlikely to return. People’s lives are gradually returning to normal. But a pressing question remains: how should schools manage epidemic prevention next semester?
Schools differ fundamentally from other enclosed spaces. Hospitals and wet markets can mandate masks throughout the day. Nursing homes and welfare institutions have relatively low foot traffic. Schools are different. Primary and secondary schools as well as kindergartens face the reality of daily commuting — as long as community transmission exists, it will inevitably enter schools. We cannot expect young children to wear masks around the clock (they still need to eat lunch). For teachers, teaching in masks is impractical — especially for older faculty. Universities, meanwhile, are essentially miniature societies. Even under full lockdown, 24-hour physical isolation is impossible. Experience has shown that campus closures cannot contain a virus with an R₀ above 18. Choosing closed-campus management is simply asking for trouble.
So how should campus epidemic management evolve in the near future? Here are a few thoughts.
The most optimistic scenario: The WHO declares an end to the COVID-19 pandemic, China no longer manages it as a Class A infectious disease, mask mandates are lifted, and we return to the world of 2019.
The most likely scenario: Domestic society continues operating under the optimized policy, and campus epidemic prevention must be placed on the agenda.
First core question: Should campus gates remain open? They absolutely must. Keeping them closed would signal a failure to understand central policy directives. But how to open them — and whether to keep them open at all times — reflects the competence and awareness of school administrators. During periods of high community transmission, most parents of primary and kindergarten students are reluctant to send their children to school, since campuses are high-risk transmission zones. A single positive case can quickly cascade, affecting entire family networks. Consequently, management pressure on primary schools and kindergartens is actually quite low during outbreaks. Many readers may find this counterintuitive, but the epidemic pressure from young children primarily falls on parents. Historically, during autumn and winter flu seasons, one sick child can take down an entire class. It is not uncommon for a third of a class to be absent for extended periods. Given that the current variant has very low pathogenicity and minimal impact on children, primary schools and kindergartens will not face secondary disasters as long as students are not locked inside.
Second core question: How to manage a campus outbreak once it occurs? For non-boarding schools, the answer is simple: send positive cases and close contacts home, while the rest continue normal teaching activities. Within a few days, they recover and return to normal — no different from flu-season sick leave. For boarding schools, especially universities, an observation and quarantine mechanism must be established. A dedicated “red zone” should be designated for symptomatic positive individuals. Note: this is both necessary and sufficient. Asymptomatic positive individuals and symptomatic non-positive individuals do not need to enter the quarantine zone — this accounts for differences in viral transmissibility. Personal experience suggests that asymptomatic individuals shed less virus than symptomatic ones. The purpose of isolation is not to seal off all positive cases and viruses, but rather to prevent large-scale transmission, to protect students who might otherwise hide their symptoms and suffer complications, and to provide better conditions for treatment and recovery. Quarantine duration need not be standardized — release upon resolution of symptoms is sufficient. Conversion to negative status typically occurs before symptoms disappear anyway.
Third core question: Should regular PCR or rapid antigen testing continue? This one is straightforward. Campuses may offer antigen testing and provide PCR testing on a voluntary basis, but mass mandatory testing should be discontinued. The purpose of detecting positive cases is to enable targeted treatment for special populations who may develop severe illness — not to serve as a basis for interrupting transmission chains. This represents proactive defense, not the reactive control of the past.
Fourth core question: Should a negative PCR test remain a prerequisite for entering and leaving campus? For the vast majority of schools, I believe it should not. However, it can serve as a required condition for initial enrollment at the start of the semester. Schools differ from other venues: positive teachers should not teach classes, and positive students should voluntarily isolate in their dormitories and avoid public spaces.
Fifth core question: What about daily prevention and control measures? This is actually quite simple: maintain social distance, avoid prolonged face-to-face conversations, wear masks properly in public settings, and disinfect yourself and your environment promptly. These measures, when followed consistently, can greatly reduce the risk of infection. If one student in a dormitory tests positive, all roommates should isolate in the dorm. Once a positive student tests negative, they may resume normal activities. When all students in the dorm test negative, including those who never tested positive, everyone can return to normal. Total isolation should not exceed five days.
These judgments are based on analysis of global research data from the past three years.
First, reinfection with COVID-19 does occur globally, but not in the short term. The average interval between a first and second positive result is approximately 151 days. Students who recover and test negative can immediately resume their normal lives — they will neither transmit the virus nor be at risk of reinfection.
Second, global data shows that three or more reinfections are relatively rare, which is the basis for the WHO’s optimistic projections. In Western countries, the vast majority of the population has been infected at least once. Viral mutation takes time, reinfection takes time, and populations will eventually acquire immunity. This makes the upcoming winter break critically important. If herd immunity is achieved within the next three months, prevention pressure after the next semester begins will be significantly reduced. Even if a small number of positive cases emerge, widespread transmission will be unlikely.
Most importantly, the current variant has low pathogenicity and poses no lethal threat to healthy young and middle-aged adults. Data from Hong Kong and Japan show that Omicron infections among those under 40 have essentially zero fatalities. The vast majority of deaths occur among people over 80 who are unvaccinated. Vaccination, therefore, remains a critical tool in mitigating the pandemic.
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has distinct advantages in the face of unknown diseases. During this wave of the pandemic, many students successfully shortened their illness to under three days and achieved negative test results within two days through TCM treatment. COVID-19 is preventable, controllable, treatable — and not to be feared. Compared to three days of discomfort from testing positive, the three years of lost youth represent an irretrievable dream for an entire generation of students.
