Can You Be Forced to Quarantine or to Stay Home? Your Questions, Answered

Although quarantines are considered a measure of last resort, “police powers” give states, counties and even cities broad authority to make residents stay home.

States and local governments across the United States have issued some variant of stay-at-home orders covering more than half of all Americans. They range in severity from pleas to avoid gatherings and to stay indoors combined with business closings to mandatory orders with severe consequences, as in Hawaii, where violators face a $5,000 fine or up to a year in jail.

Rare in modern history, quarantines were fairly common in ancient times, before medicine stemmed the ferocious spread of contagious diseases. The very word quarantine is rooted in the Italian words quarantenara and quaranta giorni, or 40 days, the period of time that the city of Venice forced ship passengers and cargo to wait before landing in the 14th and 15th centuries to try to stave off the plague. Quarantines have often generated tensions between protecting public health versus respecting individual rights.

Here are answers to some common questions about how quarantines are imposed and enforced in the United States in the wake of the coronavirus.

Can the government force anybody into quarantine or to ‘shelter in place’?

The legal authority to impose quarantines or shelter-in-place orders on individuals is rooted in the “police powers” granted broadly to states, counties and cities to protect public health. That means for most Americans, a state or local stay-at-home order imposed to prevent the spread of the coronavirus will be far more important than any federal order.

When it comes to the federal government, it can impose quarantines under the Public Health Service Act for two main reasons: to prevent the spread of communicable disease into the United States or between states.

Although President Trump has said he would like to reopen the country by Easter, it is not clear that he has the power and authority to do this. The police powers held by states to protect public health came before the Constitution and it did not change them, said Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor at Georgetown University Law School who specializes in public health law. Mr. Trump, for example, could not go into a state and order a business to start operating, experts said.

What is the difference between a quarantine and a stay-at-home order?

A quarantine is designed to isolate someone sick or at least known to have been exposed to a contagious disease, whereas a stay-at-home order is meant to promote social distancing and thus lower the number of infections.

Quarantines are considered a measure of last resort when no preferable means is available to halt the spread of a deadly communicable disease. “We do not want to restrict people’s liberty unless it is necessary, unless we cannot achieve the public health end with less draconian measures,” said Wendy E. Parmet, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University.

So there is no blanket law?

No, the laws vary by state and even locality. Some 40 states updated their quarantine laws after fears spread over a possible broad anthrax attack in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to Professor Gostin., He is the author of a legal template called the State Emergency Health Powers Act, which many states adopted in whole or in part. Some states retain antiquated regulations on their books.

Are quarantines, including self-isolating at home, voluntary or mandatory?

It is a bit of a gray area. It often seems voluntary until the person involved tries to leave, at which point health officials are likely to make it compulsory, experts said. The rules are notoriously hard to confirm because county governments often do not publish their regulations online.

The bottom line, however, is that if a quarantine is not enforced and other people catch the fatal disease as a result, the local government could be held liable, Mr. Gostin said. “Thinking about this as purely voluntary is wishful thinking.”

Is it a crime to evade a quarantine?

Again, laws vary by state, but those who ignore the rule could face fines or jail time. Logic dictates that draconian enforcement would be difficult and often counterproductive. No local law enforcement agency would likely compound its problems by throwing a quarantine scofflaw with a deadly communicable disease in among its jail population.

Local authorities often have some form of enforcement power, but usually try gentle persuasion to convince people that it is for their good and the good of the community. An infected person blatantly ignoring an order might be forced to go into medical isolation — that is, some form of locked hospital ward.

Experts worry that many Americans might think they have the right to go someplace local like the supermarket without considering the consequences for others. “We have lost this tradition of the common good and social responsibility to each other and that could be a big problem in America,” Mr. Gostin said.

Is there a right to appeal?

States should have some manner of appeal process, and some require a court order from the outset. If there is no medical tribunal or other means for a second opinion, ultimately anyone could challenge a quarantine order in court through a writ of habeas corpus.

