[2021-11-16]Quora话题：你觉得为什么中国能继续坚持实行新冠“零容忍”，而新西兰、新加坡等国家却放弃了？

Robin Daverman World traveler
This is a really good question, and I’d like to use this question to put down some really fundamental issues on this topic.
First of all, those countries that pursued “zero Covid policy” (i.e., China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, et. al.) are clearly more capable countries than most. They have demonstrated that they have the state capacity to pursue a “zero Covid” strategy. Most countries could not. Even those countries that on paper, seemed to possess very high public health capacities (Sweden with its world famous pulmonary specialist industry, UK with Oxford and NHS, US with the most healthcare spending in the world), turned out not to have that public health capability in real life.

【回答】世界旅行者
这是一个非常好的问题，我想用这个问题来讨论一些关于这个话题的基本问题。
首先，实行“零感染政策”的国家，(即中国、日本、韩国、新加坡、澳大利亚、新西兰等)显然比大多数国家更有能力。它们已经证明，它们有能力实施”零感染”战略。大多数国家不能。即便是那些名义上似乎拥有非常高的公共卫生能力的国家(瑞典有世界著名的肺病专家产业，英国有牛津和英国国民健康保险制度(NHS)，美国有世界上最多的医疗支出)，结果在现实生活中却没有展现这种公共卫生能力。

This set of “zero Covid” countries thus have much lower rate of death and “long-Covid” disabilities in their population. They waited out the initial Covid wave, and now we have vaccines, steroids have shown clinical efficacy, and we have some anti-virals and monoclonals that can work if taken early. So the question is, is it time for these set of countries, sufficiently equipped with these tools, roll back the NPI (non-pharmaceutical intervention, i.e., lock-downs, masks, ventilation, physical distancing, etc.) without getting an explosion of Covid cases, hospitalizations, death, and disability.
One immediate question is vaccine coverage. Basically, all vaccine coverage data are garbage, because the virus doesn’t care if the person is “eligible for vaccination” or not. It sees a lung, it infects it, it then gets pumped out of the infected lung to go look for new lungs to infect. Do you have a lung? Well then you are eligible for viral infection and transmission! For countries with a large population under 18, or a country with a large population taking “religious exemptions”, do these people have lungs? Then they need to be vaccinated to stop the virus. There’s no other way. The “percent vaccinated” data, that denominator needs to be the whole population, otherwise it’s useless.

因此，这组“零感染”国家的人口死亡率和“新冠长期症状”致残率要低得多。他们等待着最初的新冠浪潮结束，现在我们有了疫苗，类固醇已经显示出临床疗效，我们还有一些抗病毒药物和单克隆抗体药物，如果早期服用可以起作用。所以，问题是，这组国家是时候充分配备这些工具，在没有出现大量新冠病例、住院、死亡和致残的情况下，取消NPI(非药物干预，如封锁、口罩、通风，保持物理距离等)了吗？
一个迫在眉睫的问题是疫苗覆盖率。基本上，所有的疫苗覆盖率数据都是垃圾，因为病毒并不在乎这个人是否“有接种疫苗的条件”。它看到一个肺，感染它，然后从受感染的肺里跑出来，去寻找新的肺来感染。你有肺吗？嗯，那么你就有病毒感染和传播的条件！对于有众多18岁以下人口的国家，或者有大量“宗教豁免”人口的国家，这些人有肺吗？然后他们需要接种疫苗来阻止病毒。没有别的办法了。“疫苗接种率”数据，分母必须是全体人口，否则毫无用处。

The other issue about the vaccination data is that it looks like there’s a non-trivial percentage of infections after 6 months. What does it mean? It means full “herd immunity” can only be provided by people who are fully vaccinated in the prior 6 months. So instead of a “sum total to-date vaccination rate on eligible population”, we need a “vaccinated in the prior 6 months” number, divided against the whole population.
And that number, unfortunately, is nowhere close to providing population immunity.
(PS: The galloping Covid wave in Europe, despite its great “vaccination rate” numbers, tells you that this number, in the way it’s currently reported, is total garbage.
Also, despite its great efficacy, this kind of vaccination schedule is going to be really tough to execute for mid- and low-income countries. Ultra-low storage temperature, two shots initial vaccination, once every 6 months booster. The vast majority of the other vaccines are 1-shot, 2 - 8 degree centigrade storage, or lyophilized vials which can be stored in room temperature. So you are talking about a significant build-up in healthcare capacity in order to vaccinate people in developing countries, and that takes money and time they don’t have. )

