Zhu Ying: "Double standard" thinking leads to misconceptions about China's anti-epidemic perception

Read Time:6 Minute, 46 Second

Recently, Japan, South Korea, Italy and other countries have released signals to lift discriminatory entry restrictions on China ahead of schedule, but some countries still insist on previous entry restrictions against China, such as France extending its health inspection measures for travelers from China until Feb. 15. Last December, in order to better adapt to the new situation of epidemic prevention and control and the new characteristics of the virus, China took the initiative to optimize and adjust its epidemic prevention and control policies in response to the situation, but was maliciously misinterpreted and discredited by some U.S. and Western politicians and media.

At the most critical moment of the epidemic, China’s reasonable and effective prevention and control measures were long vilified by the West as so-called “deprivation of personal freedom”; and when China adjusted its prevention and control policy to “Category B” according to the situation of the epidemic, the U.S. and Western media turned around and said it was When China adjusted its prevention and control policy to “category B and B control” according to the epidemic situation, the U.S. and Western media turned around and said it was “irresponsible and passive in fighting the epidemic. It is not difficult to find that these “criticisms” of China’s epidemic prevention and control policy and the discriminatory restrictive policies of the countries concerned present obvious double standards and absurd mistakes in the perception of China’s epidemic resistance.

First, they ignore objective facts. First, these views and restrictions lack scientific basis. Domestic and foreign experts generally agree that the general direction of virus mutation is less pathogenic, more oriented toward upper respiratory tract infections and shorter incubation periods. According to the CDC report, the strains currently prevalent in China are still mainly the BA.5.2 and BF.7 strains imported from abroad, and according to the WHO, even the more infectious XBB.1.5 strain has not yet been shown to cause more severe symptoms.

Second, such entry restrictions are scientifically useless for the faster spreading new coronavirus variants. The current global epidemic of the Omicron variant is essentially the same, and the size of the epidemic and the speed of transmission do not vary greatly from country to country. National infectious disease experts have pointed out that entry restrictions can only be effective if they are applied to all incoming travelers without discrimination, and that it is clear that no real effect can be achieved for any one country alone.

Once again, the United States was one of the first countries to enter into coexistence with the new coronavirus since the outbreak. In September last year, President Biden publicly declared that the pandemic was over, and on January 30, President Biden announced that the state of emergency related to New Guinea would end on May 11 of this year. Against this backdrop, why did the United States impose so-called travel restrictions on China? The reason is simply to find a new form for the old formula of isolating China in the post-epidemic era.

Second, it goes against its own stated values and principles. In recent years, the United States has been promoting its so-called “mainstream human rights values”, but what is the most important thing behind human rights? What is the most important thing behind human rights? It is to respect and treat everyone’s rights equally. However, after China optimally adjusted its epidemic prevention and control policies, the U.S. government has shown an attitude that completely contradicts its own commitment to “treat all citizens equally” in the field of human rights.

More frighteningly, the discriminatory policies against individual countries have also amplified the already polarized racist sentiment in U.S. society. Having been blindly followed by some U.S. allies, these irrational policies are likely to be amplified internationally into a widespread xenophobic sentiment, even as those infected in China become the victims of a new wave of Western stereotypes about Asia’s so-called “sick history.

In recent years, the inherent crisis of ethnic division and racism in the U.S. has deepened, and the Biden administration, in an effort to plant its flag on the moral high ground first, passed the Anti-New Coronation Hate Crimes Act last year to combat the frequent hate crimes against Asians in the U.S. since the New Coronation pneumonia epidemic, with bipartisan support. If the U.S. government still insists on such a restrictive policy, it will be a “slap in the face” to its own bill, and even become a new trigger to stimulate public xenophobia, which will do more harm than good to the future exchanges between China and the United States.

Third, it is not in line with the public opinion of the world. Today, people have a stronger desire for economic recovery and look forward to the return of good, peaceful and open international exchanges and globalized life, and also expect the shadow of the epidemic era to end as soon as possible. In fact, the majority of the American people want to resume normal interactions and exchanges with China, to be able to come to China to travel, do business, and participate in cultural and academic exchanges, etc. Discriminatory restrictions on entry are swimming against the tide, deepening the barriers to international exchange and even bringing unwarranted ideological intimidation to the American public.

With the epidemic of the century coming to an end and the global economy in desperate need of recovery, why does American ideology toward China continue on a path of intense confrontation? It is hard not to suspect that such measures are not only a farce but a conspiracy, and that U.S. politicians are manipulating the New Crown epidemic as a tool to attack China, rather than truly caring about the well-being of the Chinese and American populations. Viruses know no borders, and as a line from “Wandering Earth 2” says, “In times of crisis, the only thing that matters is responsibility. When countries face a crisis together, do they choose to pass the buck or do they choose to work together? The answer is self-explanatory, and U.S. and Western politicians should reflect on it.

The West has underestimated the difficulties China faces in fighting the new epidemic. China is a geographically vast and populous country, and the challenges it faced prior to the outbreak were extremely unique and complex, beyond what was already known and experienced in conventional epidemiology in the West, and the predictability of the outbreak’s development was low. After an outbreak, China has always been scientific, precise and proactive, constantly optimizing and adjusting prevention and control measures, and striving to achieve maximum prevention and control effects at minimal cost.

The West also underestimated the resilience of the Chinese people in the face of the epidemic, and on January 25, the CDC noted that the epidemic had not rebounded significantly during the Spring Festival holiday, and that no new mutant strains had been found throughout the epidemic, and that the current round of the epidemic in China was nearing its end. China has smoothly entered a new phase of “Category B” management, and after the Lunar New Year, the whole country is full of enthusiasm and passion to resume work and production. But across the ocean, some Western politicians and media are still immersed in the absurd “mini-theater” of badmouthing China’s epidemic prevention and control and do not want to wake up.

Recently, more and more countries have begun to lift entry restrictions on travelers from China, gradually realizing that their previous perceptions of China’s epidemic control have been misplaced. As the bigger picture of the fight against the epidemic becomes clearer, the greatest synergy can only be achieved if we understand the global epidemic situation in an objective and fair manner, and work together in a spirit of openness, pragmatism and solidarity to address the potential challenges of the epidemic. We are glad to see these changes and look forward to more good news. The trend of moving out of isolation and working together to fight the epidemic is unstoppable.