Quarantine laws tend to be controversial because they are akin to jail time, using the coercive power of the state to tell people that they have to stay confined, even if in their own homes.

The C.D.C. rewrote its quarantine guidelines in 2017 and they have never been tested in court. The Supreme Court has also never dealt with an infectious disease quarantine case, Mr. Gostin said.

Under C.D.C. rules, the federal government must test those confined within 72 hours and define the length of stay from the outset — two weeks for the coronavirus because that is the incubation period for the disease.

The most famous recent test case was Kaci Hickox, a nurse who was initially quarantined involuntarily at Newark Liberty International Airport in 2014 upon returning from West Africa, where she had worked with Ebola patients.

After a few days, she was allowed to return to her home state of Maine but ordered to remain in isolation. Having tested negative for the virus, Ms. Hickox sued and the judge rejected the quarantine order.

With the help of the A.C.L.U., Ms. Hickox also sued New Jersey, which resulted in a settlement that gave arriving passengers more rights, including the right to appeal the decision and to seek legal advice.

What does the government provide during a quarantine?

The most glaring hole in American quarantine laws, experts said, is that there is no guaranteed salary. An employer could even fire a quarantined employee. President Trump has said that his administration would address financial relief for people quarantined.

If you are separated from the community for the public good, the government should provide medical service, essential medications, food and other social support if you need it, Mr. Gostin said.

Are quarantines effective?

They generally help slow the spread of the disease but sometimes do not depending on the disease and the conditions of the quarantine, experts said. In China, that seemed to decelerate the exponential spread of the virus, they said, whereas holding passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan appeared to create a kind of petri dish with more people infected.

Could there be broad quarantines in the United States like those imposed by China or Italy?

The United States government lacks the broad authority to impose the sweeping quarantine seen in China, where some 70 million people were confined in the largest such effort in history. Italy, which has a more centralized government, attempted to lock down the entire country. But in the United States neither federal nor state law contains the powers for such expansive measures, Mr. Gostin said.

In addition, the United States does not really have the logistical systems in place to guarantee the distribution of medical services, food and other necessities to people under quarantine.

New York State decided to deploy the National Guard in New Rochelle, a New York City suburb and the center of a significant outbreak, to help provide those kinds of services and to help scrub public spaces clean. The center of the city is considered a “containment zone,” but it is not under quarantine.

Is there any history of quarantines in the United States?

The measures being implemented now around the globe are the most sweeping since the 1918 influenza pandemic.

In the United States, quarantines have been extremely rare. The last federal quarantine was in the early 1960s against a suspected smallpox outbreak. Instead the C.D.C. tends to issue health warnings, like advising pregnant women to avoid Southern Florida in 2016 during an outbreak of the Zika virus.

In earlier times, there were frequent legal quarantines, dating back to at least the early 18th century. The fact that they often targeted minority immigrant communities is a key reason that civil libertarians are leery about giving the government wide powers today.

Two of the most notorious cases occurred during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In 1900, the city of San Francisco tried to impose a quarantine on Chinatown, arguing that a diet of rice made people more susceptible to bubonic plague than the more American diet of meat, and demanded that its residents submit to an unproven vaccine, according to Howard Markel, the director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan. Residents sued under the 14th Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal treatment under the law, and won.

In New York City, which once deployed health police armed with billy clubs and powers of arrest, an outbreak of typhus among Russian Jewish and Italian immigrants on the Lower East Side prompted the authorities to confine some 1,200 people on North Brother Island off the Bronx for several months in 1892.

Perhaps the island’s most infamous resident ever was Mary Mallon, known as “Typhoid Mary,” an Irish-born cook who infected dozens of people in New York, killing some of them, by changing jobs frequently and refusing to stop working as a cook.

Mr. Markel cited in his book “Quarantine” an example of the sense of sweeping power held by the authorities at that time, when they thought it was in the public interest to impose a quarantine.

Asked to testify in Congress about quarantining hundreds of immigrants on the island in 1892, Cyrus Edson, the New York City’s sanitary supervisor, responded, “We may take possession of the City Hall forcibly and turn it into a contagious disease hospital if in our opinion it is necessary to do so.”

