What should China do if Europe 

China is about to greet the dawn, but overseas is rapidly deteriorating.

So far, the cumulative number of confirmed new cases and deaths from overseas new crown pneumonia has surpassed China, and European and American countries seem to be out of control.

What puzzles many Chinese people is not the rapid spread of overseas epidemics, but the prevention and control methods of European and American countries:

The United States began to paralyze, Sweden surrendered early and Britain let the “herd immunity” respond to the virus.

Doesn’t this “Buddhist prevention and control” treat death as home?

Today, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to zero and released $ 700 billion in liquidity. The Fed and Trump seem to be worried about the recession even as the epidemic spreads.

However, criticism of other countries has failed to change the rapid globalization of the epidemic.

At present, what really needs to be considered is that the Chinese have paid such a huge price to fight this epidemic prevention and control war, and then China can no longer fight the “Wuhan defense war” and cannot prevent such rigorous and long-term consumption.

What if China continues to import viruses overseas?

  1. Why can’t China and the United States be compatible?

When the new crown epidemic spread rapidly overseas, the “Buddhist line” approach of European and American countries did make many Chinese unexpected.

Italy was the first European country to lose ground. At the beginning, the Italians did football matches, “Orange Wars”, and even did not advocate wearing masks. After a large-scale infection, the city was closed, suspended, and classes were suspended. Even so, their efforts to close the city are not comparable to Wuhan. A few days ago, the British Prime Minister announced the failure of the previous defense, and then adopted a mild defense strategy. The specific measures were to isolate the people from their homes, promoted frequent hand washing instead of wearing a mask, and the government mainly rescued the critically ill patients. At the same time, it continued to stop school. error. The British government said: “Stop the epidemic peak to summer and then control the epidemic.” “Our goal is to try to reduce the peak and expand it, rather than suppress it completely.” Looking at Sweden, Swedish officials have announced that they will no longer test mild and suspect patients, and will use limited resources for high-risk groups such as medical staff and hospitalized patients. They believe that it is no longer possible to stop the spread of the epidemic in Sweden. The domestic media interpreted the “Buddha-based epidemic resistance” in the United Kingdom and Sweden as disarming and surrendering, trying to “group immunity” to fight the virus. You know, Britain is the first country in the world to establish a public health system. How can it fall without a fight? Looking at the United States, Trump said on Twitter that 16,000 people in the United States died of the flu, and only a few dozen people had new crown pneumonia, which is okay. However, when the epidemic spread in the United States, the star was recruited and the NBA was suspended. Trump immediately announced that he would cut off tourism with Europe, and the federal finances spent 70 billion on public health to fight the epidemic. There may be two things that really make Trump nervous: First, it is rumored that the Brazilian president was recruited, and Trump ate with him six days ago; second, that US stocks melted twice a week, and the capital market was extremely panic. In fact, European and American countries are not ignorant and fearless. They have long anticipated the consequences: the British Health Minister revealed that in the worst case, 80% of people in the UK will be infected with the new crown virus and more than 500,000 will die. German Chancellor Angela Merkel predicts that 60% -70% of people in Germany will be infected with the new coronavirus, that is, 50 to 58 million people. US experts predict that 96 million confirmed cases will eventually occur in the United States, 4.8 million people will need hospitalization, and 480,000 will be killed. This approach is not that the ignorant is fearless, that is, “seeing death as home.” It can be seen that at present the European and American countries are treating the new crown virus outbreak as influenza, and are preparing to fight protracted war with the new crown virus. They are considering how to “coexist” with the new crown virus for a long time. The problem is that the operation of the Buddhism in Europe and the United States conflicts with China’s control model. First, conflicts of interest. Different control methods determine the spread of the epidemic. China’s approach is to fight an annihilation war, quickly eliminate the virus, and then engage in economy. The European and American approach is to fight the war of attrition and lengthen the front. In the era of globalization, the industrial chains are interconnected, and the steps and methods of epidemic prevention in China and overseas are different, and conflicts of interest will form. For example, last month, a boss who was engaged in the export of toys complained to me that orders in South Korea were running short and no workers were found in the country. He complained to me a few days ago, he finally found a worker to start production, and a Korean customer asked him to wait. In the first two months, European and American countries complained that China had closed its cities, cut off supplies, interrupted the economy, or caused global supply chains to be blocked, dragging down world economic growth and spreading pessimism in financial markets. Nowadays, with the rapid spread of viruses overseas, China is afraid to relax and prevent imported risks. This will affect China’s economic recovery, China’s export trade and foreign exchanges, and the survival of many enterprises, workers’ employment and family income. Secondly, this makes China’s prevention and control passive. The prevention and control in European and American countries is individual responsibility. Civil rights and government responsibilities in Europe and the United States are very clear. Individuals and governments have their own defenses, and everyone has the right and everyone has the responsibility. Even if Trump fails to prevent and control it, the biggest consequence will be the failure of the reelection election this year, and the US system will not be held responsible for it. Even if the government’s defense fails, it is the failure of this elected government that the entire population will bear. In China, the government is solely responsible for the epidemic war. This is a must-win battle, and it must be done quickly. Nowadays, European and American countries have not been able to end the fighting, which has caused imported risks. The duration and depth of this input risk are beyond our control. China’s prevention and control fell into a passive state: first, it continued to guard against deadlock and started an “input defensive war”; second, it was in step with the European and American countries to keep pace with it, while preparing for protracted war while preventing and controlling input. Can it not only prevent and control importation, but also relieve domestic vigilance and promote economic recovery?