中文原文 / Chinese Original
在新十条优化政策后，国内的疫情防控政策迎来了新局面，真正走向了后疫情时代，今年想必是不会号召就地过年了，百姓的生活逐步回归正轨，摆在当前的一个突出问题是下学期学校究竟如何防疫？
学校与其他密闭场所有极大的区别，医院、菜市场可以全程佩戴口罩，养老院、福利院人员流动相对较少，学校则不同。中小学、幼儿园面临着走读的压力，只要社会面存在疫情，一定会带入学校，我们不可能要求幼儿小朋友全天候佩戴口罩，中午还得吃饭呢，对于教师而言，不太可能戴着口罩上课，特别是对老教师很不友好。大学是一个小型社会，就算全部封闭，也不可能24小时物理隔离，事实证明封校封不住R0>18的病毒，选择封闭式管理无疑是自讨苦吃。
在不久的将来，校园疫情管理究竟该如何，老夫有几点看法。
最乐观的情况是，世界卫生组织宣布COVID-2019大流行结束，国内不再参照甲类传染病管理，不再强制口罩，回归2019的正常世界。
最可能的情况是，国内社会依旧按照优化政策运行，校园疫情防控就必须要提上日程了。第一个核心问题是校门要不要开，必然要开，不开是对中央精神领会不到位，但是怎么开，是不是一直开就关系到管理者的能力和意识问题。在疫情高位运行期间，中小学和幼儿园家长一般是不愿意把孩子送到学校去的，因为学校属于高风险传播区域，有一个阳性就意味着一片阳性，继而影响到家庭网络，所以中小学幼儿园的管理压力极小。很多读者不理解为什么压力会小，因为小朋友的疫情压力主要施加给家长，纵观历年秋冬季节，一人流感，全班遭殃，流感季的小学班级很少有满员的情况，缺席三分之二的时间甚至都不短，考虑到当前变异毒株致病力极低，且对儿童影响极小，所以中小学幼儿园只要不把学生关里面，就不会出现次生灾害。
第二个核心问题是发生了校园疫情究竟如何管理，对于非寄宿类学校很简单，把阳性和密接人员放回家即可，其余人员正常进行教学活动，过几日自愈便可恢复常态，跟流感季的病假没有任何区别。对于寄宿类学校，特别是高等学校，必须要建立留观机制，要单独划出红区，供有症状的阳性人员隔离使用。注意，这里是充分必要条件，无症状的阳性人员和有症状的非阳性人员不需要入住留观区，这是充分考虑病毒传播力的问题。个人的经验认为，无症状人员排毒的毒性要低于有症状人员，隔离的目的不是为了隔绝阳性、隔绝病毒，而是为了防止极大面积的传播、防止部分同学讳疾忌医变生他故以及提供更好的治疗恢复条件，隔离的时间无需统一规定，症状消失即可解除，阳转阴一般都在症状消失之前出现。
第三个核心问题是究竟要不要定期开展核酸检测或者抗原检测。这个问题非常的简单，校园内可以开展抗原检测，可以提供愿检尽检的核酸检测条件，但不应该再开展全员检测。检出阳性的目的是为可能发展成重症的特殊人群开展针对性治疗，而不是提供阻断疫情传播的依据。这属于主动防御，而不是之前的被动防控。
第四个核心问题是核酸阴性是否仍然成为进出校门的依据，对于绝大多数学校，我认为都不应该把核酸阴性作为进出校门的依据，但可以作为开学入学的必要条件。学校与其他场所不同，阳性教师不应该去给学生上课，阳性的学生应当自觉在宿舍隔离，避免暴露前往公共场所。
第五个核心问题是日常防控管理措施，其实这个非常简单，保持社交距离，避免长时间面对面谈话，公共场合正确佩戴口罩，及时进行自身与环境消毒。这几项措施做好，能够极大避免感染。一个宿舍出现了一个阳性，同宿舍同学都应当在宿舍隔离，每当出现阳性转阴后即可恢复正常活动，全阴后整个宿舍包括未阳的同学均可恢复正常活动，全体隔离时间不应该超过5天。
做出以上判断均根据近三年全世界研究数据分析得到。
首先，在全球范围内，反复感染新冠病毒是存在的，但是不会在短期内反复感染，第一次阳性后发生第二次阳性的平均时间在151天左右，所以阳性的同学转阴后完全可以立刻恢复自由，不会具有传播力，也不会被传播。
其次，全球数据显示，反复感染3次以上的人群较为罕见，这也是世界卫生组织做出乐观预测的依据。在西方国家，绝大多数人群已经感染一次以上，病毒发生变异需要时间，反复感染需要时间，人群最终会获得免疫力。所以这个寒假至关重要，如果本轮疫情在近三个月内发生群体免疫，下学期开学后的防控压力会小很多，就算出现了少量阳性，他也很难造成大范围的传播。
最重要的一点，当前毒株的致病力较弱，对健康中青年人群不会造成致命伤害，香港与日本数据显示，40岁以下Omicron病毒感染者基本没有死亡病例发生，绝大多数死亡病例发生在80岁以上未接种疫苗人群，所以疫苗接种是化解疫情的重要方法。
中医药在未知疾病面前具有特色优势，本轮疫情中，诸多同学依靠中医中药成功将病程缩短在3天以内，核酸转阴缩短至2天以内。新冠病毒疫情可防可控可治不可怕，与阳了3天难受3天相比，失去的3年青春永远都是一代学生最遥不可及的梦。
发表回复