I was still woken up by the announcement from the community to do nucleic acid testing in the morning. I opened my friends' circle and found that a former leader from my previous company had reposted an article by Liu Su called "Do You Understand?" I have known Liu Su since college. At that time, our botany teacher, ZH, told us about him and said that he was a colleague of Professor ZW. At that time, I had communicated with him on Weibo and even tried to join his translation work for his new book. I sent him a trial translation, but it didn't work out in the end, probably because of my insufficient abilities.
After that, I didn't hear from him for a long time. Later, I saw some of his comments on Weibo, and I felt that they had some reactionary tendencies, maybe I was being sensitive. Recently, as the epidemic has become more severe, it may also be because I started following his WeChat account again. I feel that his comments on epidemic prevention and control have made me think a lot. So, with this article, on the one hand, I want to clarify Liu Su's views, which ones I can agree with and which ones I cannot, and on the other hand, I want to do some self-reflection.
At the beginning of the article, Liu Su said that he had become a volunteer, which I admire because currently, I don't have the courage to do so. On the one hand, I don't have the time, and the main reason is that I'm afraid of coming into contact with too many people and getting infected with COVID-19.
Then he personally cannot accept everyone calling the epidemic prevention personnel "Da Bai" (Big White). He also mentioned in his previous articles that he disliked everyone using a sheep icon to refer to positive cases. Personally, I don't think this is a big deal, he's making a fuss about it.
Then he mentioned several of his viewpoints. First, he believes that the current virus strains should be dealt with in a completely different way from two years ago when strict prevention was the approach. He didn't specify what approach should be taken, and I can't think of any other methods either.
Then he said that we should not go to the extremes of "lying flat" or "zero tolerance," and I agree with this. "Lying flat" means treating the epidemic as if it doesn't exist and going back to life as it was before the epidemic, which is obviously not feasible. As for "zero tolerance," first of all, we can never achieve it at the moment, and it has never been achieved within China's territory. Should we strive towards this direction? In the current situation where the virus is highly virulent, contagious, has long-term effects, low vaccination rates, low per capita medical resources, and no specific drugs, I believe it is necessary to do so, even if we cannot achieve zero tolerance, we should still strive in that direction. Until when? Until all of these issues are resolved, or when the country's economy can't bear it anymore, then we can stop making such efforts and accept that more and more people will be infected. There is one point that I am particularly interested in, Liu Su mentioned that the epidemic prevention and control measures in some countries are even stricter than in China, but he didn't say which countries, and I'm curious. But I don't have time to find the answer either.
Then he mentioned the issue of how the United States counts COVID-19 deaths. He said that if a person who tested positive for COVID-19 dies in a car accident in the United States, it will still be counted as a COVID-19 death. First of all, I doubt this statement, and even if it is true, I think this counting method is incorrect. Here he mentioned mRNA, and I personally feel that he is suggesting that this type of vaccine may be more effective, but on the other hand, who can get it? Or who can petition for the country to introduce this vaccine? I haven't seen anyone.
Then, regarding the long-term effects of COVID-19, he said that the post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) have been exaggerated. He quoted an article by medical professionals online, saying that unless it triggers severe symptoms like pneumonia, there will rarely be any long-term effects. I have two immediate feedbacks. First, how do you know who will develop into pneumonia after testing positive? Given the current situation of medical resources, how many people can be guaranteed not to develop pneumonia? Secondly, I suggest that Liu Su, like being a volunteer, take the risk himself. If he doesn't have any long-term effects, then I will believe him on this point.
Then he opposes the statement that "our efforts in fighting the epidemic cannot be in vain." He says that our efforts may largely be in vain. I admit that we have made some futile efforts, but I don't agree with his use of the term "largely." First, if we don't make any efforts, then it's equivalent to "lying flat." If we make fewer efforts, what can be reduced, and how can we give a qualitative and quantitative answer? I don't think anyone can say for sure. Secondly, regarding the things that you don't agree with now, such as chaotic community management, rotten vegetables, etc., how many people, including Liu Su, have taken practical actions besides complaining and engaging in "verbal battles"? Going downstairs to be a volunteer, participating in management, petitioning the government and hospitals when the community is unsealed, communicating with top doctors about epidemic prevention policies, etc., how many people are actually doing these things?
Then he talks about the problem of online garbage information barriers. I partially agree with these comments. I believe that the government does control speech and deliberately spreads incomplete or even false information. But is it necessary? I think it is. Or to put it the other way around, even if you know the truth, how does it help with epidemic prevention and control? He didn't say either.
The above is Liu Su's article, which I think reflects his attitude and thinking. I agree with and appreciate this point. Independent thinking is always necessary, even if it is a wrong opinion, after independent thinking, you have to decide whether to follow it or not. Secondly, Liu Su, including the people commenting on the article, and many people in life, are all saying that others have preconceived notions, as if anyone who criticizes or opposes them has preconceived notions. But on the other hand, isn't their behavior also a form of preconceived notions? Returning to the article, there are some valuable content and viewpoints, but many of these are impractical or no one is taking action to promote them. So, there isn't much to take away from the article, and it can be said that it doesn't shake the existing epidemic prevention policies. If more people read it, it may even cause some disturbance to a certain extent.
In conclusion:
- Have independent thinking.
- Ensure the health of yourself and your family, do your best not to get infected with COVID-19.
- Obey arrangements, after all, if you haven't taken practical actions to improve the situation and the country hasn't threatened your life (you should know that most people only resist when their lives are threatened), then you should cooperate with the government and the country.
- If you express opinions in the future, consider whether you can make a change. Complaining is useless. The saying "If you can do it, then do it" is correct.