(转) 新冠病毒全球大流行：我们缺乏的只是疫苗？

又一次的开学典礼付诸东流，这一次春天的典礼是因为新冠肺炎，上一次冬天的典礼是因为香港动荡。不少朋友问我怎么没有看到我在新冠肺炎下的演讲、观点和文章？近两个月里，好文何止上百上千？有多少从疫情中央发出的令人潸然泪下的亲身经历？有多少发自内心的自省和思考？有多少对国家未来的焦虑和期许？我们已经好久没有经历过这样的场面，在同一个时刻、为同一个人、为同一件事发出我们谦卑的声音，吹起我们的口哨声？而这都是为了同一个目标，希望类似的悲剧可以再少些；希望我们无需生活在不必要的恐惧之中；希望这个民族无论何时都是被人敬重的。

这当然是一场灾难。庚子鼠年以超出所有人的想象力，开始了这一场天灾，但这也是一场人祸。根据英国南安普敦大学的研究，如果武汉提前三个星期开始狙击这一病毒，仅中国受感染的数目就可以减少95%。当然这只是一项研究，而现实与数字模型之间存在的距离有时可以是如此之大！如果武汉封城之后欧美各国不会如此傲慢，而是积极合作应对，今天的欧洲和美国或许就不会面对这样的人道危机！在全球面临这样的大灾难面前，相反，我们看到的是自私与自大、嘲讽与指责、恐惧与推卸，甚至阴谋论甚嚣尘上，代替了理性的思考和应有的反思。面对这样的世纪疫情大流行的恐惧，我们缺乏的远非控制疫情的疫苗！

我们缺乏常识；我们缺乏见识；我们缺乏透明度；我们缺乏同理心；我们缺乏担当；我们缺乏反思……

我们缺乏常识

在这场疫情席卷全球时，新冠肺炎也成了阴谋论的温床。短短的一个多月时间里，有武汉病毒研究所病毒外漏的“泄毒之说”，有美国驻武汉领事馆留下八个可疑生化毒物箱的“种毒之说”，有美国参议员柯顿指控毒源来自大陆生化实验室的“放毒之说”，有武汉军运会期间美国兵“播毒之说”，莫衷一是。我从一开始就对阴谋论存疑，我总觉得人性虽恶，但人类的恶行还不至于如此匪夷所思。有些指控，稍微求证，就知道是胡言乱语。美国驻武汉总领事馆位于武汉新世界国贸大楼第47楼，后院在哪里？生化毒物箱又如何埋在地下1.5公尺处？谎言哗众取宠，但信者众！如果病毒来自中国的生物基因作战实验室，对病毒的认识和控制还会那么难吗？这样低水准的阴谋论竟然畅行全球！其实只要有基本常识，反智的阴谋论就不可能大行其道。

我们缺乏常识也因为我们常常以偏盖全，信息不对称。意大利专家雷穆齐（Giuseppe Remuzzi）表示早在去年11月份，意大利北部就有人染上高度疑似新冠肺炎的不明肺炎。中国的一些媒体第一时间就报道了意大利是源头的说法，让不少中国人信以为真。中国的记者还纷纷打电话去采访，他对自己早先的采访被断章取义非常不满，并指出这是教科书式的“宣传手段”。但之后他纠正中国媒体的说法，并没有被广泛报道。他还在另一个场合表示，武汉可能早已出现新冠肺炎感染，期间有大量中国人从武汉来到意大利，令意大利出现了疑似案例，由于一切来自中国的信息都不透明，才令疫情失去控制的黄金时机。其实意大利北部温州的人很多，而一月的时候，除了武汉，温州疫情也很严重。在中国就有专家因看到浙江有人感染之后，强烈建议武汉必须封城。