关于疫苗接种数据的另一个问题是，6个月后感染的比例看起来并不小。这意味着什么？这意味着只有在前6个月内完全接种疫苗的人才能提供完全的“群体免疫力”。因此，我们需要的不是“迄今为止合格人口的疫苗总接种率”，而是“在前6个月内接种疫苗”的数字，除以整个人口。
遗憾的是，这个数字远远不能提供人口免疫。
(PS: 尽管欧洲的“疫苗接种率”数字很高，但新冠浪潮在欧洲仍迅速蔓延，告诉你，这个数字按照目前的报道方式，完全是垃圾。
此外，尽管这种疫苗接种计划的功效很大，但对于中低收入国家来说，执行它将非常困难。超低储存温度，初始接种两针，每6个月一次加强剂。其他绝大多数疫苗是接种一次，2-8摄氏度的储存，或者冻干瓶，可以在室温下储存。所以你在谈论的是，发展中国家显著提高医疗能力，以便人民接种疫苗，这需要花费他们本就没有的金钱和时间。）

So now that you know that based on the “rolling 6-month vaccination / total population” data, it’s a sure thing all these countries WILL GET COVID WAVE if/when they open up.
In terms of difficulty, Singapore and China are the most difficult countries to maintain zero-Covid. All these other countries are effectively islands. China shares border with 14 other countries, and is the biggest international trade country in the world. Singapore sits in the middle of Malaysia, and 40% of its labor force is foreign migrants. The other countries, like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, they don’t have these kind of issues. In theory they can maintain zero-Covid policies until better vaccines and better pharmaceuticals come to market.

所以，现在你知道了，根据“6个月滚动疫苗接种/总人口”的数据，可以肯定的是，如果他们放开的话，所有这些国家将会受到新冠浪潮的冲击。
就难度而言，新加坡和中国是最难维持零感染的国家。所有其他这些国家实际上都是孤岛。中国与其他14个国家接壤，是世界上最大的国际贸易国。新加坡位于马来西亚中部，40%的劳动力是外国移民。其他国家，像澳大利亚，新西兰，日本，韩国，他们没有类似的问题。理论上，在更好的疫苗和更好的药物上市之前，他们可以维持零感染政策。

So it’s understandable that Singapore would try to roll back NPI. The reason for Australia and New Zealand to do so is less clear. One thing that I find strangely left out of the Media is the statistical impact of Covid on the labor force. Everybody is screaming “can’t find labor” but how many of the local labor force died, disabled, or just fed up and left the labor force? I mean if you damage your own labor force, and over there China has a completely healthy, educated, intact labor force, how would that affect national competitiveness in the next 20 years? Because humans can’t magically jump out of the rock. They have to be born, educated, trained, get experience somewhere, before you want them in your factory, no?
PS: Many articles quote tourism as reason for opening up, but I don’t think that’s a valid reason, because you are really pitching “international tourism” against “domestic tourism”. “Zero-Covid” countries have robust domestic tourism already. If international tourism brings in the virus, that’ll effectively shut down domestic tourism. So if your domestic tourism is greater than international tourism, then this is not a good trade.

因此，新加坡试图取消NPI是可以理解的。澳大利亚和新西兰这样做的原因尚不清楚。我发现媒体很奇怪地忽略了一件事，那就是新冠疫情对劳动力的统计影响。每个人都在大喊“找不到劳动力”，但是有多少当地的劳动力死亡、残疾，或者只是受够了离开的劳动力？我的意思是，如果你伤害了你自己的劳动力，而在那边，中国则有一支完全健康、受过教育、完好无损的劳动力，这将如何影响未来20年的国家竞争力？因为人类不可能神奇地从石头蹦出。在你想让他们进入你的工厂之前，他们必须出生、受过教育、受过训练、在某个地方获得经验，不是吗？
（PS：很多文章引述旅游业作为开放的理由，但我不认为这是一个合理的理由，因为你实际上是在推销“国际旅游业”，与“国内旅游业”对立。“零感染”措施的国家已经拥有活跃的国内旅游业。如果国际旅游业带来了病毒，这实际上会导致国内旅游业关闭。因此，如果你的国内旅游业规模大于国际旅游业，那么开放国际旅游业就不是一笔好买卖。）
-------------------------------------------------------

Bill Chen
Thank you for the sanity when it comes to Singapore.
Singapore is perhaps the most globalized city on earth. We exist because of our connectivity. Even our water is imported. We cannot stay closed indefinitely. Instead of printing money from the sky, we have spent a huge chunk of reserve.
We are doing what we can to protect the children, who cannot be vaccinated yet.