new crown pneumonia

It is possible, but there is a lot of pressure from domestic governments at all levels. If there is an imported case in the local area, the local government will not dare to relax.

Finally, emotionally unacceptable. We paid a huge price for the complete elimination of the virus and did not intend to fight the virus for a long time. The price paid by ordinary people in China is unimaginable, economic loss, emotional burden, psychological pressure, and future at the national level. Over the past two months, all Chinese have banned their feet at home, strained their nerves, and worked with one heart in anticipation of victory. Today, when European and American countries do this, we feel that we have been tricked, and we even doubt whether we have been so nervous in the past. Why do n’t European and American countries copy China ’s operations and make quick decisions? The Chinese model is relatively straightforward: the government is the controller of the ledger, a game of chess nationwide, joint defense and joint control, closed communities, and Chinese homes, and then medical supplies are regulated by the government. Hubei provinces and the army support the virus. The virus eventually suffocates. China regards the epidemic as a full-scale war, so it is called a “campaign”. The visible effect of this model is that the epidemic situation is quickly controlled, and the number of infections and deaths has not been further expanded, which has greatly reduced the threat of the new crown virus to people’s lives. However, the conditions for the implementation of the Chinese model are very high: a strong central authority, a Chinese with superb discipline and endurance. At present, few countries have such conditions. European and American countries are “small governments”, lacking a strong central authority, and citizens are even unable to accept the huge cost of “killing the enemy one thousand and self-damaging eight hundred.” Being physically and mentally exhausted, medical resources are scarce, and the risk of death for non-NEV patients is increased. Second, the market is interrupted, the economy is shut down, society is under pressure, the industrial chain is hit by unprecedented shocks, and the economic recession has led to the closure of some enterprises, unemployment of workers, rising household income, debt, and even an economic crisis.

