Former Minister of Health Gao Qiang: "Coexistence with the virus" is absolutely not feasible

Beijing News Express According to the official website of the Chinese Health Economics Association, Gao Qiang, general counsel of the Chinese Health Economics Association and former minister of health, published an article on August 5 entitled "Is it feasible to coexist with the virus"? The article proposes that China's anti-epidemic strategy is a "double insurance" strategy that is not inconsistent with accurate epidemic control and extensive vaccination, rather than replacing strict control of the epidemic with vaccine herd immunity, let alone "coexisting with the virus". The following is the full text:

Is "coexistence with the virus" feasible?

In recent times, the new crown epidemic in many countries in the world has rebounded sharply, and the number of new confirmed cases and deaths has risen sharply. The United States was shocked to see 100,000 new confirmed cases a day, and the number of new confirmed cases in the past four weeks was close to 4 million, so that the World Health Organization exclaimed that "the epidemic is almost out of control". What is the reason for the emergency of the world's anti-epidemic situation? The author believes that it is mainly the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries that, in order to show their dominance and influence, disregard the health and safety of the people, blindly lift or relax the control measures for the epidemic, rely solely on the anti-epidemic model of vaccination, and pursue the so-called "coexistence with the virus", resulting in the recurrence of the epidemic. This is a mistake in epidemic prevention decision-making caused by the shortcomings of the political systems of britain, the United States and other countries, and it is also the inevitable result of promoting individualistic values. Under the inducement of "coexistence with the virus" in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries, many developing countries have also relaxed the control of the epidemic, resulting in the second and third waves of epidemics in many parts of the world.

In the face of the serious rebound of the global epidemic, experts and scholars in britain, the United States and other countries did not find reasons from the government's prevention and control policies, but they pushed the responsibility to the virus mutation, claiming that the transmission capacity of the Delta mutation strain is particularly strong, the transmission speed is particularly fast, the onset time is particularly short, the recovery time is particularly long, and it is the culprit of the serious rebound of the global epidemic. The US media claimed that the "Delta" mutant strain changed the world's war against the epidemic. The author expresses high doubts about this kind of unity in the international public opinion circles. Although the mutation of the virus has brought great difficulties to the prevention and control of the epidemic, it is always people who determine the trend of the epidemic. If human beings have the right strategy to deal with the virus, even the most powerful virus can defeat it; if the human strategy to deal with the virus is wrong, even the weakest virus will spread. The consequences of responding to the powerful Delta virus with the wrong anti-epidemic strategy are bound to be catastrophic. The view that the responsibility for the rebound of the epidemic to the mutation of the virus actually covers up the responsibility of the government's anti-epidemic mistakes, and is a new type of "throwing the pot" and "discharging responsibility".

Surprisingly, some of our experts have also talked about the amazing power of the Delta strain, suggesting that the state consider the strategy of "long-term coexistence with the virus" and "learn to coexist with the virus". Isn't it contradictory that the experts advocate both the serious threat of the Delta virus and the "long-term coexistence with the virus"?

What is the relationship between humans and viruses? The author believes that it is a relationship of "there is you without me, you die and I live". The history of human survival and reproduction, in a certain sense, is also a history of desperate struggle with viruses, either humans eliminating viruses, or human beings being swallowed up by viruses, and never human beings have "coexisted with viruses for a long time". The old virus is destroyed, and new viruses may appear, but the goal of human beings is always to eliminate the virus, not to "coexist with the virus". On the side of the bed, will you allow the sick to snore? We know that the ultimate victory over the virus requires humans to rely on drugs that can kill the virus. But before that, human beings are not helpless to "coexist with the virus", but through strict isolation and control measures, cut off the chain of transmission of the virus at the fastest speed, and block the virus in the smallest range "self-destruction". This is an effective way for human beings to eliminate the virus, and it is also a magic weapon for human beings to win the fight against the epidemic. Since the outbreak of the new crown epidemic, China has used this method to quickly control the epidemic and has achieved "zero infection" of the local epidemic for many times. Although the importation of the virus from abroad has also led to sporadic cases in local areas, there has not been a large-scale epidemic spread. As long as we "make up for shortcomings, plug loopholes, and strengthen weak points" in the aspect of "external defense imports" and resolutely "resist viruses outside the country's gates," we will certainly be able to eliminate the virus in the vast ocean of people's war.

Some experts believe that the anti-epidemic method of "coexistence with the virus" in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries is open, and China's anti-epidemic method based on isolation and control is closed. After European and American countries have achieved "herd immunity" through extensive vaccination, China's opening up to the outside world may fall into passivity, advocating "learning to coexist with the virus" and achieving normal communication with the world. The author believes that the interconnection between China and the world must be healthy, safe, and in line with the interests of the country and the people, not blindly, let alone reckless. At present, whether China can achieve normal communication with the world does not lie in the control of the domestic epidemic situation, but in the international epidemic situation. In the case of a serious rebound in the international epidemic, China must adhere to the implementation of strict monitoring, isolation and other prevention and control measures for people entering the country, which is not a cut off from the world, but a manifestation of high responsibility for the people's health and national security.

Some experts believe that the recent outbreak of the epidemic in Nanjing has spread rapidly to many provinces, exposing major loopholes and mistakes in the control of the epidemic in some places, and it is necessary to deeply reflect, learn lessons, comprehensively investigate, and implement rectification. I fully agree. China's anti-epidemic strategy is a "double insurance" strategy that goes hand in hand with accurate epidemic control and extensive vaccination, rather than replacing strict control of the epidemic with vaccine herd immunity, let alone "coexisting with the virus". The bitter lesson of the epidemic in Nanjing tells us that in the case of widespread vaccination, the normalization of epidemic control proposed by the central government is still an important guideline that must be followed in China's fight against the epidemic. Not only can we not relax the control of the epidemic, but we must also further make up for shortcomings, plug loopholes, strengths and weaknesses, and unremittingly do a good job in epidemic monitoring and early warning. This is not "long-term coexistence with the virus", but a long-term struggle to eliminate the virus.

Is "coexistence with the virus" feasible? The author believes that this is absolutely not feasible. The "coexistence with the virus" in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries has brought serious consequences to the global anti-epidemic situation, and we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. As long as the epidemic situation is still widespread in the world, China's policy of strictly preventing the import of viruses from abroad cannot be changed, the strategy of resolutely cutting off the chain of virus infection cannot be changed, and the goal of early detection and early control cannot be changed. As for when and how China will open its doors, arrangements should be made in a timely manner in accordance with the actual situation of international epidemic control and from the perspective of safeguarding the overall interests of the country and the people. While strictly preventing overseas imports, all localities should not only control the spread of the epidemic as soon as possible, but also change the rhythm of anti-epidemic work in a timely manner according to the actual situation, adjust anti-epidemic work measures in a timely manner, and restore normal economic and social life at an appropriate time.

Edited by Jia Congcong