三周前纽时的评论，出自一个旅居中国20年，这次“打全场”的普利策奖作者。里面好多观点与大家不谋而合啊。目睹上半场，在下半场里deja vu。 （中文版贴在101楼） https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/opinion/china-response-china.amp.htmlChina Bought the West Time. The West Squandered It. Why did so many countries watch the epidemic unfold for weeks as though it was none of their concern? By Ian Johnson Mr. Johnson is a writer based in Beijing. LONDON — When I got off my flight from Beijing to London nearly two weeks ago, I knew what I had to do: go straight into self-quarantine. I live in China, where a dramatic lockdown since late January has made it clear that all residents, even those well beyond the epicenter’s outbreak in Wuhan, were in the middle of a global health crisis. The boarding process in Beijing was the final reminder: two mandatory temperature checks and an electronic health statement for which I had to provide an email address and two contact phone numbers. But as the plane approached London, a sense of unreality set in. The airline distributed a cheaply printed sheet that only advised us to call the usual National Health Service hotline if we felt ill. On arrival, there was no temperature check and no health statement — meaning that British officials would have had no easy way to track us if one of us came down with Covid-19. Instead, we just walked off the plane, took off our face masks and disappeared into the city. In the days since then, Europe and the United States have been convulsed by the coronavirus’s rapid spread in those regions. Italy is now under lockdown, and cases are rapidly multiplying across the United States. The stock markets have tanked. On Wednesday, the World Health Organization formally announced what everyone already knew: This is a pandemic. Perhaps by the time you read this, airport health checks and declarations finally will be mandatory in places like London. But that won’t change the fact that for weeks now, the attitude toward the coronavirus outbreak in the United States and much of Europe has been bizarrely reactive, if not outright passive — or that the governments in those regions have let pass their best chance to contain the virus’s spread. Having seen a kind of initial denial play out already in China, I feel a sense of déjà vu. But while China had to contend with a nasty, sudden surprise, governments in the West have been on notice for weeks. It’s as if China’s experience hadn’t given Western countries a warning of the perils of inaction. Instead, many governments seem to have imitated some of the worst measures China put in place, while often turning a blind eye to the best of them, or its successes. Outsiders seem to want to view China’s experiences as uniquely its own. I imagine there are many reasons for this, including the comforting idea that China is far away and an epidemic over there surely couldn’t really spread so far and so fast over here. More than anything, though, I think that outsiders, especially in the West, fixate on China’s authoritarian political system, and that makes them discount the possible value and relevance of its decisions to them. Until recently, one dominant story line was that the epidemic in China spiraled out of control because the authorities cracked down on early whistle-blowers in late December, allowing the virus to spread. When China put in place a draconian lockdown and quarantine measures in January, some mainstream foreign reports didn’t just criticize the program as excessive; they described the entire exercise as flat-out backward or essentially pointless. China did get props for building two hospitals in just over a week, but even the awe over that feat was tinged with a sense that something nefarious was at work — in a Hitler-built-the-autobahn kind of way. And when quarantine shelters were set up to host infected people so that they wouldn’t spread the disease to family members at home, the effort was portrayed as dystopian or, at best, chaotic. Arguing against these interpretations makes me a bit queasy. I realize that Chinese officials covered up the problem in late December and early January — a disastrous series of decisions. And I know that now China’s leaders want to sell their heavy-handed methods as exemplary. President Xi Jinping made his first visit to Wuhanon Tuesday, an implicit marker of success. Even as the virus was killing dozens of people a day there, government propaganda was touting the China model while ridiculing efforts by the United States to combat natural disasters. Now that other parts of the world are suffering, China is making well-publicized efforts to offer help, sending teams to Iran and Italy to deliver supplies and offer advice. And it has imposed travel bans from some destinations hit by infections — a measure the government decried as excessive when China suffered it. Yet it would be foolish to believe that China’s decisions have been mainly based on crude authoritarianism.One needn’t defend every one of its measures on medical grounds; those are matters that health care professionals might debate for years to come. But it’s worth acknowledging that not all of China’s failings are unique to its political system, and that some of its policies were motivated by serious concern for the public good and executed by a highly competent civil service. For example, before condemning the decision of Chinese officials in early January to dismiss the threat of a looming epidemic, remember that at that time the coronavirus was not reported to have caused any deaths. Contrast this with, say, the United States today: Despite having had a free flow of information for weeks and witnessed thousands of deaths in China as evidence, parts of America’s political establishment — including at the White House — have pushed a disinformation campaign to downplay the risk. And if you think it’s too easy to criticize President Trump, remember my airport experience in London. Or consider Germany’s decision earlier this week to hold a mass sporting event in the middle of its outbreak zone. Or Japan’s decision to let people walk off an infected cruise ship