Lin Min

linmin67@hotmail.com

THE Lancet, an authoritative academic publication in the medical field, on April 18 published an editorial saying that the rapid containment of COVID-19 in China set an encouraging example for other countries.

However, some countries may not embrace the Chinese approach. In fact, some measures taken by China, such as the lockdown of entire cities and lengthy stay-at-home orders, were so aggressive that they had been labeled as “draconian” in the West. The Chinese strategy was to contain the epidemic as soon as possible while enduring short-term economic pains and a temporary surrender of some personal rights.

The deeply rooted traditional philosophy that sees human life as priceless explains why there has been no debate in China over whether these measures were an overreaction. And even though some people were concerned about certain negative effects, such as possible personal data leaks in applying for a health code, most Chinese observed all lockdown, tracing and quarantine measures, in a display of overwhelming collectivism and a consensus that everyone has to make certain sacrifices for the country to win the fight against the formidable virus.

In the West, however, a fierce debate is raging between those who regard the lockdowns as justified and others who view the measures as overreaction. Businesses blame these measures for their monetary losses, and some people see these restrictions as a threat to their way of life. They perceive lockdowns as oppression of their liberty.

Some people like British social commentator Toby Young, a “lockdown skeptic,” put a price tag on human lives. He argued that “spending ￡350 billion (US$432 billion) to prolong the lives of a few hundred thousand mostly elderly people is an irresponsible use of taxpayers’ money.”

Others ponder the trade-off between lives lost and benefits from a city reopening. American celebrity Dr. Mehmet Oz recently claimed that the coronavirus deaths that could occur due to the reopening of the nation’s schools “might be a trade-off some folks may consider.” He said “the opening of schools may only cost us 2 to 3 percent in terms of total mortality,” citing a research paper.

On April 18, U.S. protesters gathered in the capital cities of several states to voice their opposition to stay-at-home orders. American conservatives try to label these lockdown deniers not as vectors for infection but rather “freedom fighters.”

Some Western countries, such as the U.K., are resorting to data and cost-benefit analysis to help politicians make decisions. Decision-makers tend to make use of “scientific analysis” so that they can claim to detach themselves from emotional intricacies and moral challenges involved. However, can politicians be exonerated from moral backlash even if their approach is supported by empirical data? Should elderly people deserve less priority because they will die sooner or later? Should some people be left to die if this could bring “bigger benefits” to society as a whole? Should a higher number of deaths be considered tolerable as a trade-off for reducing economic losses?

These are indeed very difficult questions for governments who need to not only contain the virus but also minimize social and economic costs.

Some countries are now facing raucous calls for the reopening of businesses and greater protection of freedoms and privacy as persisting lockdowns and stay-at-home orders threaten the livelihood of many people and their instincts for social gatherings.

However, economic growth, privacy, freedom and other things that we value in normal times must take a back seat temporarily when we are dealing with a health crisis of this magnitude. Given the shocking transmission speed of the virus, any delay in cutting transmission links will be disastrous, and any premature easing of social distancing measures may render previous efforts useless and trigger a second wave.

The longer countries are bogged down in debates, the longer the containment battle will last, and the higher a price these countries will have to pay.

(The author is a deputy editor-in-chief of Shenzhen Daily.)