【回复】感谢你对新加坡的理智评论。
新加坡也许是地球上最全球化的城市。我们的存在是因为我们的连通性。甚至我们的水也是进口的。我们不能无限期封锁。我们没法凭空印钱，而是花费了一大笔储备金。
我们正在尽我们所能保护尚未接种疫苗的儿童。

Robin Daverman
I think it’s a good start that Singapore will no longer provide free Covid treatment to those who refuse vaccination. Covid treatment is extremely expensive and can easily run to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s also medieval-torture-level uncomfortableness. I can never understand why people want to go through that. People who refuse vaccine should pay for it themselves, and they should be sued for infecting other people, imho. Being nice to anti-vaxxers is the same as being nice to the virus.

【答主回复】新加坡将不再向那些拒绝接种疫苗的人提供免费的新冠肺炎治疗，我认为这是一个好的开始。新冠肺炎的治疗非常昂贵，很轻易就会达到几十万美元。这也是中世纪酷刑级别的不舒适感。我永远无法理解为什么人们要经历这些。拒绝接种疫苗的人应该自己支付费用，而且他们应该因感染给其他人而被起诉。对拒接种者友善和对病毒友善是一回事。

Bill Chen
A good portion are Christians, led on by their doctor or medical field friends. This group is hard to convince.
It has been a very tough 2 years. Unfortunately, I think 2022 will be worse.

【回复】很大一部分是基督徒，由他们的医生或医学领域的朋友带领，这个群体很难被说服。
这是非常艰难的两年。不幸的是，我认为2022年会更糟。

Tran Khanh Nong
I think Singapore gov should act tougher toward antivaxxers. Here in Vietnam, the rule is that you can't appear on the roads if you haven't taken at least 1 shot. Soon it will be increased to 2. Don't like vaccines? Fine, your choice, we don't force you to take the vaccines but I would make it so that no workplace, no food store, no market/supermarket, no cafe will accept your appearance there. And since the roads are ours (the government), we don't want you there either. Stay inside your house for the rest of your life if you want.
I'm quite happy that my country, just a few months ago being one of the worst vaccinated countries in the world, in the next few day will have close to 100% vaccination rate for all people 18 and above. Almost half of the population have taken 2nd dose, and tens of thousands of children below 18 are being injected with Pfizer everyday too.
Vietnam has a sizeable number of Christians too (around 15 million people) but most choose to take vaccines. Surprisingly, the ones really really against Covid vaccines are those practicing FLG😆

【回复】我认为新加坡政府应该对拒接种者采取更强硬的措施。在越南，规则是，如果你没有至少接种一剂，你就不能走在路上。很快就会增加到两剂。不喜欢疫苗？好吧，你的选择，我们不会强迫你接种疫苗，但我会让任何工作场所，食品店，市场/超市，咖啡馆不接受你的出现。由于道路是我们(政府)的，我们也不希望你走在上面。如果你愿意，你可以在家里度过余生。
我很高兴，就在几个月前，我们国家还是世界上接种疫苗率最差的国家之一，在接下来的几天里，所有18岁及以上人群的接种率将接近100% 。几乎一半的人口已经接种了第二剂，而且每天还有数以万计的18岁以下的儿童接种辉瑞疫苗。
越南也有相当数量的基督徒(大约1500万人) ，但大多数人选择接种疫苗。让人惊讶的是，真正反对疫苗接种的是那些轮子。

Richard Teo
Why do you think 2022 will be worse, appreciate your elaboration, thank you.

【回复】为什么你认为2022年会更糟，欣赏你的推敲，谢谢。

Bill Chen
We have inflation, near zero rates, QE, massive debt fueling the biggest asset bubble in history.
The world is not back to 2019 levels of production but the American stock market is 20 percent higher.
Something's got to give, and it will have to unwind. Otherwise we are headed for even more pain down the road.

【回复】我们(新加坡)有通货膨胀，接近零利率，量化宽松，巨额债务催生了历史上最大的资产泡沫。
世界的产量还没有回到2019年的水平，但是美国的股市已经上涨了20%。
有些东西必须放弃，必须放开。否则，我们将面临更多的痛苦。

James Chrisholm
Great answer. But vaccination does not provide herd immunity even if the entire population is vaccinated within 6 months. It does not reduced spread. All vaccination does is to reduce symptoms in those with moderate disease and reduce risks of ending up in ICU.
The strategy should be to flatten that curve by whatever means.