without proper testing. Some of these countries are now backpedaling, trying to explain away their blasé attitudes, but that’s weeks late. China’s leaders did fumble at the very start, yet in short order they acted far more decisively than many democratically elected leaders have to date. Authoritarian or not, they also want the public’s approval. Chinese leaders may not face voters, but they, too, care about legitimacy, and that hinges on performance for them as well. Aspects of China’s quarantine — especially when they prevented the elderly and disabled from receiving medical care — were unnecessarily crude. But overall, I don’t think the measures were unpopular. The government worked hard to get people to buy into the necessity of tough measures. It bombarded the public with social media posts, stories, billboards, radio shows and articles about the risks posed by the virus. In one park in Beijing, a recording on a loop admonished people to: “Wash your hands thoroughly. Avoid meeting up friends. Keep a safe distance.” In my experience living in China for weeks during the peak period of the lockdown and talking to various groups beyond the disgruntled elites, people were frustrated, even exasperated, by the containment measures — but they largely supported them, too. And while some in the West fixated on how China’s system failed to stem the outbreak at first, they were ignoring the aspects of it that worked. There’s nothing authoritarian about checking temperatures at airports, enforcing social distancing or offering free medical care to anyone with Covid-19. Not all open societies have fumbled. Singapore, Taiwan and perhaps soon enough South Korea, have moved forcefully but sensibly to contain the virus, showing the sort of savvy that seems to be missing in large swaths of the West. Maybe it’s because these countries are close enough to the center of the outbreak that their governments could recognize its seriousness, while also being wary of China’s sledgehammer measures. But too many countries further afield have stood by, watching for weeks what was unfolding in China, and then elsewhere in Asia, as though it was none of their concern. Some governments have dithered for lack of political will. Some seem to fall prey, still, to a perception of China as the eternal “other,” whose experience couldn’t possibly be relevant to us, much less provide any lessons — other than in what not to do. Ian Johnson (@iandenisjohnson) is the author most recently of “The Souls of China: The Return of Religion After Mao.”
大部分同意。对一下结论很无语： Aspects of China’s quarantine — especially when they prevented the elderly and disabled from receiving medical care — were unnecessarily crude. But overall, I don’t think the measures were unpopular.
看似客观。称述很多事实， 然后夹带私货。 我觉得这些人 最终想推销中国的价值观。Authoritarian or not, they also want the public’s approval. Chinese leaders may not face voters, but they, too, care about legitimacy,
看似客观。称述很多事实， 然后夹带私货。 我觉得这些人 最终想推销中国的价值观。Authoritarian or not, they also want the public’s approval. Chinese leaders may not face voters, but they, too, care about legitimacy,
写的太好了，各种层面，但愿这些政客们能反思。 Dupre 发表于 4/2/2020 10:11:42 AM
While I don't count on voluntary introspection or self-evaluation from the politicians, I think it's not an issue only relevant to the political arena/government. What happened in the western countries reflected a general sense of arrogance & ignorance. Although a wealth of information about the virus and the associated risks were available early on, most people filtered through the information lightly and carelessly, with the assumption that this place called Wuhan suffered because it must be an undeveloped area in China and won't be relevant to us. The view is not only popular among the decision-makers in western countries, but also among the general public, including many doctors.
While I don't count on voluntary introspection or self-evaluation from the politicians, I think it's not an issue only relevant to the political arena/government. What happened in the western countries reflected a general sense of arrogance & ignorance. Although a wealth of information about the virus and the associated risks were available early on, most people filtered through the information lightly and carelessly, with the assumption that this place called Wuhan suffered because it must be an undeveloped area in China and won't be relevant to us. The view is not only popular among the decision-makers in western countries, but also among the general public, including many doctors.
While I don't count on voluntary introspection or self-evaluation from the politicians, I think it's not an issue only relevant to the political arena/government. What happened in the western countries reflected a general sense of arrogance & ignorance. Although a wealth of information about the virus and the associated risks were available early on, most people filtered through the information lightly and carelessly, with the assumption that this place called Wuhan suffered because it must be an undeveloped area in China and won't be relevant to us. The view is not only popular among the decision-makers in western countries, but also among the general public, including many doctors.
看似客观。称述很多事实， 然后夹带私货。 我觉得这些人 最终想推销中国的价值观。Authoritarian or not, they also want the public’s approval. Chinese leaders may not face voters, but they, too, care about legitimacy,
While I don't count on voluntary introspection or self-evaluation from the politicians, I think it's not an issue only relevant to the political arena/government. What happened in the western countries reflected a general sense of arrogance & ignorance. Although a wealth of information about the virus and the associated risks were available early on, most people filtered through the information lightly and carelessly, with the assumption that this place called Wuhan suffered because it must be an undeveloped area in China and won't be relevant to us. The view is not only popular among the decision-makers in western countries, but also among the general public, including many doctors.
