Written article: Si Sihan
Since July 11, many officials from the White House have criticized Anthony Fauci, director of the Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, and believed that they were wrongly judged by the epidemic.Critics include the White House Trade Consultant Navarro and many other senior officials. Trump himself also stated in an interview that Fitch made many wrong decisions.Although Trump changed his attitude on July 15, saying that Navaro should not criticize the benefits, and the White House was also refunded under fierce criticism.Directed by experts?
On the one hand, although health experts in various places have given suggestions in the early days of the epidemic, including in areas to keep social distances, close schools, public entertainment and shopping venues, these suggestions lack substantial binding power.The government of the final decision maker and executor is often due to political considerations and does not take big measures to cope with the epidemic.
From March to April, some European countries began to implement a national blockade policy, and in the United States, the number of new crown epidemic caused a surge in the number of deaths. At this timeBut as of early April, governments in the central and western regions and nearly ten states still refused to obey these opinions.
Taking the United States as an example, the US White House currently by the Republican Party must be forced to implement measures such as maintaining social distance, which is equivalent to restricting personal freedom with administrative power.In the case, taking such measures means discarding his political position and the expectations of supporters for themselves.
Although a large -scale blockade policy and stopping the economy are not easy for any government or party, the Republican government is obviously more conflict about such measures.A study released by the University of Washington showed that in the states of the United States, the state, which was used as the governor of the United States, was generally 3 days later than that of a key anti -epidemic measures such as social distance.
In addition to the political stance of political parties, the implementation of anti -epidemic measures will have an impact on the economy that is difficult to recover, and then bring political disasters to the government.Trump himself has repeatedly emphasized that the economic consequences of implementing these policies may be worse than allowing the epidemic.On June 16, the Governor of Florida De Santis, when the number of cases confirmed in the diagnosis increased by 2000 within half a month, and reached a record high on the day of the day, insisted that he would continue to restart the plan and refuse to slow down to restore the economy mdash; mdash; although he eventually he eventuallyHe had to take back some open policies at the end of June.
Given that the government -led health policy is inevitable that the non -scientific factors are controlled by non -scientific factors, can health experts exercise dominance for the government?Some people think that health is inseparable from the economy and people's livelihood, and naturally the government or politicians must be managed.This argument is not unreasonable.If health experts host the anti -epidemic policy, the primary consideration is the medical resources required to resist epidemic, including the treatment of patients, especially patients with severe patients, protecting equipment, medical staff, and masks required by the people.One has no resource allocation experience, and the ability to deploy the above resources.When closing public places and economic activities, whether there are necessary services such as law enforcement, garbage recycling or other necessary services or infrastructure projects cannot be banned. These are not decisions that health experts can make. Finally, the government led by politicians should bear these.responsibility.
Since politicians are inevitable, the opinions of health experts must play an active role in making the opinions of health experts in order to change the disrespect of professionalism in political culture.Differential proposals should not immediately raise it to the ideological level of free confrontation and authority when criticizing measures such as wearing masks and being isolation at home, or directly attacking experts to stigmatize each other with scammers such as scammers.Politicians encounter difficult problems and poor things, and they have politically politically, trying to use most people to escape from professional issues.If the people are also appointed at this time, they will condone politicians to continue using this means.Under the cycle of malignant, professionalism as a solution was marginalized in political culture.
The current epidemic has eased in Europe and some countries in Asia, but in areas that fail to follow experts, open the economy prematurely, and restore normal life, the peak of the epidemic has not yet arrived.This allows us to re -appreciate the importance of professionalism and science.It is hoped that the epidemic can become a profound lesson and bring positive changes to political culture that disrespects professionalism.