【回复】答得好。但是，即使所有人口在6个月内接种疫苗，疫苗也无法提供群体免疫力。它不会减少传播。所有的疫苗接种都是为了减少中度患者的症状，降低最终进入ICU的风险。
应该要采取不择手段压平这条曲线的策略。

Keith Stone
Overall, I agree with your answer. But on the subject of China, I think you have misread the situation. Yes, it’s true, China shares a border with 14 other countries, and is the biggest international trade country in the world. But due to its huge population size, the number of people crossing those borders is tiny in proportion to the whole population. Therefore it’s relatively easy to shut down cross border movement without impacting the economy too much.
If a Chinese city of 10 million people has an outbreak, it’s no big deal for China to quarantine, lockdown and test the entire city for as long as it takes to eliminate the virus. This barely impacts the national economy. They have done this several times.
In New Zealand, if Auckland goes into lockdown, that is 1/3 of the entire population and an even greater proportion of the economy that is affected. That’s why Singapore and NZ and Australia decided they just couldn’t afford to continue lockdowns.

【回复】总的来说，我同意你的回答。但是说到中国，我认为你误解了形势。是的，没错，中国与其他14个国家接壤，是世界上最大的国际贸易国。但是由于其庞大的人口规模，跨过这些边境的人数与总人口比例是很小的。因此，在不对经济造成太大影响的情况下，关闭跨境流动是相对容易的。
如果一座拥有1000万人口的中国城市爆发疫情，中国就会对整座城市进行隔离、封锁和检测，直到消灭病毒为止，这不是什么大不了的事情。这几乎没有影响到国家经济。他们已经这样做过好几次了。
在新西兰，如果奥克兰进入封锁状态，那就是整个人口的三分之一受影响，经济的比例甚至会更大。这就是为什么新加坡、 新西兰和澳大利亚决定不能再继续这种承受不起的封锁。

Michael Brandse
I am going to need you to take back on what you said about Japan. Sure, they tried to implement a COVID policy, but it was far from “zero tolerance.” The Japanese government actually seems to have no say in whether people need to stay at home or not, the best they can do is “please people, pretty please” and that’s about it.
The only reason why initially this worked is because Japan, like many eastern Asian countries I believe, are obsessed with health and will immediately mask up the moment some health instance declares a pandemic. Hell, they will mask up for much less than that. Initially, people also believed that the whole “stay home, don’t go out” thing worked and indeed, even places like the famous Shibuya were empty. That worked the first time. When the government retried this whole “stay at home thing” a second time (when a second wave hit), people started to ignore it. When the government tried it more times, even during a period where we had 5000 new infected per day, and, indeed, no one really bothered. The masks? Sure. Staying at home and social distancing? Nope.

【回复】我需要答主收回关于日本的说法。当然，他们努力实施新冠政策，但这远远不是“零容忍”，实际上，日本政府似乎对人们是否需要呆在家里没有发言权，他们所能做的就是讨好他们“请人们...，恳请人们...”，仅此而已。
这个方法起初奏效的唯一原因，是因为日本，就像我认为的许多东亚国家一样，对健康着迷，当一些卫生机构宣布疫情的时候，就会立即戴上口罩。说真的，他们会为了比这更小的事情而戴口罩。最初，人们也相信“待在家里，不要出门”的说法是有效的，甚至像涩谷这样著名的地方也空无一人。这方法第一次成功了。当政府第二次尝试这种“呆在家里”的做法时(第二波浪潮来袭)，人们开始忽视。当政府尝试了更多次，甚至在每天有5000名新感染者的时期，但事实上，没有人真正感到困扰。戴口罩？当然。呆在家里和社交距离？不要。

Hell, if it wasn’t for the Olympics, the government would have twiddled their thumbs (and implemented a few “stay at home” policies in the meantime) indefinitely. It’s the international pressure that made the government get off their arses and start distributing COVID vaccines to the whole country, rather than just the really really old. In May, we had a fully vaccinated rate of an abysmal 0.7%. In June, this was still a paltry 5% or so (though including people with only one dose increases that to 15%). Now, now that the vaccine is finally available for basically anyone? 75%.
What I am trying to say here is that the Japanese government is largely toothless when it comes to forcing an entire population to do something; all bark, no bite. The only reason Japan is doing well right now is because people were waiting for the vaccines and don’t seem to care much about the conspiracy theories that come with them.

