After yesterday’s article was published on WeChat, I heard that afternoon that grassroots medical institutions would soon stop reporting information on patients with 11 categories of symptoms. Perhaps normal life is not far off. Livelihood issues are the key challenge that urgently needs addressing in the post-pandemic era.
Over the past two years, debates between “zero-COVID enthusiasts” and “let-it-rip advocates” have been ongoing across the internet. As someone caught in the middle, I’ve been following these discussions all along. Previously, it was difficult to discuss such things openly, but recently the conversation has opened up a bit.
People have generally supported the dynamic zero-COVID policy — after all, nobody wants to get sick. Falling ill is a tremendous hassle, and having contact with a positive case is equally troublesome. So naturally, the fewer positive cases the better — ideally none at all. In theory, this is entirely feasible, but in practice it encounters numerous difficulties. This gave rise to the problems of layer upon layer of excessive restrictions and one-size-fits-all approaches. These overzealous measures have actually existed for a long time, so why did widespread friction only erupt recently? The reason is simple: the current variant’s transmissibility is so strong that contact tracing has become nearly impossible, and even “chasing positive cases” has become a formidable challenge. Consequently, the scope of control policies expanded dramatically, affecting many people who had gone three years without being impacted by the pandemic at all. It was inevitable that people began to question how these policies were being implemented.
As part of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei integration, commuters were naturally the first to oppose one-size-fits-all measures. Over the past two years, commuters between the Northern Three Counties and Beijing-Tianjin have essentially all experienced the “privilege” of being unable to go to work or return home for at least a month at a time. Those of us doing scientific research, who frequently need to go out for sampling and field surveys, have been largely at a standstill this year, as regions everywhere advocate minimizing non-essential movement. Many experiments have been unable to proceed on schedule.
Zero-COVID enthusiasts don’t see it this way. They believe everyone should just stay home, maintain a strictly two-point routine, and that everything is “for the elderly and children.” This thinking is far too naïve. Human society is complex; only a small minority can transcend worldly affairs and live entirely on their own terms. I would suggest that this particular group simply stop paying attention to the affairs of ordinary society. This semester, one of my students lost a grandparent, but because of pandemic control policies, they were not allowed to attend the funeral. The student could only stare blankly beyond the campus gates. Frankly, it broke my heart. Recently, young children needed vaccinations, but vaccination clinics remained closed due to control policies, leaving many parents anxious and helpless in group chats. Personally, I’m not particularly enthusiastic about vaccines, so the delay suited me fine — but others don’t see it that way. For years, relevant authorities have preached that vaccinations must be administered on schedule, yet in the pandemic era it became acceptable to “wait a bit.” When did science become so flexible? Could we perhaps extend the same leniency to Traditional Chinese Medicine?
Going forward, what we should be “clearing to zero” are the flawed viewpoints and the corrupt officials who revealed their true colors during the pandemic. We need to let scientific, rational, and effective epidemic control policies return to their proper place, and we must allow the broad community of TCM practitioners to participate in the diagnosis and treatment of epidemic diseases — to genuinely safeguard people’s health, mental well-being, and the security of their livelihoods.
中文原文 / Chinese Original
昨天的公众号发布后，下午就听说基层医疗机构即将不再上报11类症状病人信息，可能距离恢复正常生活不远了，民生问题是后疫情时代亟需解决的关键。
其实这两年防疫爱好者和躺平爱好者在网上的讨论始终在进行，我作为局中人始终在关注，以前不太能讨论，近期可以讨论讨论了。
大家对动态清零始终是支持的，拥护的，毕竟谁也不想得病，得了病很麻烦，跟阳性接触也很麻烦，所以阳性越少越好，最好是没有。这在理论上是完全可行的，但实际操作中可能会遇到诸多困难，于是就产生了层层加码和一刀切问题，这些过度用力的行为其实已经存在很久了，但为什么近期才广泛爆发矛盾？原因很简单，因为本轮疫情毒株传播力太强，强到已经基本上没有办法进行溯源，甚至连”追阳”都成了一个难点，致使防控政策覆盖范围极大扩散，很多三年间从来没有被疫情影响到的人都受到了波及，不禁让人们对政策的执行产生了怀疑。
作为京津冀一体化的响应者，通勤人群显然是第一个反对一刀切的，这两年来北三县和京津通勤人员基本上都享受过少则一个月不能上班或者不能回家的待遇。我们做科学研究的，经常需要出去采样、调查，今年基本上都处于停滞状态，因为各地均倡导非必要不流动，许多实验都不能如期开展。
防疫爱好者不这么认为，他们觉得就应该呆在家里不动，保持两点一线，一切都是为了老人和孩子。这种想法太天真了，人类是一个复杂的社会，只有少部分人能超脱红尘，我行我素，我建议这部分人就不要再关注红尘社会的动向了。这学期我班里一个学生家中老人去世，因为防控政策不允许奔丧，学生只能呆呆的空望着大门外，说实话我心里很不是滋味。最近人类的幼崽需要接种疫苗，但是接种单位因为防控政策迟迟不能开门，许多成年人类在群里不知所措。我个人对疫苗是很不感冒的，不接种正合我意，但是别人不这么想啊，多年来相关机构的宣传是必须按时接种，到了疫情时代就变成了拖一拖也可以，什么时候科学这么具有包容性了？能再放我们中医一马么？
下一步应该清零不正确的观点和在疫情中显露原形的腐败官员，让科学、合理、有效的防疫政策重归正位，让广大中医参与到疫病诊治中去，切实维护人民的生命健康、心理健康和生产资料安全。
发表回复