While I don't count on voluntary introspection or self-evaluation from the politicians, I think it's not an issue only relevant to the political arena/government. What happened in the western countries reflected a general sense of arrogance & ignorance. Although a wealth of information about the virus and the associated risks were available early on, most people filtered through the information lightly and carelessly, with the assumption that this place called Wuhan suffered because it must be an undeveloped area in China and won't be relevant to us. The view is not only popular among the decision-makers in western countries, but also among the general public, including many doctors.
While I don't count on voluntary introspection or self-evaluation from the politicians, I think it's not an issue only relevant to the political arena/government. What happened in the western countries reflected a general sense of arrogance & ignorance. Although a wealth of information about the virus and the associated risks were available early on, most people filtered through the information lightly and carelessly, with the assumption that this place called Wuhan suffered because it must be an undeveloped area in China and won't be relevant to us. The view is not only popular among the decision-makers in western countries, but also among the general public, including many doctors.
While I don't count on voluntary introspection or self-evaluation from the politicians, I think it's not an issue only relevant to the political arena/government. What happened in the western countries reflected a general sense of arrogance & ignorance. Although a wealth of information about the virus and the associated risks were available early on, most people filtered through the information lightly and carelessly, with the assumption that this place called Wuhan suffered because it must be an undeveloped area in China and won't be relevant to us. The view is not only popular among the decision-makers in western countries, but also among the general public, including many doctors.
LONDON — When I got off my flight from Beijing to London nearly two weeks ago, I knew what I had to do: go straight into self-quarantine. I live in China, where a dramatic lockdown since late January has made it clear that all residents, even those well beyond the epicenter’s outbreak in Wuhan, were in the middle of a global health crisis. The boarding process in Beijing was the final reminder: two mandatory temperature checks and an electronic health statement for which I had to provide an email address and two contact phone numbers. But as the plane approached London, a sense of unreality set in. The airline distributed a cheaply printed sheet that only advised us to call the usual National Health Service hotline if we felt ill. On arrival, there was no temperature check and no health statement — meaning that British officials would have had no easy way to track us if one of us came down with Covid-19. Instead, we just walked off the plane, took off our face masks and disappeared into the city. In the days since then, Europe and the United States have been convulsed by the coronavirus’s rapid spread in those regions. Italy is now under lockdown, and cases are rapidly multiplying across the United States. The stock markets have tanked. On Wednesday, the World Health Organization formally announced what everyone already knew: This is a pandemic. Perhaps by the time you read this, airport health checks and declarations finally will be mandatory in places like London.
But that won’t change the fact that for weeks now, the attitude toward the coronavirus outbreak in the United States and much of Europe has been bizarrely reactive, if not outright passive — or that the governments in those regions have let pass their best chance to contain the virus’s spread. Having seen a kind of initial denial play out already in China, I feel a sense of déjà vu. But while China had to contend with a nasty, sudden surprise, governments in the West have been on notice for weeks. It’s as if China’s experience hadn’t given Western countries a warning of the perils of inaction. Instead, many governments seem to have imitated some of the worst measures China put in place, while often turning a blind eye to the best of them, or its successes. Outsiders seem to want to view China’s experiences as uniquely its own. I imagine there are many reasons for this, including the comforting idea that China is far away and an epidemic over there surely couldn’t really spread so far and so fast over here. More than anything, though, I think that outsiders, especially in the West, fixate on China’s authoritarian political system, and that makes them discount the possible value and relevance of its decisions to them. Until recently, one dominant story line was that the epidemic in China spiraled out of control because the authorities cracked down on early whistle-blowers in late December, allowing the virus to spread. When China put in place a draconian lockdown and quarantine measures in January, some mainstream foreign reports didn’t just criticize the program as excessive; they described the entire exercise as flat-out backward or essentially pointless. China did get props for building two hospitals in just over a week, but even the awe over that feat was tinged with a sense that something nefarious was at work — in a Hitler-built-the-autobahn kind of way. And when quarantine shelters were set up to host infected people so that they wouldn’t spread the disease to family members at home, the effort was portrayed as dystopian or, at best, chaotic. Arguing against these interpretations makes me a bit queasy. I realize that Chinese officials covered up the problem in late December and early January — a disastrous series of decisions. And I know that now China’s leaders want to sell their heavy-handed methods as exemplary. President Xi Jinping made his first visit to Wuhanon Tuesday, an implicit marker of success. Even as