疫情刚爆发时，有不少人总在那里质问，美国每年季节性流感死了成千上万人，无人恐慌，世界各国没有切断和美国的联系，但美国为何要切掉和中国的联系？这是否过度反应？是否歧视中国？是否违反世界卫生组织的指引？但季节性流感有疫苗，死亡率只有新冠肺炎的十分之一，这样的事实很多人并不了解。如今看到疫情蔓延全球，纽约成为另一个武汉，大家应该可以明白每年在美国发生的季节性流感和新冠肺炎之间的根本不同。

我们缺乏常识是因为我们受制于我们有限的知识和见识，无法认识事物的真相；我们缺乏常识也是因为我们面对恐惧而惊慌失措，无法理性地看待自媒体时代所获得的虚假资讯；我们缺乏常识也是因为我们的立场和偏见挡住了自己的视线，无法走出原有的认知。

我们缺乏见识

同样在欧美各国，不少人还真的将新冠肺炎和季节性流感等同起来，根本不把新冠病毒当回事，酿成今日欧美各国沦陷的惨痛教训。在发生新冠肺炎这样的全球公共医疗危机时，不要说普通人，即便全球最顶尖的传染病专家对病毒都缺乏足够的认识，束手无策，无法预见其发展方向，至多只能依靠模型做出推算，但最终和现实也可能相距甚远。在疫情初期，不要说西方的专家，即便内地最顶尖的传染病专家都不认为这次疫情比“非典”严重。因香港的特殊地位，香港大学的专家学者敢于发声，袁国勇教授早在1月3日就警告香港政府，这次疫情极为严重，香港特区政府早在1月7日就宣布把“严重新型传染性病原体呼吸系统病”列为须呈报的疾病，卫生部门有权强制隔离怀疑患者。管轶教授是香港大学新发传染性疾病国家重点实验室主任，最早发出疫情将失控的警告。

香港因2003年受“非典”的沉重打击，大家记忆犹新，不少香港人对新冠肺炎都非常恐惧，也出现了抢购潮。但在香港的西方人对此的反应就大为不同，包括香港大学中的白人学者也觉得这是类似流感的病毒，只不过传染率和死亡率高而已。这种判断一度让我觉得香港是否过度恐慌了，特别是香港医务人员以罢工逼迫政府封关的举动过激，违背了医务人员救死扶伤的伦理底线。疫情初期在香港街上也基本看不到有多少西方人戴口罩，所以在西方的华人因为担心感染病毒戴口罩也被视为怪物，不被理解还算次要，还受到白眼和歧视，甚至遭人毒打。因为在西方的文化里，只有得病的人才戴口罩，而你得病了就不该出现在公众的地方。其实西方人这样的行为也是因认知受限，而诉诸暴力的不法之徒更是蔑视人权。

这次疫情在欧美的迅速蔓延终于让西方意识到新冠病毒不只属于亚洲人，他们原先冷眼旁观，以为白种人可以刀枪不入。甚至欧美的不少医学专家初期都低估了这个疫情的风险，从意大利大意失荆州，到英国的“群体免疫”，再到美国的全线沦陷，在一定程度上都和他们对这个病毒的有限认知有关，说难听点就是无知。因此政府不敢与普通民众的认知相左，轻易做出封城的决定。医学界本身也存在完全对立的看法，直到伦敦帝国理工学院流行病专家尼尔·弗格森团队的研究报告做出了令人恐惧的预测之后，英美两国政府才改变被动的应对策略。这份研究报告警告，如果英美两国不积极应对，英国将会有超过50万的人死亡，而美国将有220万人死亡。即便如此，牛津大学的研究团队在此之后还是得出截然不同的结论，认为新冠病毒在英国已经传播了一个多月，大约一半人口已经获得了实质的群体免疫能力。

全球在应对这个新型病毒的侵袭时，因为知识不足，做出了不少错误的判断。在疫情初期，对病毒的严重性难以做出正确的判断，在获得人传人的证据之后才被迫做出武汉封城的决定。但同时也因为认知不足，人的见识有限，影响了我们应对病毒的策略。东亚地区有“非典”的惨重教训就极为重视，西方民众对新冠病毒的认知则不同，完全放任。