实话说，如果不是奥运会，政府将一直无所事事下去(同时实施一些“呆在家里”的政策)。正是国际社会的压力让政府振作起来，开始向全国发放新冠疫苗，而不仅仅是面向高龄老人的疫苗。今年5月，我们的完全接种率只有可怜的0.7%。在6月，这比率仍然只是微不足道的5%左右(尽管包括那些只接种一剂的人，达到了15%)。现在，基本上任何人都可以接种疫苗？75%。
我在这里想说的是，日本政府在迫使全体民众采取行动时，基本上是无能为力的；只会吠叫，不会咬人。日本现在表现良好的唯一原因是，人们在等待疫苗，似乎并不太关心随之而来的阴谋论。

Roy Goh
“Do you have a lung? Well then you are eligible for viral infection and transmission! ”
LOL. This ought to be a meme.

【回复】“你有肺吗？嗯，那么你就有病毒感染和传播的条件！”
哈哈，这应该成为一个模因(梗)。

Nicholas Yoong
It's honestly more like luck that the original SARS didn't reach Europe. If it reached Europe SARS would have been a pandemic.

【回复】老实说，最初的SARS没有传播到欧洲，更像是运气好。如果它传播到欧洲，SARS就会成为一场大流行。
-------------------------------------------------------

Alan Armstrong lives in New Zealand
New Zealand hasn’t given up, we’ve changed our strategy to meet changing conditions.
The big change: When COVID first arrived here its R0 was about 1.2 and infectivity began at about 3–4 days. That made it possible to lock down and contact-trace every single person who had been exposed, and in our first outbreak that worked exactly as predicted - the infection died out after about 3–4 weeks. Zero tolerance was 100% effective.
The Delta variant has an R0 infectivity somewhere between 3 and 5, and it’s infectious 2 days earlier. That changes things entirely, it’s no longer possible to track down and isolate everyone before they begin infecting others and so contact tracing has been scaled down and a new plan developed. Vaccination changes the game too. We’re at 80% and modelling says that at about 90%+ we can ease restrictions to a point.
We’re doing what works, and it’s working. I would guess that’s also what China is doing.

【回答】住在新西兰
新西兰没有放弃，我们改变了战略，以适应不断变化的情况。
最大的变化是：当新冠病毒首次传播到这里的时候，它的R0约为1.2，在3-4天左右开始有传染性。这使得封锁和追踪每一个接触过的人成为可能，在我们的第一次疫情爆发中，正如预测的那样，大约3-4周后，感染就消失了。零容忍是百分百有效的。
德尔塔变异株的R0介于3到5之间，并且提前两天就有传染性。这完全改变了事态，在他们开始感染其他人之前，不再可能追踪和隔离每个人了，因此缩小接触者追踪，并制定了新的计划。接种疫苗也改变了游戏规则。我们现在是80%的接种率，模型显示大约90%以上，我们就可以放松限制到一定程度。
我们正在做有用的事情，而且它正在起作用。我猜这也是中国正在做的事情。

Alan Hay, former Telecommunications, Avionics
Depends on what you mean by giving up. China has its own situation and social/ political abilities. Neither Singapore nor New Zealand are the same.
I can’t speak for Singapore, but New Zealand with less than 6 people per million dead from covid so far, is reaching out for 90% duly vaccinated in the very near future. The plan is to open up to more nearly normal living. In that scenario, it is expected that few more will die, and covid will largely become just another “cold like” coronavirus.

【回答】前电信、航空电子业
这取决于你所说的放弃是什么意思了。中国有自己的情况和社会/政治能力，和新加坡新西兰都不一样。
我不能代表新加坡说话，但是新西兰目前每百万人中死于感染的人数不到6人，在不久的将来，新西兰正在努力争取90%的人接种疫苗。这个计划是为了向更接近正常的生活开放。在这种情况下，预计会有更少的人死亡，而新冠病毒很大程度将变成另一种“类似感冒”的冠状病毒。

Annie Cass
Err, we’re NOT giving up!! We’re ramping up the vaccination programme as fast and hard as we can, we’re coming down harder and harder on individuals whose actions spread the disease and, unlike most other countries after Delta arrived, while there has been a growth in cases, that growth has not been exponential.

【回答】
呃，我们不会放弃的！！我们正在尽可能快地加大疫苗接种计划的力度，我们正在越来越严厉地惩罚那些传播病毒的个人，而且我们不像其他大多数感染了德尔塔的国家，虽然病例有所增加，但这种增加并没有呈指数级的。

Rendall Koh lives in Singapore
I am from Singapore.
For this policy to continue, then a cure must be developed, herd immunity or a vaccine that can protect a patient for life. With this, then we can prepare and plan to start this vaccination program.
Secondly, vaccine is not easy as covid-19 has a tendency of mutation which means it is not easy to be developing vaccine that can target all the protein site of each mutated virus unless they manage to find a common site on all the mutants.
Thirdly, if we were to wait for 1 and 2, then it become who has the financial power to do so. During this period, we seen how financially strong company were able to hold up and there was no financial impact to many employees in these companies whereas those company who cannot hold up, either start retrenching, downsizing or wind up. This is the same for countries as well, zero tolerance policy is a long game, for Singapore to play this game, it means we have to close for a long time, this will eventually lead to financial burden not just for the government but the country as well. And this long game have no timeline.