  1. Is the economic account of the epidemic reasonable?

Why do European and American countries “disarm and surrender”? The European and American countries regard the new crown epidemic as a regular epidemic similar to the flu, which is regarded as a high probability event. It is regarded as an economic ledger and is handled according to market logic. From the perspective of public health economic accounts: The mortality rate of new coronary pneumonia is higher than that of influenza, but the mortality rate of elderly people is high, and the mortality rate of young people is similar to that of ordinary influenza. If all patients are treated in isolation, the public health systems and medical systems in Europe and the United States will be immediately paralyzed. In this way, elderly patients and critically ill patients can not be treated, but increase mortality. This selective approach feels contrary to ethics and is indeed a rational choice. Considering the overall economic account: If the Chinese model is adopted, it will enter a wartime state, the homes of the country will be isolated, and the market will be interrupted. The European and American countries will immediately panic and the financial crisis will break out. Some people say that the prevention and control of European and American countries is an act of demanding money. In fact, if there is no “money”, it will be terrible. In early March, Zhang Wenhong, the leader of the Shanghai Medical Treatment Expert Group, said in an interview: If the work is not resumed as soon as possible, the death toll will be much higher than that of coronavirus. When everyone was afraid of the death threat of the new crown virus, Zhang Wenhong saw another “death”-the danger of disruption of social order. The medical system collapses, hospitals are overwhelmed, medical supplies are scarce, and other conditions such as cardiovascular disease, heart disease, and malignant tumors cannot be treated in a timely and continuous manner, and there may be an increase in mortality. In February, the economist Liang Jianzhang published an article called “The Segregated Economic Account”, which calculated a macro life account. Professor Liang Jianzhang pointed out that economists have long calculated the value of life in the economic sense based on data from various countries: Generally speaking, the value of life in developed countries is between 10 and 60 times the GDP per capita. Based on this calculation, “each 1% reduction in GDP per capita reduces life expectancy by about 10 days.” what does this mean? Professor Liang Jianzhang has calculated an economic ledger for influenza: according to the data over the years, the influenza infection rate is about 10%, and the patient mortality rate is 0.2%. Well, in the entire population, the death rate from influenza is two ten thousandths. Assuming that the average life expectancy of a patient is 60 years, and the average life expectancy of a society is 80 years, then each person who died of illness would have shortened the life expectancy by 20 years. Calculated based on the death rate of two ten thousandths, the life expectancy of the entire society has been reduced by about 1.5 days (20 years multiplied by two ten thousandths). If public policy intervention is implemented for influenza, strong social control is adopted, but social control results in a 1% drop in GDP. According to the above, GDP fell by 1%, and life expectancy fell by 10 days. (“Segregated Economic Account”, Liang Jianzhang) So, after accounting for this account, we can understand why European and American countries do not control influenza. From the perspective of the US federal government, Trump also needs to calculate the economic ledger.

As of March 15th, the infection rate of the New Crown epidemic in the United States was 0.0000086 (US influenza infection rate was 0.08), and the case fatality rate was 0.02 (US influenza case fatality rate was 0.005). Then, in the overall population, the mortality rate of Xinguan is extremely low, much lower than that of influenza. The outbreak is almost negligible (a big disrespect) to the overall reduction in life expectancy in the United States. If the federal government implements Chinese-style control, it can be expected that the US financial market will immediately collapse and the economy will suffer a major blow, which will certainly affect the global economy. If such severe measures lead to a 1% decline in US annual GDP, it would mean a 10-day decline in life expectancy. Trump will certainly not do this extremely uneconomical “business”. When we see “visible deaths”, we must also see those “invisible deaths”. However, there is an obvious loophole in the above method of calculating the life account: the flu is relatively stable, while the new crown pneumonia is unstable, and the spread of the new crown epidemic is dynamic. If the epidemic is allowed to spread, the number of infected people, critically ill patients, and death rates may increase significantly, and GDP may also decline. It should be known that the current severe illness rate of the new crown epidemic is between 10% -20%, and the case fatality rate can reach 3% -5%. In this way, the paralysis of the medical system and the increase in mortality have been compounded by the economic downturn (increasing mortality), which is even more worthwhile. Let’s go back and see if there are any problems in the response measures of European and American countries. The European and American models are not well understood by the Chinese. The Chinese model is the government responsibility system, and the European and American model is the individual responsibility system. Individuals here include not only individuals, but also families, businesses, communities, governments, the Federal Reserve, and Congress.