我们的见识常常受限于我们的生活经历和环境，但我们不可能亲临其境去认知每一件事物，因此获取全面的信息就变得至关重要。不幸的是我们因防火墙无法获得客观的信息，因处在同温层里拒绝不同的信息，更不要说我们因缺乏透明度难以接收真实的信息。

我们缺乏透明度

回首往事，不少人都低估了疫情的危害！但是，在疫情还没有开始蔓延时，如果做到信息公开透明，如果吹哨人不被劝诫、警告、和惩罚，或许新冠肺炎全球大流行的历史会改写。许多在武汉不该发生的事一定不会发生，武汉的牺牲就不会这么大，中国百姓的牺牲也就不会这么大。

从中国最早处理新冠肺炎的不当做法，到世界卫生组织迟迟未对全球发出最高级别的警告，到欧美各国的迟缓应对行动，都和缺乏透明度有关联。这次疫情如此迅猛扩散的第一责任人当然是武汉当局、湖北当局，他们对公众隐瞒信息甚至掩盖真相，引发了民众的不信任，国际社会不少人甚至怀疑中国的死亡率造假。中国最为受伤的就是因封锁和隐瞒信息，导致疫情的控制受到延误，遭到国际社会诟病、排斥和指责。武汉封城之后，中国的经济和民生受到重创的举措和牺牲也因此大打折扣，对中国的负面影响其实刚刚浮现。

美国政客在中国疫情最严重的时刻，颇有隔岸观火的看客心态。特朗普为了选举，为了股市不下跌，不影响经济，就是不愿承认疫情迟早会冲击美国。他本以为关闭了来往中国的航线，切断了来自中国的人流就万事大吉了。他还不让邮轮上受感染的游客在美国下船，就是要制造美国本土病毒感染者很低的假象。但这样的做法和一切以稳定为首要的考虑有何区别呢？在疫情终于席卷美国之后，他也是不断大事化小，尽量降低疫情所带来的冲击和影响，甚至在感染人数还在不断攀升时竟然表示美国的经济活动在复活节就可以恢复正常！所幸美国有独立的媒体，在白宫可以直接和总统公开叫板，不让政府传播的不实消息当道。在白宫记者会上，美国媒体公开质疑特朗普的抗疫政策不当，当场质问总统为何不停地使用“中国病毒”这样的歧视性字眼。

早在1月20日，当我确认这将是一场公共卫生灾难时，我就第一时间在我的朋友圈里转发了管轶教授对疫情的“悲观”看法。但他的科学分析在内地被视为耸人听闻，有人甚至借他的“逃跑说”对他进行人身攻击，但正是这样客观的信息才有助于我们了解事实真相，了解这一公共卫生危机已经去到了多么危险的境地！其实在发生类似新冠肺炎这样的危机时，面对太多的不确定性，要阻止谣言，信息的透明就显得尤为重要。

除了刻意隐瞒信息，还有虚假资讯泛滥。全球数百名科学家2月上旬出席日内瓦“世卫论坛”，讨论新型冠肺炎疫情，学者就感叹他们不得不面对两条战线作战，除了应付病毒大流行，还要应付虚假资讯大泛滥 ，而应对虚假资讯泛滥比抗疫本身还艰难。网上流传最广最快的往往就是耸人听闻的假消息和渲染成见的看法，这些不实的信息，有恶意造谣，有断章取义，导致非理性的反应和恐慌，甚至制造混乱和分化。世卫顾问隆基尼（Ira Longini）和香港大学医学院院长梁卓伟曾提及全球三分之二的人口有可能感染新冠病毒，但网上的信息都忽略了“如果传播未加抑制”的假设，特意将最坏的可能性无限放大，引起不必要的恐慌。

在任何一场公共危机发生的时候，政府是不可能靠屏蔽信息来阻止危机的蔓延。恰恰相反，这只会造成危机的进一步恶化。即便在上个世纪的苏联时代，对切尔诺贝利核泄露的隐瞒最终给人类带来了一场世纪大灾难，更何况我们已经身处社交媒体如此发达的时代！