【回答】住在新加坡
我来自新加坡。
首先，要使这一政策继续下去，就必须研制出一种治疗方法，即群体免疫或者能够终生保护病人的疫苗。有了这个，我们就可以准备并计划开始这个疫苗接种程序。
其次，新冠病毒具有突变倾向，如果不能在所有突变体上找到一个共同的位点，就很难开发出针对每个突变体的所有蛋白质位点的疫苗。
第三，如果我们等待前两点，那么谁有财力这么做就成了问题。在这段时间里，我们看到财务实力雄厚的公司能够维持下去，这些公司的许多员工没有受到财务影响，而那些无法维持下去的公司，要么开始缩减规模，要么倒闭。这对国家来说也是一样的，零容忍政策是一个长期的游戏，新加坡要玩这个游戏，这意味着我们必须封锁很长一段时间，这最终不仅会给政府带来财政负担，也会给国家带来经济负担。而这场漫长的比赛没有时间表。

Therefore, we have to change to a live with covid policy instead. This will help to open up the country where small business especially those in F&B will have their burden lessen. The next will be opening the country for tourism, this will further boost tourism industry such as attraction and hotels.
Therefore vaccination is important, they know that at the moment people will get infected but with vaccine, their symptom may be lower or even no symptom. There are also more confidence in managing cases as compare to the initial phase.
The real reason why Singapore need to move to this phase is basically we cannot afford the long game, we need to lessen financial burden on business which will also then lessen burden on citizen as well.

因此，我们不得不改为和新冠共存的政策。这将有助于新加坡的开放，使小企业，尤其是餐饮业的小企业减轻负担。下一步会是开放旅游业，这将进一步促进景点和酒店等旅游业的发展。
所以接种疫苗是很重要的，他们知道，目前人们会被感染，但接种疫苗后，他们的症状可能会减轻，甚至没有症状。与最初阶段相比，在管理病例方面也会有更多信心。
新加坡需要进入这一阶段的真正原因，基本上是我们无法承受长期的游戏，我们需要减轻企业的经济负担，这也会减轻公民的负担。

Ralph Zhang Math Teacher (2006-present)
Singapore and New Zealand are small countries. They need export and tourist so much. The cost of zero tolerance policy is too high to them. Quite the opposite, China could have an advantage to do the zero tolerance policy. You can see this from Chinese economy recovering.
There is not a standard answer for the complicated situation. Every country could choose the best for themselves.

【回答】数学教师(2006年-至今)
新加坡和新西兰都是小国。他们非常需要出口和旅游。零容忍政策的代价对他们来说太高了。恰恰相反，中国在实行零容忍政策方面有优势。你可以从中国经济复苏中看到这一点。
对于这种复杂的情况，没有一个标准的答案。每个国家都可以为自己选择最好的。

Aozao Zhou lives in China
Zero tolerance is a very costly policy
China can continue to have zero tolerance because it has huge human and material support.
For example, a network of cameras that can track the movement of people, two-dimensional codes, and cheap nucleic acid detection kits
More importantly, you should have a large number of professionally trained personnel to help you perform these things at a low cost. The emergence of a case means the flow tracking of hundreds of close contacts and the nucleic acid testing of tens of thousands of people. If there are multiple cases, it means that hundreds of thousands or even millions of cities will be closed for a short time. This is a great test for material supply and municipal supply.