The Chinese model is efficient, centralized, and uniform. The European and American model is gradual, distributed, and gradient. In the European and American model, individuals, families, businesses, communities, governments, the Federal Reserve, and the Congress will calculate the economic account based on the development of the epidemic, and then take corresponding measures to form a gradient prevention and control. Therefore, they are also “dynamic” when calculating their respective economic ledgers. For example, individuals choose whether to go out and go to work based on the level of the epidemic, companies choose whether to start work, NBA chooses whether to suspend games, the community chooses whether to close, the government chooses to increase the level of prevention and control, and the Fed chooses to reduce interest rates. For another example, after the spread of the epidemic and the collapse of oil prices hit the US financial market, the Fed adopted interest rate cuts and “unlimited liquidity support” to rescue the market. As another example, after the outbreak spread rapidly in the United States, the House of Representatives enacted a bill to deal with the new crown virus, ensuring paid leave, unemployment insurance, and free virus testing. Look at the US federal government. The boundary between civil rights and government responsibility in European and American countries is very clear. If the US federal government crosses borders, such as requiring everyone to wear a mask, it may cause damage to personal rights and must make corresponding compensation. Therefore, the measures of the US government are also gradient and dynamic like individuals: the first prevention and control is to prevent and control entry. At present, this prevention and control has failed, and a large-scale spread in the United States has begun. The second prevention and control, that is, mild prevention and control. The so-called mild prevention and control is similar to the prevention and control of influenza. The government only treats the severely ill patients, that is, “protects the most vulnerable groups”, and mild patients isolate themselves. Mild prevention and control is easy to be misunderstood. In fact, they will continue to upgrade the level of mild prevention and control according to the epidemic situation. For example, at present, Britain and Sweden belong to the “Buddha Department” and are considered to surrender. Japan, South Korea, Singapore and the United States have relatively strong prevention and control efforts. Trump wants to raise the level of prevention and control, declare a state of emergency, provide large-scale testing reagents, and cut off tourism with Europe. He criticized the CDC’s response to H1N1 influenza as a “catastrophic”. Currently, more than a dozen states in the United States have declared a state of emergency. Among them, Hoboken, New Jersey announced that the city will implement a curfew from March 16. The third prevention and control is wartime prevention and control. If the mild prevention and control fails and the country falls behind, the European and American countries will switch to wartime prevention and control. For example, Spain has just declared a state of emergency. All Spanish people must stay at home except for food or medicine, hospitalization, work or other emergencies. However, according to the Spanish Constitution, a national emergency can last up to 15 days, and parliament needs to discuss and decide whether to extend it later. Therefore, Chinese-style prevention and control is the last prevention and control in Europe and the United States. It ’s just that European and American countries are willing to take risks and flow wartime prevention and control to the end. Of course, the Fed cannot be ignored. In response to the epidemic and financial risks, the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to zero and launched a $ 700 billion quantitative easing program. To sum up, the American model is actually “individual responsibility + gradient prevention and control + last lender” to fight the attrition war with the new crown epidemic.

  1. How should China co-exist with the new crown?

Europe and the United States take risks in the war of attrition, what should China do? From the discussions among the members of the community, I found a prerequisite that was previously ignored: the characterization of the new crown epidemic. The different nature of the new crown epidemic has determined that the United States and Europe should adopt different prevention and control measures. European and American countries regard the new crown epidemic as a regular epidemic similar to the flu, which is regarded as a high probability event and can be regarded as an economic account book.