面对全球疫情大流行，信息披露和信息对称有助于我们了解不同地域，在不同的文化和背景下的不同应对策略和措施。不管是对疫情的判断，还是应对疫情的方法，各国都有不同的理解和做法，相互之间不仅不该嘲笑，反而应该借鉴。我们因条件限制无法获得全面的信息，但至少可以换位思考，从他者的角度看问题，避免幸灾乐祸的看客心理。

我们缺乏同理心

疫情爆发之后，各国不仅有不同的认知过程，而且在获得相同的认知之后所采取的应对也并不相同。武汉封城的消息传出之后，西方的反应也是两极，有称这样的举措是流行病专家的天堂，而这只有在威权国家才能实现，民主国家只能羡慕。但也有一些西方国家看到中国面临的困境，在疫情刚刚爆发时，也带有事不关己高高挂起、甚至幸灾乐祸看笑话的心态来看待中国的抗疫，还把病毒与中国的国民性和低劣文化相联系。

各国抗疫的做法离不开其体制、文化、历史等因素。在中国，一声令下，举国体制立马见效，整个国家有如一部机器，全力抗灾，所有其它事情都要靠边站，甚至做出牺牲，包括在“准战争”状态下个体的权利和自由，其它病人可否受到正常的医疗救助，都不是最重要的考虑。事实证明，这样的牺牲确实巨大，但这一抗疫历史上未曾经历过的举措，一座上千万人口的大城市被封城两个月的战略最终是奏效的。

中国的牺牲阻止了疫情蔓延，可歌可泣。即便如此，可圈可点之处也多如牛毛，野蛮作业的现象也并非个别。中国人不喜欢美国指手画脚，那别的国家难道就喜欢中国这么做？一些自媒体对别国状况一知半解，充满无知、偏见和轻蔑，非要说人家不会抄作业。看看东邻日本，和韩国的做法也不同，连大面积的检测也没做，情况也不算太坏！日本的人口密度还超过中国！但日本人平时的生活和卫生习惯，你又了解多少？其实就是华人社会的香港、澳门、台湾、新加坡等地的处理方式都不同，当中新加坡的所谓“佛系”防疫措施相当成功让不少人大跌眼镜。

新加坡从“重灾区”到“模范生”，表面上看去似乎选择了“佛系”的抗疫策略，曾引来不少怀疑、甚至嘲笑。新加坡防疫成功是有原因的，其策略可以概括为：最快反应、最早防范、最有系统、最严惩罚、最少折腾、最缺恐慌。新加坡一度是仅次于中国病例第二高的国家，同时人口稠密，还是国际交通枢纽。但新加坡政府反应迅速且效率高，最早限制来自中国的人流，并实施了对不同人群的休假令和居家隔离令。“非典”之后建立起来的疫情警报系统立即派上用场。新加坡国家传染病中心集先进的检测、治疗与实验研究为一体，马上研发并合作生产了快速病毒检试剂，有健全的检测体系，保证了疑似患者尽快得到治疗，避免了疫情的传播，加强了民众的信心。新加坡缺乏口罩生产能力，不鼓励大家戴口罩，但政府还是快速购买了五百万个口罩派发到每家每户，安抚民众。新加坡有充足的医疗资源，类似于中国的发热门诊就有873个，相当于北京发热门诊的11倍。我很早在朋友圈里就转发相关的信息看好新加坡的做法，甚至比香港还成功，没有发生香港排长队争口罩、抢厕纸的“奇观”。但话说回来，香港的恐慌是基于香港曾在2003年“非典”时曾遭重创的惨痛历史，以及香港和内地每天有大量的人员来往这一事实。