the virus was killing dozens of people a day there, government propaganda was touting the China model while ridiculing efforts by the United States to combat natural disasters. Now that other parts of the world are suffering, China is making well-publicized efforts to offer help, sending teams to Iran andItaly to deliver supplies and offer advice. And it has imposed travel bans from some destinations hit by infections — a measure the government decried as excessive when China suffered it. Yet it would be foolish to believe that China’s decisions have been mainly based on crude authoritarianism.One needn’t defend every one of its measures on medical grounds; those are matters that health care professionals might debate for years to come. But it’s worth acknowledging that not all of China’s failings are unique to its political system, and that some of its policies were motivated by serious concern for the public good and executed by a highly competent civil service. For example, before condemning the decision of Chinese officials in early January to dismiss the threat of a looming epidemic, remember that at that time the coronavirus was not reported to have caused any deaths. Contrast this with, say, the United States today: Despite having had a free flow of information for weeks and witnessed thousands of deaths in China as evidence, parts of America’s political establishment — including at the White House — have pushed a disinformation campaign to downplay the risk. And if you think it’s too easy to criticize President Trump, remember my airport experience in London. Or consider Germany’s decision earlier this week to hold a mass sporting event in the middle of its outbreak zone. Or Japan’s decision to let people walk off an infected cruise ship without proper testing. Some of these countries are now backpedaling, trying to explain away their blasé attitudes, but that’s weeks late. China’s leaders did fumble at the very start, yet in short order they acted far more decisively than many democratically elected leaders have to date. Authoritarian or not, they also want the public’s approval. Chinese leaders may not face voters, but they, too, care about legitimacy, and that hinges on performance for them as well. Aspects of China’s quarantine — especially when they prevented the elderly and disabled from receiving medical care — were unnecessarily crude. But overall, I don’t think the measures were unpopular. The government worked hard to get people to buy into the necessity of tough measures. It bombarded the public with social media posts, stories, billboards, radio shows and articles about the risks posed by the virus. In one park in Beijing, a recording on a loop admonished people to: “Wash your hands thoroughly. Avoid meeting up friends. Keep a safe distance.” In my experience living in China for weeks during the peak period of the lockdown and talking to various groups beyond the disgruntled elites, people were frustrated, even exasperated, by the containment measures — but they largely supported them, too. And while some in the West fixated on how China’s system failed to stem the outbreak at first, they were ignoring the aspects of it that worked. There’s nothing authoritarian about checking temperatures at airports, enforcing social distancing or offering free medical care to anyone with Covid-19. Not all open societies have fumbled. Singapore, Taiwan and perhaps soon enough South Korea, have moved forcefully but sensibly to contain the virus, showing the sort of savvy that seems to be missing in large swaths of the West. Maybe it’s because these countries are close enough to the center of the outbreak that their governments could recognize its seriousness, while also being wary of China’s sledgehammer measures. But too many countries further afield have stood by, watching for weeks what was unfolding in China, and then elsewhere in Asia, as though it was none of their concern. Some governments have dithered for lack of political will. Some seem to fall prey, still, to a perception of China as the eternal “other,” whose experience couldn’t possibly be relevant to us, much less provide any lessons — other than in what not to do. Ian Johnson (@iandenisjohnson) is the author most recently of “The Souls of China: The Return of Religion After Mao.”
Exactly. I called my school district and township health department in January, they politely acknowledged that they got the information, I doubt they really understood what's going on. Of course a lot of it was bureaucracy. But beyond that, at that time, there were already a lot of scientists, particularly epidemiologists and infectious disease experts, screaming out of their lungs warning about the outbreak in the US. There were plenty of influential whistle blowers here and their voices were not being suppressed (comparing to Dr. Li Wenliang's experiences). Nonetheless, not only the government didn't take the appropriate action, the majority of the health care professionals were not prepared at all. The saddest thing is that many people had to watch how this country ended up where we are now helplessly, while knowing a lot could have been done to change the path.
其实这也是跨文化报道的一个困顿之处。 两个社会距离遥远，作者亲历体会的——表达的——受众解读的，不断被压缩简化。而受众又极度缺乏直观体验，因而依赖媒体形成模糊印象。 作者了解中国，面对生死攸关的议题，他自己能综合地判断，可他的受众显然不能，反而显得他的见解逆流而上。 从传播和教育的效果来说，不知道这算不算值得他和一众中国专家反思的现象。 再反观他一月底所写的，也可略见长期舆论的惯性。 In this sense, the population has absorbed the government’s narrative of Chinese exceptionalism: Running China requires a strong hand, and these measures, as absurd as they seem, are proof that the government is doing a good job — and portend that the party will come out of this, as always, triumphant.
只有了解中国大陆体系的人，才能写出这样的文章。 Chinese gov is notorious for its dictatorship. But this time, the anticovid19 seems beneficial of that, forcefully lockdown the whole nation. Because the reputation, in western world, manty countries thought it was unnecessary in such strong enacting, and ignore the severity of the covid19, pandemic!