【回答】住在中国
零容忍是一项成本很高的政策
中国可以继续零容忍，因为它有巨大的人力和物质支持。
例如，可以跟踪人员活动的摄像机网络、二维码和廉价的核酸检测试剂盒
更重要的是，你应该拥有大量受过专业训练的人员，来帮助你以低成本完成这些工作。一个病例的出现，意味着对数百名密切接触者进行流动追踪，并对数万人进行核酸检测。如果出现多个病例，这意味着数十万甚至数百万人口的城市将在短时间内被封锁。这对物资供应和市政供应来说是一个很大的考验。

What is more difficult is that these coping measures will be opposed and complained by the people and volunteers. Once such a voice is too loud, the rulers must think about whether it is worth doing so
Relatively speaking, it is simpler and cheaper to abandon zero tolerance and coexist with the virus. So I'm not surprised that former top anti epidemic students such as Singapore and New Zealand made such a choice.
In fact, the discussion on Chinese social media about whether it is worth it has been going on. I don't think China can always have zero tolerance, but I can't judge what is the opportunity to let China to give up zero tolerance

更为困难的是，这些应对措施会遭到人们和志愿者的反对和抱怨。一旦这样的声音太大，统治者就必须考虑是否值得这样做。
相对而言，放弃零容忍并与病毒共存，是更为简单和廉价的方式。因此，新加坡和新西兰等前防疫尖子生做出这样的选择，我并不感到惊讶。
事实上，中国社交媒体上关于它是否值得的讨论一直在进行。我不认为中国可以一直保持着零容忍，但我不能判断什么情况会让中国放弃零容忍。
-------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Augustine Chong
Some Singaporeans, including myself, disagree with Singapore's reversal of the original elimination strategy. It's the strategy with the highest ROI.
Unfortunately, once reversed, there's no turning back and we have no choice but to say that we have no choice but to abandon the elimination strategy (haha 苦笑).

【回复】一些新加坡人，包括我自己，不同意新加坡改变原有的零感染策略。这是投资回报率最高的策略。
不幸的是，一旦改变，就无法回头了，我们别无选择只能说说，我们别无选择只能放弃零感染策略(哈哈 苦笑)。

Tom Chen
Singapore's economy tanked with the zero tolerance strategy. It's really choosing the lesser of the two evils.

【回复】新加坡的经济因为零容忍策略而一蹶不振，这实际上是在两害相权取其轻。

Lim San
Singapore is too small with no natural resources like China. have to open up sooner or later.
But I feel they should have been more strict with import cases, like manatory Quarantine etc.. esp from places like india.

【回复】新加坡太小，没有中国那样的自然资源，迟早要放开的。
但是我觉得他们应该对输入病例更严格些，比如说强制隔离等等... 尤其是来自印度这样的地方。

Kevin Augustine Chong
Hahaha. Singapore is currently one of the highest risk in the world with incremental cases per population more than double of the US’ and 60X of India’s. We are near the top of the list. It’s embarassing that the US issued a health warning about visiting SIngapore.
Who dares come to Singapore now and what’s the point of reopening to tourists? Cases are definitely dropping. But the damage to our reputation is done.

【回复】哈哈哈。目前，新加坡是全球感染风险最高的国家之一，人均新增病例数是美国的两倍以上，是印度的60倍。我们几乎排在榜首了。美国对访问新加坡发出健康警告，真让人尴尬。
现在谁敢来新加坡，重新向游客开放有什么意义？病例确实在减少。但是我们的声誉已经受到了损害。

Xiao Wen
From another angle, I don't want to brag about how China has humanitarianism or how outstanding it is in governance. Only from the most fundamental purpose of the government, the CPC government does not serve the market, but the people, so its policy standard is not GDP or market benefit. This may be the most fundamental reason.

【回复】从另一个角度讲，我无意自吹中国的人道主义，也无意自吹中国共产党的出色执政能力。仅仅从政府最根本的宗旨出发，中国共产党政府不是为市场服务的，而是为人民服务，所以其政策标准不关乎GDP，也不关乎市场效益。这可能是最根本的原因。

123kdibejdb
Biden is trying implement a nationwide vaccine mandate and Americans are absolutely losing their sh!t over it. To be fair, I don't think even China implemented a nationwide vaccine mandate.

【回复】拜登正在试图实施一项全国范围的疫苗强制令，美国人对此完全气疯了。公平地说，我认为即使是中国，也没有实施全国范围的疫苗强制令。

Harvey King
China didn’t implement a nationwide vaccine mandate is because that is not how Chinese government works.
While the Chinese government didn’t implement a nationwide vaccine mandate, it assigned a nationwide vaccine quota. And every local government municipality are asked to fulfill these quotas or it will reflect poorly on local officials’ performance review.
Result? As of September 18th, 1.1 billion people are vaccinated, 1.02 billion people are FULLY vaccinated. China is now focusing on elderly and children and have another deadline of sort in March of 2022.