China regards the new crown epidemic as a war and regards it as a small-probability event, which is regarded as a political ledger and a national security ledger. If the new crown epidemic is a national security incident, then the economic account algorithm in Europe and the United States is not desirable. This is like, when the enemy is dead, his life is off, but you are bargaining. In fact, after the United States entered World War II, it also adopted wartime control over the national economy. At this time, we need to refer to China’s practice. China’s method of calculating the national ledger can be summarized as “the government is responsible + guard against deadlock + strong infrastructure stimulus”. The Chinese government is also worried about preventing serious damage to the economy, so it chose to make a quick decision and then use strong infrastructure to stimulate it to protect the economy and employment. If the New Crown epidemic is just a public health event similar to the flu, then it is an economic problem and the economic account can be calculated. How to understand this? European and American countries regard new crown pneumonia as a market risk like influenza, traffic accidents, and financial crisis, and then use market rules to deal with it. For example, during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, Mexico took measures to close the city, but ultimately failed. The United States finally gave up after trying to force the ineffective control to switch to the seasonal flu management model, that is, mild management. The flu has infected 60 million people in the United States. In a market economy, risks are everywhere. We can only prevent and control risks, but we cannot eliminate them. For example, traffic safety investment. In fact, the government can broaden roads, increase traffic police, and improve the design of car manufacturers to reduce traffic accidents. However, the government and car manufacturers cannot invest infinitely to ensure zero accidents and casualties. In fact, this is not possible. Therefore, we have to price life and incorporate it into economic calculations (cruel). Therefore, the prevention and control of the new crown epidemic has become a question of the marginal rate of return on investment for everyone. But the question is, is it a financial problem? The debate on this issue is similar to the economic crisis. Keynesians regarded the economic crisis as a national security event, and the government intervened strongly to protect employment and stimulate economic recovery. The economic crisis of 1929 did cause a large number of economic refugees to live on the verge of hunger and death. However, neoclassicalists believe that economic crisis, like economic prosperity, is part of the economic cycle. Markets that only allow money and do not allow losses and bankruptcy will not bring wealth to the country and people. They argue that the government does not intervene or intervene appropriately. The dispute between the two factions has not been concluded in China so far, but it is already clear in the European and American countries in the 1970s: 1. If human factors lead to the end of the market and the crisis leads to the Great Depression, government intervention and judicial intervention are required to remove artificial barriers and promote Market recovery. 2. If the economic crisis is a normal economic fluctuation, then the government only needs to do one thing well, that is, to provide enough public supplies to the unemployed and those in need of assistance. Let’s look at the nature of the new crown epidemic. The World Health Organization has defined the new crown epidemic as an “emergency public health event” and announced a “world pandemic.” This definition has not risen to national security incidents, only public health incidents. Therefore, countries only need to activate public health systems and provide sufficient medical supplies and other public goods. The U.S. public health system has withstood the impact of 29 million flu cases and 280,000 critically ill patients. The community GP system in the United States plays an important role in patient detection and prevention. Therefore, as long as the public health system can withstand and the market can operate as usual, this method of calculating economic accounts is reasonable. The problem is that many countries, such as China and Iran, do not have sound public health systems and adequate public supplies to deal with the spread of the epidemic. This may threaten national security, and the new crown epidemic may rise to a national security event. For example, Italy, Singapore, and Japan all adopt the American model, and the situation in Italy is much worse than Singapore and Japan. Italy’s medical technology is not bad, but the debt crisis that has lasted for many years has dragged down the construction of public healthcare. At present, there are over 10,000 cases in Italy, with an estimated 2,000 cases of severe cases, but inadequate medical resources, and only 5,000 beds in the country. In contrast, Japan has the second largest number of beds in the world. There is another key issue: vaccines.


Vaccines can determine the nature of the new crown outbreak. For now, the new crown virus cannot be equated with the flu. why? Although there is no real cure for influenza, there is a vaccine. The reason why influenza can be “group segregated” is because of the vaccine. Because a large number of people have been vaccinated, it is difficult for the flu virus to find people who have not been vaccinated. This has the effect of group isolation. At present, there is no vaccine for New Coronavirus, and herd isolation cannot be achieved. As the mortality rate of new crowns is higher in the elderly than in the flu, as the epidemic spreads, the lives of the elderly are vulnerable. Therefore, if European and American countries can concentrate medical resources on elderly patients and critically ill patients and reduce their mortality to a lower level before the vaccine is launched on the market, mild prevention and control is desirable. US government officials have revealed that a clinical trial of the new crown virus vaccine will begin on March 16 local time. However, the validation period for a vaccine usually takes 12-18 months to complete. If the epidemic cannot be controlled before the vaccine is marketed, European and American countries need to raise the level of prevention and control and even enter wartime conditions. Therefore, whether to adopt the Chinese model or the European and American model, and whether to enable the national wartime procedures or gentle individual control depends on the public health system, medical resources and technology. What should China do next? The European and American countries are fighting the war of attrition. It is expected that the European and American countries will control the epidemic for much longer than China, and the number of infected people will reach a considerable scale. As long as a European and American country continues to spread, there is a global risk of infection, and China has an import risk. In this way, we have to consider how to “coexist” with the new crown virus (no one wants it, but there is no way). China cannot adopt the US model and can only make adjustments based on existing prevention and control. First, trust each other, reduce accusations, and wait patiently. At the beginning of the epidemic, European and American countries accused China of prevention and control measures. Now that the epidemic has shifted to Western countries, China has in turn blamed the other side’s control measures. In economics, viral infection is an externality contradiction. European and American countries finally saw China controlling the epidemic. At the same time, China must also believe that European and American countries can control the epidemic. Today, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore have passed the outbreak period, and their prevention and control measures may not necessarily be out of control. In addition, the developed medical technology in European and American countries not only helps them to control the epidemic, but also gives us great help in difficult times, such as Red Desivir and 3M. . Rather than blaming others, it is better to provide appropriate assistance. Helping others equals helping oneself. As soon as possible, the epidemic is controlled overseas, and China is relieved as soon as possible. Second, improve the public health system and encourage research and development of vaccines and specific drugs. Public health and medical technology are the keys to a protracted war and a war of attrition against the new crown virus. If we have vaccines, special-effect medicines, or a sound public health system, there is no need to fight annihilation with the power of the country, and the cost will be smaller.