读过他的 the return of religion after mao. 这是西方对中国现状的认同与忧虑。但床铺很想效仿。
回复 51楼huarenmochi的帖子 Good point. And expanding on my thoughts about westerners' arrogance and ignorance, I've seen many scientists mixing various issues about China when making their arguments. For example, acknowledging China had taken effective measures in many aspects (e.g. trace contacts of confirmed cases and isolate them; establish robust protocols on using PPE in hospitals passing the initial chaos, etc.) doesn't mean that no question could be asked about the accuracy of the reported data. I was surprised by how people with scientific training couldn't see that those are independent issues. The prefix before their names doesn't automatically make them experts in all the fields. Maybe infectious disease and political science are really close disciplines?
回复 55楼的帖子 No matter what journalists say now, I am not surprised by their previous tendency to frame the issue more politically than scientifically. But yes, scientists should know better and more logically. Separately, science communication is so much needed in both science and media. People who understand the matter should also have the skills to influence others. And vice versa.
那就别accuse人家在采取极端方式后的数据是作假数据。现在看来，TG最失民心最该背锅的是初期压制吹哨人。可是看看后来这些国家，都是在初期因为种种原因downplay，那么，批判TG瞒报疫情的同时，就不能双标，同样适用于意大利，美国。至于lockdown，do it, NO human Rights, don’t do it, NO human Left! It’s time to choose!
这一段和我的想法是相同的：China’s leaders did fumble at the very start, yet in short order they acted far more decisively than many democratically elected leaders have to date. Authoritarian or not, they also want the public’s approval. Chinese leaders may not face voters, but they, too, care about legitimacy, and that hinges on performance for them as well.
回复 84楼的帖子 我感觉作者更多的是认为事情本不必发展到这一步，认为西方领导层早该意识到严重性，部署预案（比如费用问题、PPE调用），防患于未然（比如机场测体温）。比如说中国访客查体温登记这一条，可行性挺高的，因为在北京已经做了一次，到了伦敦未必就不肯配合。 眼下的忙乱，凸显了前期的浪费时机。 就像他说的There’s nothing authoritarian about checking temperatures at airports, enforcing social distancing or offering free medical care to anyone with Covid-19.
The boarding process in Beijing was the final reminder: two mandatory temperature checks and an electronic health statement for which I had to provide an email address and two contact phone numbers. 那就是说从国内出来的都是无发烧症状的“健康”携带者？北京机场从哪天开始测体温的？
大部分同意。对一下结论很无语： Aspects of China’s quarantine — especially when they prevented the elderly and disabled from receiving medical care — were unnecessarily crude. But overall, I don’t think the measures were unpopular. 把武汉医院的老弱病残都赶回家去死，只是crude，还能popular？作者问过一个武汉人没有？？ ？？
回复 91楼的帖子 是在一月底的那篇，说民众不相信透明度和表面说辞，但是不妨碍他们认同措施： I think it knows the people don’t trust it in these cases and assume there has been a cover-up. ... Considering the underlying distrust, it’s hard for the government to say what many epidemiologists are saying: This outbreak is serious but not catastrophic. ... Does this mean that the state will suffer? I don’t think so. For despite their mistrust of the system, people over all are going along with the lockdown. In private conversations and on chat rooms, they say it’s impossible not to take drastic action in a country as big as China. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-china-epidemic.html?referringSource=articleShare
LONDON — When I got off my flight from Beijing to London nearly two weeks ago, I knew what I had to do: go straight into self-quarantine. I live in China, where a dramatic lockdown since late January has made it clear that all residents, even those well beyond the epicenter’s outbreak in Wuhan, were in the middle of a global health crisis. The boarding process in Beijing was the final reminder: two mandatory temperature checks and an electronic health statement for which I had to provide an email address and two contact phone numbers. But as the plane approached London, a sense of unreality set in. The airline distributed a cheaply printed sheet that only advised us to call the usual National Health Service hotline if we felt ill. On arrival, there was no temperature check and no health statement — meaning that British officials would have had no easy way to track us if one of us came down with Covid-19. Instead, we just walked off the plane, took off our face masks and disappeared into the city. In the days since then, Europe and the United States have been convulsed by the coronavirus’s rapid spread in those regions. Italy is now under lockdown, and cases are rapidly multiplying across the United States. The stock markets have tanked. On Wednesday, the World Health Organization formally announced what everyone already knew: This is a pandemic. Perhaps by the time you read this, airport health checks and declarations finally will be mandatory in places like London.
