Of All Affairs, People's Livelihood Comes First; Only Scientific Prevention Can Protect It

Yesterday was the first day of universal nucleic acid testing for all residents across twelve districts of Beijing. This morning, before my result had even come out, I had to queue up to be tested again. What is the point of such testing? This shows that testing all citizens on the same day is a policy that is more talk than thought, one that failed to take into account the fact that testing capacity cannot keep up. This decision was apparently made without consulting frontline workers or assessing the city's testing capacity; it was a snap, mistaken decision. I hope the relevant leaders promptly correct this erroneous policy and act within our capacity. Overloaded testing only increases the risk of epidemic spread through mass gatherings.

Today the testing site in our community was chaotic. Before eight o'clock, no one was managing the queue; after eight, there were also fewer social workers keeping order than yesterday. I stepped forward to help maintain order and asked people to leave more space between them, but no one cooperated. Everyone feels the risk is low and there is no need to be so careful—yet separated from our compound only by a fence is the control zone where cases have appeared; there is not even a wall, and a sneeze from residents of one compound could carry droplets to the other. At our community testing site, people were basically standing within half a meter of one another, and in some parts of the queue they were pressed shoulder to shoulder. Residents gathered together chatting cheerfully, and the children happily took off their masks to talk and play. Two neighboring compounds already have outbreaks, yet people still blindly believe the epidemic will not visit ours. Out of frustration, I went home first and will return when it is less crowded.

Several compounds around us and a school have already reported cases; more than 500 people in our community have had pop-up warnings, including my son, because confirmed cases were found near his school. Because staffing cannot keep up, no one is guarding the community entrances, so everyone comes and goes freely. Dozens to over a hundred people often gather at the activity center in the small garden downstairs, basically all without masks, playing games or exercising; at least as of today this is still the case.

There are many loopholes in prevention, great difficulty in reaching zero, and unscientific measures, yet our policy still demands zero—and in the end, people's livelihood and the economy inevitably suffer. This morning I saw news that residents of Zhengzhou have also begun panic-buying supplies, repeating the story of Shanghai and Beijing. Everyone reacts similarly, and almost every city repeats the same tale: hoarding supplies, disorderly testing, community entertainment—infect first, then zero, then reinfect soon after zero. Such endless prevention surely harms people's livelihood.

After this year's outbreaks in Jilin, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Beijing, I hope everyone can sum up the lessons of fighting the epidemic and practice scientific prevention. Prevention lies in preparedness; stop rolling out talk-not-thought policies at every turn, and stop letting the hole grow huge before unleashing all kinds of hardline measures—such policies do far too much damage to the economy and people's livelihood. City leaders must be good at listening to feedback from the people; sitting in an office, you cannot see the real situation, and nor will you by visiting just a few compounds.

If we are to uphold the dynamic zero-COVID policy, then launching routine universal nucleic acid testing nationwide as soon as possible would be the approach that harms livelihood and the economy the least. If some places implement this policy and others do not, we will inevitably end up squeezing one gourd only to float up another. But this policy must be carried out within actual capacity; unless there is outside help, no city has the ability to test every resident daily, and there is little need to do so.

Testing ten to twenty million people in a first-tier city on the same day outstrips organizational capacity, exhausts frontline workers, and carries a huge cross-infection risk. Daily testing should only be conducted in key affected areas and their surroundings; other areas can be tested every 2–3 days, and low-risk areas once a week. Routine testing can achieve early detection, early isolation, and early blocking, but once this strategy is overused, it backfires.

Any wishful thinking toward the epidemic ultimately costs lives. This morning I saw a report in Lianhe Zaobao that Israeli scientists have found signs that Delta is making a comeback. After Omicron has swept through once and society has built up some immunity to it, the Delta variant may yet set off a new wave.

So whether dynamic zero-COVID or coexistence with the virus is the better policy will probably take at least another half year to decide. One thing is certain: the world has not yet exited the COVID pandemic, and it is too early to say which prevention policy is more scientific. I would rather see a diversity of prevention policies pursued in parallel and evaluated after a while—that is better than a one-size-fits-all global model.

However, whichever policy is pursued, it should be constantly adjusted and refined according to the actual situation, so as not to let the policy itself cause the epidemic to expand and to minimize harm to livelihood and the economy. Because for ordinary people, if their rice bowl is not secure, how can they worry about fighting the epidemic?