视频加载中...
Wang Guan: Eric, let's talk about this Bloomberg “COVID Resilience Ranking”. It compares 53 economies, and comparing their “success at containing the virus with the least amount of social and economic disruption”. The U.S. is now ranked number one by Bloomberg, followed by New Zealand, Switzerland, Israel, France, Spain, Australia and China. Countries like Singapore ranks 13th. First of all, what is your overall sense of this ranking？
王冠：丁亮，彭博社近期发布的“抗疫韧性排行榜”比较了53个经济体“成功抗击疫情且最小程度破坏社会经济秩序”的成果。美国目前位列榜首，后续是新西兰、瑞士、以色列、法国、西班牙、澳大利亚和中国，新加坡位列第13名。首先，你对这个排名整体感觉如何？
Eric Ding: Thank you for having me. I think this ranking is very, very much giving extra weight to countries that have minimal restrictions, as opposed to countries that have most successfully contained the virus and most successfully allowed people to live their lives after they've contained the virus.
丁亮：感谢你邀请我参加节目。我认为这个排名给放松疫情管控的国家额外加分，而不是肯定疫情防控做得最好，和在抗击疫情后成功让人们恢复正常生活的国家。
And in certain ways, we see that countries that took those most strict measures with border quarantines have contained the virus the most, like China, New Zealand, Australia. And we have soccer games and music festivals in those countries without any mitigations. I would say that allows the most social freedoms and least disruptions for society.
在某些方面，我们看到那些采取了最严格的入境隔离措施的国家，在疫情防控方面表现最好，比如中国、新西兰和澳大利亚。这些国家能够在无需过多措施干预的情况下，正常举办足球比赛、音乐节。我觉得这才是最大程度确保社交自由，最小程度破坏社会秩序。
But countries that implemented those “zero COVID” things are penalized in this index. So in many ways this index is, I would say it's not the fairest and it doesn't actually measure the ultimate success measure of freedom of movements with low cases combined. And that's why in certain ways China ranks, unfortunately much lower, and Singapore ranks much lower than it should.
然而，这些“零新冠”的国家反而在排名中受到“惩罚”。所以我认为这个排名在很多方面不是最公平的。事实上，该排名没有衡量最终的防疫成果，即实现低病例数前提下的出行自由。这就是为什么中国和新加坡的排名要比预想的低得多。
Wang Guan: Let's talk about this report specifically. The final resilience score is the average of it places performance across 12 indicators equally weighted. For example, lockdown severity, flight capacity, vaccinated travel route. That's how convenient it is for people who are quarantined to travel internationally. They are equally important as positive test result, case count and death count. What are your thoughts on this？
王冠：让我们谈谈这个报告的具体内容。最终的抗疫韧性评分是一个地区在12项指标上得分的等权重平均值。这些指标包括：疫情封锁严格程度、航空出行能力、疫苗接种人员的出行等等，也就是国际出行人员在防疫隔离后出行的便捷程度，这些指标与新冠病毒阳性检测率、病例数和死亡数同等重要。你对此有什么看法？
Eric Ding: I think that those measures are not all the same. They should not be equally weighted and many of them should not be in the same index because the resilience index, that's a very vague word. I think what should matter is not just these different measures, but how successful were they, how successful were they in containing the virus.
丁亮：我认为这些衡量指标完全不是一回事，不应该占同样的比重，很多指标甚至不应该出现在同一个指数里。因为韧性指数是一个很模糊的概念。我认为关键不在于这些指标所描述的内容，而在于疫情防控效果如何，是否成功地遏制了疫情传播。
But the problem is this index doesn't give that exact weight. And so, I would prefer an alternative index based on actually containing the virus, suppressing any increase as quickly as possible and the relative success of keeping schools open, of major stadiums and sporting games open without having increases.
但问题是这个排名并没有给防控措施以明确的比重。因此，我更倾向于制作一个基于实际疫情控制效果的排名。指标可包括：各国快速控制病例增长的能力，各国在不出现病例数增长的情况下，保证学校等主要场所开放和举办体育比赛的能力。
And if you re-weight it in that way, I think other countries in Asia will have performed much, much better. Because right now U.S. may be ranking number one, but the U.S. is having surging cases, doubling of cases in the last two weeks, rising hospitalizations and even rising deaths right now. And I would not say U.S. has contained this or been resilient in containing this right now whatsoever.
如果以这种方式来重新排名，我认为亚洲各国的表现会好得多。目前，虽然美国在彭博社的排名中位列第一，但美国现在又出现病例数激增的情况。过去两周，新增住院病例数翻倍，住院病例和死亡病例也在上升。我认为美国的疫情并没有得到控制。
Wang Guan: Yeah, in measuring lockdown successes, Bloomberg index said “lockdown severity” is important. If people are experiencing greater disruption to their lives, that would result in a lower score and therefore a lower ranking. But in ancient philosophy people say, acute pain is perhaps better than chronic suffering. Many would argue that yes, there was this stringent citywide or even nationwide lockdown in China in the first place, but soon enough, China opened, re-opened, and people went about their daily routine as back in the old days. How do you look at this “lockdown severity” measure that was indicated by Bloomberg？
王冠：是的，在衡量疫情封锁方面，彭博社认为“封锁严格程度”是一项很重要的指标。如果民众由于封锁造成更多的生活困扰，那么相关国家的评分就会相对较低。但是古话说，长痛不如短痛。很多人都认为，的确，中国在疫情暴发初期采取了严格的封城和入境措施。但很快，中国就解封了，人们恢复了以往的生活。你如何看待彭博社在排名中提到的“封锁严格程度”这项指标？
Eric Ding: I believe in an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and short-term pain is much better for long-term gain. And the Bloomberg index currently penalizes you for having a very, very fast and severe mitigation measures in the short term. But doesn't give benefit to the positive outcome that comes with the “zero COVID” approach. And I think that is very wrong, I think rewarding countries that have the political leadership for thought and the willpower to have a stringent quick containment so that its population can lead more prosperous and economically productive life, and afterwards is what should be rewarded. And the index does not reward that unfortunately.
丁亮：我认为一分的预防胜过十分的治疗，短暂的痛苦是为了长远的收获。然而，彭博社的排名会“惩罚”一些在短期内迅速采取严格防控措施的国家。但它没有设置任何指标，来肯定这些实施“零新冠”措施带来的积极成果。我认为这是非常错误的。我认为应该奖励那些有政治领导力的国家，因为他们有决心和毅力采取严格的防控措施，使本国民众能够快速恢复正常的生产和生活。这种做法应该得到肯定。很遗憾，这份排名并没有体现出这一点。