But that won’t change the fact that for weeks now, the attitude toward the coronavirus outbreak in the United States and much of Europe has been bizarrely reactive, if not outright passive — or that the governments in those regions have let pass their best chance to contain the virus’s spread. Having seen a kind of initial denial play out already in China, I feel a sense of déjà vu. But while China had to contend with a nasty, sudden surprise, governments in the West have been on notice for weeks. It’s as if China’s experience hadn’t given Western countries a warning of the perils of inaction. Instead, many governments seem to have imitated some of the worst measures China put in place, while often turning a blind eye to the best of them, or its successes. Outsiders seem to want to view China’s experiences as uniquely its own. I imagine there are many reasons for this, including the comforting idea that China is far away and an epidemic over there surely couldn’t really spread so far and so fast over here. More than anything, though, I think that outsiders, especially in the West, fixate on China’s authoritarian political system, and that makes them discount the possible value and relevance of its decisions to them. Until recently, one dominant story line was that the epidemic in China spiraled out of control because the authorities cracked down on early whistle-blowers in late December, allowing the virus to spread. When China put in place a draconian lockdown and quarantine measures in January, some mainstream foreign reports didn’t just criticize the program as excessive; they described the entire exercise as flat-out backward or essentially pointless. China did get props for building two hospitals in just over a week, but even the awe over that feat was tinged with a sense that something nefarious was at work — in a Hitler-built-the-autobahn kind of way. And when quarantine shelters were set up to host infected people so that they wouldn’t spread the disease to family members at home, the effort was portrayed as dystopian or, at best, chaotic. Arguing against these interpretations makes me a bit queasy. I realize that Chinese officials covered up the problem in late December and early January — a disastrous series of decisions. And I know that now China’s leaders want to sell their heavy-handed methods as exemplary. President Xi Jinping made his first visit to Wuhanon Tuesday, an implicit marker of success. Even as the virus was killing dozens of people a day there, government propaganda was touting the China model while ridiculing efforts by the United States to combat natural disasters. Now that other parts of the world are suffering, China is making well-publicized efforts to offer help, sending teams to Iran and Italy to deliver supplies and offer advice. And it has imposed travel bans from some destinations hit by infections — a measure the government decried as excessive when China suffered it. Yet it would be foolish to believe that China’s decisions have been mainly based on crude authoritarianism. One needn’t defend every one of its measures on medical grounds; those are matters that health care professionals might debate for years to come. But it’s worth acknowledging that not all of China’s failings are unique to its political system, and that some of its policies were motivated by serious concern for the public good and executed by a highly competent civil service. For example, before condemning the decision of Chinese officials in early January to dismiss the threat of a looming epidemic, remember that at that time the coronavirus was not reported to have caused any deaths. Contrast this with, say, the United States today: Despite having had a free flow of information for weeks and witnessed thousands of deaths in China as evidence, parts of America’s political establishment — including at the White House — have pushed a disinformation campaign to downplay the risk. And if you think it’s too easy to criticize President Trump, remember my airport experience in London. Or consider Germany’s decision earlier this week to hold a mass sporting event in the middle of its outbreak zone. Or Japan’s decision to let people walk off an infected cruise ship without proper testing. Some of these countries are now backpedaling, trying to explain away their blasé attitudes, but that’s weeks late. China’s leaders did fumble at the very start, yet in short order they acted far more decisively than many democratically elected leaders have to date. Authoritarian or not, they also want the public’s approval. Chinese leaders may not face voters, but they, too, care about legitimacy, and that hinges on performance for them as well. Aspects of China’s quarantine — especially when they prevented the elderly and disabled from receiving medical care — were unnecessarily crude. But overall, I don’t think the measures were unpopular. The government worked hard to get people to buy into the necessity of tough measures. It bombarded the public with social media posts, stories, billboards, radio shows and articles about the risks posed by the virus. In one park in Beijing, a recording on a loop admonished people to: “Wash your hands thoroughly. Avoid meeting up friends. Keep a safe distance.” In my experience living in China for weeks during the peak period of the lockdown and talking to various groups beyond the disgruntled elites, people were frustrated, even exasperated, by the containment measures — but they largely supported them, too. And while some in the West fixated on how China’s system failed to stem the outbreak at first, they were ignoring the aspects of it that worked. There’s nothing authoritarian about checking temperatures at airports, enforcing social distancing or offering free medical care to anyone with Covid-19. Not all open societies have fumbled. Singapore, Taiwan and perhaps soon enough South Korea, have moved forcefully but sensibly to contain the virus, showing the sort of savvy that seems to be missing in large swaths of the West. Maybe it’s because these countries are close enough to the center of the outbreak that their governments could recognize its seriousness, while also being wary of China’s sledgehammer measures. But too many countries further afield have stood by, watching for weeks what was unfolding in China, and then elsewhere in Asia, as though it was none of their concern. Some governments have dithered for lack of political will. Some seem to fall prey, still, to a perception of China as the eternal “other,” whose experience couldn’t possibly be relevant to us, much less provide any lessons — other than in what not to do. Ian Johnson (@iandenisjohnson) is the author most recently of “The Souls of China: The Return of Religion After Mao.”
