UNCONSCIOUSLY, it’s been nearly three years since this fight against COVID started. From the original toxic strain to variant of Delta, and to the recent variant Omicron, we don't know when this epidemic will end. However, heated debates have been going on how to prevent this epidemic. For China, a country with a large population, the dynamic zero-COVID policy is the most suitable epidemic prevention mode at the current stage. As a country of 1.4 billion people, the consequences of coexistence and slack off against COVID are definitely not something we can bear.
There is an old saying in China that filial piety comes first. Chinese people put respect for the elderly in the first place. If the coexistence strategy is adopted, the old and the infant will be in an extremely dangerous environment from the beginning. At present, although 90% of the population in China has been vaccinated, the regional distribution is uneven, especially for the old and the young, whose vaccination rate is still at low level. In addition, for children who fall short of the age of vaccination and the elderly with underlying diseases, it will be very dangerous once we choose to slack off. Taking the current pandemic of COVID in Shanghai as an example, as of May 10, most of the 190 deaths were elderly people over 60 years old and only 12 of these people had not been vaccinated. This shows how dangerous the situation is if we choose not to get vaccinated. Moreover, the data of people who die from COVID in Shanghai came after the local government carried out effective control. If the Chinese government does adopt coexistence strategy and opens up, then there is no doubt that the short-term surge in the number of infected people will be mostly the young and the old. The consequences will not only be a blockage of medical resources, but more likely be broken families. In Taiwan, which is separated by sea and has similar national conditions and culture, coexistence has become a farce, and a series of life and death partings are constantly being staged.
In addition, another point of contention between the two parties is the economy. People who support coexistence with COVID believe that zero-COVID approach will hinder economic development in the long term and cause human rights violations. But in fact, if we put ourselves into the perspective of the infected people, we will find that dynamic zero-COVID approach is the best way to protect everyone's human rights. Everyone has only one life, and dynamic clearing can minimize the infection of the population so that we can make most use of medical resources to treat infected patients as much as possible. Whether young or old, with or without underlying diseases, they all have the right to live, and no one can deprive them of it. This is the really human right. Furthermore, coexistence with COVID, although on the surface can reduce isolation and resume work and production as soon as possible. But everyone may have overlooked a point, which is the decline in the quality of the labor force. Although some people with strong body will turn negative of COVID and recover within ten days, many of these people have been reported to become easily impoverished after recovery. Their mental strength is difficult to concentrate and their work efficiency is also reduced. As we all know, the COVID is not a virus that can be immune for life after a single infection. Some people in countries that have adopted the coexistence strategy have been infected multiple times in just one year. And their bodies will be like a radish. Once infected, one layer will be shaved off, and eventually it will be in jeopardy like a candle in the wind. According to the large number of previous cases of infection, even physically strong athletes will lose weight after infection, let alone us ordinary people. In fact, since China adopted the dynamic zero-COVID policy, its economic growth rate has been among the best in the world. According to data from the China Bureau of Statistics, China's GDP has been increased by 8.1% over the previous year and its economic scale has reached to 114 trillion Yuan, making it the second largest economy in the world. China’s contribution to world economic growth reaches at 25%. We have to admit that the dynamic zero-COVID approach as the current epidemic prevention strategy is most in line with China's national conditions.
Putting aside the prevention of this epidemic, in the perspective of history, a successful reform plan of any country in the world can only be worked out after considering its own national conditions. All reforms that blindly imitate other countries' plans have ultimately failed without an exception. A nation’s reform of changes still needs to consider its national conditions, not to even mention the epidemic prevention. No matter what the point of view is, most of the original intentions should be to hope that human beings can defeat this COVID pandemic as soon as possible and return to the original, relaxed life without masks. Even if there are different opinions, we don’t have to criticize each other. No matter what decision we make, we need to adapt it to local conditions and consider our own situation. Otherwise the final outcome will only be opposite to what we wish and do harm to others and ourselves.