【回复】中国之所以没有在全国范围内实施疫苗强制令，是因为这不是中国政府的工作方式。
虽然中国政府没有实施全国范围的疫苗强制令，但它在全国范围的分配了疫苗配额。每个地方政府都被要求完成这些配额，否则会对地方官员的绩效评估产生不良影响。
结果呢？截至9月18日，11亿人接种了疫苗，10.2亿人完全接种了疫苗。中国现在关注的是老年人和儿童，还有一个截至期限是2022年3月。
-------------------------------------------------------

Lonely Cantonese Sith Lord Studied at The University of Hong Kong Chinese citizen
From a cultural perspective, the Chinese have always held the right to live to be the most fundamental and important human right of all.
Personal freedoms and money mean nothing if you or the people you love are not alive to enjoy them.
See: "Would people want a Chinese-style government in their country?"
A Chinese-style government would only be accepted in a culture that seeks substantive justice over procedural justice. i.e. “the ends justify the means”.
Take something like pandemic responses as an example. In order to keep people safe during COVID, it is best for people to wear masks, get vaccinated, stay home and keep social distancing. The science is clear on this.
Nobody likes to be told what to do, but it is generally accepted in eastern societies that sacrificing a bit of personal comfort and liberties is acceptable if it means other people do not have to die. In western societies, even if it is held that vaccines and masks are beneficial, they are to be fought against if they are forced upon the people. The ends do not justify the means.
These different worldviews lead to people expecting different things from their governments. If the Chinese government does not enforce a mask and vaccine mandate, which leads to high death tolls (like what we're seeing in places like America), the people would see the government as indecisive and incompetent and be up in arms; whereas if a western government makes it a requirement for people to be vaccinated, or even wear a mask, there would be nationwide riots on account of violating personal freedoms and undermining the democratic process, even if more lives are actually being saved by these “tyrannical” measures.
In other words, a Chinese-style government would be at complete odds with a culture that seeks the means and not the ends.

【回答】就读于香港大学，中国公民
从文化的角度来看，中国人始终认为生存权是最基本、最重要的人权。
如果你或你所爱的人不能活着享受个人自由和金钱，那么这些就毫无意义。
引用我之前的回答：“人们会希望他们的国家有一个中国式的政府吗？”
中国式的政府只有在一个追求实质正确，而非程序正确的文化中，才会被接受。即，结果决定方式的正确。
以应对疫情之类的事情为例。在疫情期间，为了保证人们的安全，人们最好戴上口罩，接种疫苗，呆在家里，保持社交距离。科学上很明确。
没有人喜欢被人指手画脚，但是在东方社会，如果这意味着其他人不必死去，牺牲一点个人舒适度和自由度是可以接受的。而在西方社会，即使人们认为疫苗和戴口罩是有益的，但如果人们被迫接受这些，就必须反对。结果不能决定方式的正确。
这些不同的世界观导致人们对政府抱有不同的期望。如果中国不执行戴口罩和疫苗接种的规定，而导致大量死亡(就像我们在美国这样的地方看到的)，人们就会认为政府优柔寡断、无能，群起而攻之；而如果西方政府要求人们接种疫苗，甚至戴上口罩，即使这些所谓“专制”措施实际上拯救了更多的生命，但由于侵犯自由和破坏民主进程，也会发生全国性的骚乱。
换句话说，中国式的政府和“方式决定结果的正确”的文化格格不入。

Because of this, it is far easier for the Chinese government to push forward tougher pandemic measures. The people support, even demand these measures be taken. The sooner the virus is vanquished, the sooner life can go back to normal. It’s considered the logical thing to do.
The Chinese government has also taken into account the financial impacts of pandemic measures on civilian populations. Which is why they have spent 400 billion Yuan
(almost US$62 billion) last year to provide free COVID testing and treatment to all citizens. That’s 400 billion on top of the trillions of Yuan spent every year to provide universal healthcare.
Socialism being the core governing philosophy of the current administration in China also means that the people are not to be seen as a burden, or disposable manpower whose only purpose is to create wealth for the 1%, but rather as human beings who deserve to be protected just because they’re human beings.

正因为如此，中国政府更容易采取更严厉的疫情防控措施。人民支持，甚至会要求采取这些措施。病毒越早被消灭，生活就能越早恢复正常。这被认为是合乎逻辑的做法。
中国政府还考虑到疫情措施对老百姓的财政影响。这就是为什么他们花了4000亿元(近620亿美元)，为所有公民提供免费的新冠检测和治疗。除了每年花在提供全民医保上的数万亿元之外，另加的4000亿元。
社会主义作为当前中国行政管理的核心执政理念，也意味着人民不应该被视为负担，也不应该被视为只为那1%的人创造财富的可支配的人力，而是应该被视为需要保护的人，就因为他们是人。