🔥 最新回帖
你以为把他们放医院就更安全？社区里是有很多志愿者帮他们买药送上门的。医疗系统崩溃的时候其实并没有太多的选择。如果我没记错，武汉的急诊和儿科是一直开的。
佩服mm 真是看得通透！
是的。他写出来，说明类似观点和论述早不限于华人圈，只是没在西方决策层占上风。
🛋️ 沙发板凳
嗯，这个帖子回复数充分证明了这网站上的很多人看不懂英文。
也反思了媒体早期对封城，建医院和方舱的质疑，或许也让西方人觉得防疫方法诡谲，事不关己。
主要是这已经是3月中旬刊登的文章了，一转眼又三周了。
这句话怎么反应出作者在“推销中国的价值观”？
在这版上，任何夸中国的一言半语，都会被label上“推销中国的价值观”，是大外宣，是五毛，是廊坊蹲监狱的
这是巧妙
不然就是那么好你咋不回去， 我呵呵他一家
While I don't count on voluntary introspection or self-evaluation from the politicians, I think it's not an issue only relevant to the political arena/government. What happened in the western countries reflected a general sense of arrogance & ignorance. Although a wealth of information about the virus and the associated risks were available early on, most people filtered through the information lightly and carelessly, with the assumption that this place called Wuhan suffered because it must be an undeveloped area in China and won't be relevant to us. The view is not only popular among the decision-makers in western countries, but also among the general public, including many doctors.
Wuhan还是个有领馆要撤侨的城市呢，确实是一点sense都没有。
哈哈哈对的，还被人骂过说我把我的ID卖了
疫情是面照妖镜，照出来各国的烂，烂的花样各有不同而已。
我一直时不时的到reddit上瞧瞧，其实美国民众也不是都愚昧，中国爆发的时候，reddit上也有很多民众焦虑美国。但是，这些人毕竟人数不多。 美国人当老大当惯了，不关心外面的世界，的确是普遍的。 这种心态的改变需要一个过程。这次疫情未尝不是一个开始。
我就不明白了，怎么个巧妙法，又推销的是什么价值观？
是这样啊。同时还有媒体已经不能好好的客观报道了。很多医生自大无知想想跟什么有关，他们又该如何了解信息又如何把冷静的会思考的人的观点传达出去呢？只能靠主流媒体啊。可是主流媒体明显已经不是想要做这个事情了
😂
简直不能同意更多，每天看新闻都觉得，妈的这些信息不是N周前就有了么，这里的媒体和医生好像刚刚发现新大陆一样
我觉得最近意识形态斗争太白热化了 其实无论是面对pandemic的危机还是追求科技的发展 大部分时候还是应该以事实为本，把自己的political opinions放一放，争取合作和共赢
这段也是我这次体会最深的感受，希望在被狠狠打脸重重摔倒之后从上到下真的有一个反思。
怕就怕最后反思的结果是将矛头指向太人。亲历历史这个过程实在感觉太无力和难受了。
这段也是我最近最深的体会。希望这次狠狠摔倒之后能够真正地反思一下，而不是最后把矛头指向他人。
哎，亲历历史的过程实在是太无力和难受了。
不管是政客，媒体还是普罗大众，这种傲慢与自大都是可以理解的，但是我不太能理解医生、学界的反应，事实上向他们自己的权威期刊投稿的相应文章早在一月就开始层出不穷了，过了两月我发现他们全部要重新验证一遍，就觉得这两月浪费地相当无语
你以为独轮运湾湾是什么味儿？
拜托，随便瞎讲你是不是先查查ian's archive?
这段太贴切了，从一月份开始，不断有华人试图警示自己的community，结果还是眼睁睁事情的发生
NYT發個舔共文章，共產黨會讓它的記者回中國嗎？
Exactly. I called my school district and township health department in January, they politely acknowledged that they got the information, I doubt they really understood what's going on. Of course a lot of it was bureaucracy. But beyond that, at that time, there were already a lot of scientists, particularly epidemiologists and infectious disease experts, screaming out of their lungs warning about the outbreak in the US. There were plenty of influential whistle blowers here and their voices were not being suppressed (comparing to Dr. Li Wenliang's experiences). Nonetheless, not only the government didn't take the appropriate action, the majority of the health care professionals were not prepared at all. The saddest thing is that many people had to watch how this country ended up where we are now helplessly, while knowing a lot could have been done to change the path.
