A new round of the epidemic has appeared on the land of China, and China's anti-epidemic model has once again been running at a high speed. However, round after round of epidemics, wave after wave of anti-epidemic, many people have become tired. Outside of China, the call for liberalization is also higher than the wave. Some people have even begun to wonder whether a comprehensive "zero-clearance" like ours is not a loss to the people and money, and the gains outweigh the losses. If everyone else lets go, will we become an "island" in the world?
In connection with these thoughts and statements, I would like to share my personal views.
First of all, we must find out what kind of model China's anti-epidemic model is. 8 words, "accurate prevention and control, dynamic zeroing". This model is definitely an effective method from the perspective of simple epidemic prevention and anti-epidemic. I'm sure no one will have any doubts about this. After all, at present, our infection rate and mortality rate are the lowest in the world. If we remove the infections and deaths caused by the original wave of the epidemic, our infection and death rates will be even lower.
But just from the perspective of epidemic prevention and anti-epidemic, it is successful, and it is far from enough. Because with the long-term global epidemic, everyone is facing the problem of how to live under the epidemic, how to produce, and how to maintain economic vitality. It is precisely for this reason that some people will say that we are "zeroing out" and hurting people's money.
Is this really the case? Make a comparison and it's clear. In the third quarter just this past, China's economic growth was 4.9%. Some people are saying that it is already below 5%, which is lower than expected. But let's look at the United States. The U.S. was 2 percent, much lower than expected. Some people may say, why are you compared to the United States? Not compared to countries with better economic growth. Sorry, in this world, apart from China, the United States is the fastest and best economic growth country. Let's see what kind of premise the 2% in the United States rose. It is blown up alive under the premise of trillions of dollars of "water release", and we are really produced. Because in the past period of time, the output value of our tertiary industry and service industry has actually declined and shrunk, while the growth of the economy is more manufactured than serviced.
Therefore, in our anti-epidemic model, there is no problem of "hurting money". "Clearing zero" definitely costs money, but the money spent is much smaller than the loss caused by the spread of the epidemic. In addition to the problem of "hurting money", there is also the problem of "laboring the people". In fact, if you take a look, you will find that our model is "precise prevention and control, dynamic clearance". In terms of time, our high-intensity prevention and control is not at any time; and spatially speaking, our most stringent prevention and control measures are only used in medium- and high-risk areas, and if the medium- and high-risk areas are placed in the national context, the regions involved and the population involved account for only a very small proportion. Personally, it will feel bad if you are involved. But from the perspective of the whole country, your discomfort is that many more people are not uncomfortable, in exchange for the whole country can be in a state of near normal operation. So internally, we shouldn't have more complaints. If it is your turn, your efforts are equivalent to contributing to the country and the whole nation.
From an external point of view, why do people continue to "kindly" advise us to let go, if the whole world is open, only you do not let go, then you will be isolated and become an "island". It sounds bitter and full of kindness. But if you think about it, you will find that this is not the case. Because so far, the so-called fully liberalized countries have not yet had a successful precedent. On the other hand, as soon as the release of what was previously known as "anti-epidemic excellent students" immediately became full of mourning, even uncontrollable. This state, even if you want to go back, you can't go back. With no precedent for success at all, why are there always people who are so screaming and urging us to let go? One is a psychological factor, falling into the pit, not looking at others well, not seeing others walking normally. The second factor is the real factor, China's prevention and control measures are added, international logistics, international material supply will feel tight, so some people want us to hurry up and fully open up.
We should have a clear understanding of this. Now on a global scale, except for a few countries, it is basically an epidemic area. And everyone admits, when will this epidemic end? There is no spectrum yet, and it is likely to be a long-term thing. In other words, human beings are going to fight a protracted war with the virus. To fight a protracted war, we must have patience. During the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression in those years, Chairman Mao spoke "On Protracted War." How many people really believed and supported it at that time? On the other hand, the "theory of quick victory" and the "theory of subjugation" have their own markets. But what is the end result? Everybody knows.
If we talk about it from a global perspective, how can we win this protracted battle against the epidemic in the world? The first is to ensure human security to the greatest extent; the second is to ensure the normal operation of the economy. Of course, if you can achieve sustainable economic development, then you are the big winner. At present, China's anti-epidemic model has basically achieved these two points. Of course, there is room for improvement? Absolutely. For example, the precise word of "precision prevention and control", how to do more precise and accurate, side effects to the minimum; for example, the continuous introduction and application of new technical means, such as the vaccine of the enhanced needle, like the possible special drugs in the future, like a faster and simpler detection method. If there are breakthroughs and progress in these things, they will be of greater help to our "precision prevention and control" and at the same time, the progress and breakthroughs in technical means may also make adjustments and changes in our epidemic prevention and anti-epidemic model. But that's all an afterthought.
The present is to unswervingly recognize that our anti-epidemic model is the most effective and best model in the world. This faith cannot be shaken. As far as the current global situation is concerned, if this epidemic continues for another year, two years, or three years, what kind of world will the world become? Think about it and you'll know. In the next protracted battle against the global epidemic, if we can stick to the existing path and continue to walk unshakable, then China will definitely become the last and biggest winner.