Third, make profits to the market and release water for fish farming. Affected by overseas epidemics, China’s economic recovery may be slower than expected. In order to cope with the economic downturn, the government has introduced a series of measures, including targeted reductions in interest rates, tax cuts, social security exemptions, free highway fees, and 33 trillion yuan in major infrastructure projects. However, large infrastructure and strong stimulation are not good options. Strong stimulus may pierce the economic bubble, cause unfair distribution of wealth, and disrupt market competition mechanisms. On the contrary, timely and continuous large-scale profit distribution by the government and state-owned enterprises is the key. Specific measures include extending tax-free, social security, and interest-free time; and providing interest-free and low-interest loans to SMEs through government discounts and guarantees. At the same time, increase investment in education and new infrastructure (public goods). Fourth, improve the level of national governance and learn to coexist with the new crown. Chinese senior officials said that the prevention and control of the epidemic was a big test of the national governance system and capacity. Now, no matter when the vaccine comes out, we have to face a real problem: the war of annihilation has just ended and the war of attrition will start again. Although the new crown epidemic in China is not just a market risk issue, it is also a national security issue. However, the main risk today is imported cases, which is actually a global market risk problem. In the era of globalization, capital, talents, commodities and viruses circulate at a high speed, and opportunities and risks coexist. We have to learn to coexist with risks for a long time, that is, to coexist with virus risks, financial risks, and transportation risks in globalized markets. For example, you are an old driver without any traffic accidents. However, “Street Killer” still hit you. Although you are not responsible, you assume external risks. After a while, we finally returned to the question of the economic ledger: how to explore a national governance model suitable for globalized markets. Fighting viruses for a long time and coexisting with global market risks need to stimulate the creativity of each individual, business, family, community and government. The premise of stimulating creativity is to clarify and protect everyone’s rights and responsibilities, and allow everyone to act on their own financial books. The specific method is “decompression is not reduced”. China needs to take continuous measures to control entry and exit, strictly control imported cases, and at the same time reasonably reduce the level of domestic prevention and control. However, due to the pressure of local officials, they are afraid to lift unnecessary defense policies. Therefore, it is necessary to “decompress” the local government at this time, but not “reduce the responsibility”. How to do it? The responsibilities of local governments and officials should be clearly divided as much as possible, and accountability should not be indiscriminate in the event of an accident, so as to avoid dying and letting go of everything. If the virus and the virus coexist for a long time, the government alone and the wartime model alone cannot survive. The government needs to give all streets, communities, families, and individuals some defensive authority, while also clearly dividing responsibilities. Of course, this is only a limited adjustment, a temporary response. From a long-term perspective, if China is to cope with global financial risks and various uncertain virus risks, it needs to establish a system with clear powers and responsibilities, protect individuals, and encourage creativity. Human activities in the national governance model of a large society and an efficient government are, after all, a collective adventure. The new crown virus gave humans a big test of how to act collectively. Scientific state governance is an art of balance.