原文链接有简体和繁体翻译
其实这也是跨文化报道的一个困顿之处。 两个社会距离遥远，作者亲历体会的——表达的——受众解读的，不断被压缩简化。而受众又极度缺乏直观体验，因而依赖媒体形成模糊印象。
作者了解中国，面对生死攸关的议题，他自己能综合地判断，可他的受众显然不能，反而显得他的见解逆流而上。 从传播和教育的效果来说，不知道这算不算值得他和一众中国专家反思的现象。
再反观他一月底所写的，也可略见长期舆论的惯性。 In this sense, the population has absorbed the government’s narrative of Chinese exceptionalism: Running China requires a strong hand, and these measures, as absurd as they seem, are proof that the government is doing a good job — and portend that the party will come out of this, as always, triumphant.
Chinese gov is notorious for its dictatorship. But this time, the anticovid19 seems beneficial of that, forcefully lockdown the whole nation. Because the reputation, in western world, manty countries thought it was unnecessary in such strong enacting, and ignore the severity of the covid19, pandemic!
读过他的 the return of religion after mao. 这是西方对中国现状的认同与忧虑。但床铺很想效仿。
机场真是第一道防线。 当时有大数据，封城前几周内，武汉飞旧金山3000人多，JFK2000多。如果想稍微追踪，信息应该不是问题。
No matter what journalists say now, I am not surprised by their previous tendency to frame the issue more politically than scientifically. But yes, scientists should know better and more logically. Separately, science communication is so much needed in both science and media. People who understand the matter should also have the skills to influence others. And vice versa.
作者三月初写的，意在把整个西方主流都囊括进去吧。
巧妙到看不出来也是超高级的推销手法了😂😂😂
同意你的说法。国内前期的遮掩确实做得不对，后期制作数字有假。但是西方现在只抓住这个理由不放想摆脱自己不严肃对待疫情的责任也是不对的。
西方elites被自己的意识形态主导的政治偏见和根深蒂固的种族主义害了，这些掌握话语权的elites也洗脑了自己的民众，所以集体盲目自大，直到严酷现实当面一拳。
那就别accuse人家在采取极端方式后的数据是作假数据。现在看来，TG最失民心最该背锅的是初期压制吹哨人。可是看看后来这些国家，都是在初期因为种种原因downplay，那么，批判TG瞒报疫情的同时，就不能双标，同样适用于意大利，美国。至于lockdown，do it, NO human Rights, don’t do it, NO human Left! It’s time to choose!
lol 这贫乏的词汇量
这一段和我的想法是相同的：China’s leaders did fumble at the very start, yet in short order they acted far more decisively than many democratically elected leaders have to date. Authoritarian or not, they also want the public’s approval. Chinese leaders may not face voters, but they, too, care about legitimacy, and that hinges on performance for them as well.
别说一月份了，我们这上周都没有。。。
你可以看一下作者一月底的文章，记录了他在北京小区的措施，大门设防，楼道熏药，居委会上门。那篇文章主要讨论，中国民众对政府并不信任。一方面疫情数字不高，另一方面政府却高度紧张，背后的原因，许多人其实心照不宣。
所以他不见得会为了签证小心翼翼。应该确实是回伦敦之后的一个月，新的情况引发对比，他因此有感而发。所以才或许跟版上大家的心路历程有重叠。
我感觉作者更多的是认为事情本不必发展到这一步，认为西方领导层早该意识到严重性，部署预案（比如费用问题、PPE调用），防患于未然（比如机场测体温）。比如说中国访客查体温登记这一条，可行性挺高的，因为在北京已经做了一次，到了伦敦未必就不肯配合。 眼下的忙乱，凸显了前期的浪费时机。 就像他说的There’s nothing authoritarian about checking temperatures at airports, enforcing social distancing or offering free medical care to anyone with Covid-19.
那就是说从国内出来的都是无发烧症状的“健康”携带者？北京机场从哪天开始测体温的？
中国从开始到武汉封城，全国隔离，差不多拖了2个月,但很快控制住了。
别的国家确实没有这种控制能力。
至于对这个病毒及其相关数据的了解， 只有中国政府最先知道实际情况，别的国家得到的都是间接的+掺了水的。
不准确信息+不重视+没控制力， 结果，哎
是在一月底的那篇，说民众不相信透明度和表面说辞，但是不妨碍他们认同措施： I think it knows the people don’t trust it in these cases and assume there has been a cover-up. ... Considering the underlying distrust, it’s hard for the government to say what many epidemiologists are saying: This outbreak is serious but not catastrophic. ... Does this mean that the state will suffer? I don’t think so. For despite their mistrust of the system, people over all are going along with the lockdown. In private conversations and on chat rooms, they say it’s impossible not to take drastic action in a country as big as China.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-china-epidemic.html?referringSource=articleShare
同感。级别不够，手动点赞
Re,认清现实才是做好决策的第一步
就大概2月中的时候 国内最严重的时候 我们不停的给我们学区还有county打电话 人家都说我们要follow 自己的guideline