Last week, "Bloomberg" published an article "Why the World Needs China's Covid-Zero Policy", pointing out that the "zero policy" has avoided the outbreak of the epidemic in China and ensured that China's industrial chain can function. Continuing to export goods to the world steadily and steadily, China's rising export volumes over the past two years illustrate its success.
The article agrees that although the economic cost of clearing is high, the cost of not clearing is even greater. Therefore, the world should support China's clearing policy for a stable supply of goods.
However, not long before this article was published, many in the West were questioning China's zero policy.
For example, at the beginning of the year, the Eurasia Group, an American political think tank, released the top ten risk forecasts for the world in 2022, and listed "the failure of China's zero policy" as the first.
Analysts at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs have warned that maintaining zero will cost China a huge economic cost.
Bloomberg's comments are no doubt at odds with those doubts.
China's maintenance of zero is not a face project
The epidemic has lasted for more than two years, and the fatality rate of the Omicron variant is lower than that of the previous variants, which makes many people think that the epidemic has reached the end. Discussions are also getting heated.
And China, which has always insisted on strict "dynamic clearing", has naturally become the focus of these discussions.
China’s zero policy is not impossible to question, but many arguments are mixed with political bias. Among them, the most frequently cited reason is that China has missed the opportunity to coexist with the virus because of its vigorous promotion of the benefits of zero. One's own political correctness must continue to be cleared in order to save face.
Mainland China still adheres to the "dynamic clearing" policy.
Regardless of the fact that this hypothesis is full of conspiracy theories, its logic is not very tenable.
First of all, China's policy implementation has always attached importance to adapting to the situation and adjusting specific measures according to the actual situation.
Once the policy implementation is not as ideal, the CCP will make adjustments without hesitation. There is no so-called "face" issue.
Just as the mainland's regulation of the property market last year was considered too aggressive, the central government also began to relax restrictions on housing loans in the fourth quarter, which shows that the policy is not static.
What's more, mainland official experts, such as Zeng Guang and others, have repeatedly mentioned that it is impossible to reset to zero forever, and that reset still has the greatest effect on China's society and economy at this stage.
In other words, the clearing is not necessarily the longer the better, but must weigh the interests and consider how to maximize the interests of the whole society and the people.
The only political consideration should be the people
Although the article published by Bloomberg is not based on China's interests, it also reflects that the West is not one-sidedly questioning China's zero policy.
Although many Western experts agree that Omicron may be a sign leading to the end of the epidemic, they also believe that its possible changes should be handled with caution, especially since the virus may still mutate.
It is precisely because we are almost at the end that we should act cautiously and avoid falling just before crossing the line.
Recently, many European and American governments have successively cancelled the two-year epidemic prevention measures, including the United Kingdom.
An article in the local Guardian newspaper last weekend titled 'Why so fast?: world experts react to England ending Covid curbs' ('Why so fast?': world experts react to England ending Covid curbs) In the form of interviews with experts from all over the world, questioning the British government is not based on scientific ideas, but is influenced by political factors.
From January 27, 2022, the UK has officially lifted most of the restrictions on epidemic prevention: masks are no longer required indoors, the government no longer requires people to work from home, and the display of vaccine passes when entering venues and participating in activities has also become voluntary.
Science is undoubtedly only objective data. A public policy as large as epidemic prevention involves many trade-offs, and it is difficult to completely ignore the influence of political factors.
However, if political considerations must be involved in epidemic prevention policies, the common interests of the whole society and the people should be put first.
From this perspective, China's adherence to the zero-clearing policy actually has political considerations, but it is to pursue the greatest interests of the Chinese society and do its utmost to protect the lives and economic security of the Chinese people.
Is the absurd "clearing" of the Western "clearing failure theory" really too expensive?
Epidemic prevention reflects differences in governance capabilities