韩国这次的抗疫模式在西方更是受到肯定，法国总统和瑞典首相等多国政要甚至致电韩国讨教。但韩国对疫情的控制到底有何魅力？为何西方愿意到韩国取经和复制韩国模式呢？韩国也曾面对与中国相同的困境，但两国在大范围发生疫情之后，采取了类似的抗疫战略，新增病例曲线迅速被压平。但西方在看韩国的经验时，特别看重韩国没有因疫情出现压制言论和信息受阻的现象，没有因禁令影响民众的行动和自由，国家的经济更没有受到太大的冲击。韩国的经验可以归结为：早干预、早准备、早检测、早跟踪、早隔离、早观察。韩国的企业早就判断病毒迟早会扩散到韩国，第一时间就研发出检测试剂盒，获得政府的紧急审批投放市场，检测过程只需十分钟，几小时内可以出结果，准确率超过98%。韩国单日可检测近两万人，检测率全球之冠，已有120多个国家争相从韩国进口测试盒。韩国政府还迅速修订法律，网站和手机都可以追踪病发者，一旦有新病例，就可以获得信息和警报。

好的经验当然可以抄，可以借鉴，但不必过分地显耀自己的成功，这只会让人反感。己所不欲，勿施于人。现在中国不准外国人入境，这是因为中国不能再冒第二次疫情失控的风险，于情于理都不是自私自利。同样，疫情爆发初期，香港、新加坡、意大利、美国等地对中国人封关、撤侨也是同理，人家也同样不愿意看到疫情蔓延，为何那时就可以攻击别人是恶意制造恐慌，是对中国背后插上一刀呢？美国在欧洲疫情严重之后也禁止欧洲人前往美国，最后连英国这个小兄弟也进了入境限制名单。日本现在对包括中国、韩国、美国、欧洲在内的国民入境都采取十四日隔离的政策。疫情初期，中国民众对日本的态度发生了180度的大转弯，曾经被我们骂得一无是处的大和民族似乎对中国很友好、很善良，向中国捐赠各类物资，而对美国政府的表现极为不满。其实抛开美国民间和企业的资助不提，为何一定就要期待和中国正在打贸易战的特朗普政府对你友好呢？而对中国最早锁国的是朝鲜、俄罗斯、越南等国！

在疫情袭击的恐惧中，我们更不可以幸灾乐祸地嘲笑别人的行为，透过渲染别国的疫情失控来展现自己的英明和伟大，而忘记了自己并没有走出险境。美国和意大利的报纸上密密麻麻的讣告，看去令人悲伤和沉重，恰恰彰显了人性的一面。中国不少媒体将意大利和美国医院中的尸体的照片无限渲染，而失去亲人的武汉人前去领取骨灰盒，为了正常的悼念发出的哀思和照片却消失了。我们当中总有人不愿正视自己的创伤，不可忍受将苦难、悲剧和丑恶呈现在他们面前的人，将读者高达五千万的“日记”视为恶毒、无耻，却又如此钟情地展示“纽约医院尸满为患”、“纽约穷人疫情之下被迫乘坐地铁上班”、“英国政府勒令医生封口”这样的文字和照片。广东一个企业老板竟然建议厂家做假测温枪卖给美国，让感染者越来越多，辽宁有餐厅门外贴出横幅祝贺美日疫情扩散，就不单单是没有同理心了，而是无知的反人类言论。

如果我们可以同样毫无顾虑地拷问自己，犹如如此心安理得地对他人提出质疑，我们的心智就一定不会萎缩，我们兴许也就有了希望。如今，我们甚至无法正常地伸出舌头，道出自己的甜酸苦辣，又何必如此居高临下，带着幸灾乐祸的病态，刻意营造似是而非的场景，来彰显那虚幻的优越感？！但我总是固执地坚信，一个人、一个国家、一个民族只要勇于承担起苦难中的责任，最终一定是会得到别人的理解和赞许的。

我们缺乏担当

在这次疫情中最常听到的一个字就是甩锅，这场“甩锅大战”从武汉封城的那一刻开始就不断上演，从当地的医疗机构，到各级政府官员，到中国疾病控制中心，大家都在问，疫情失控和蔓延的责任在谁？

中国在“非典”之后耗资11亿，搭建了全球最大的传染病疫情和突发公共卫生事件网络直报系统，过去15年间持续监测39种法定传染病。这个全球最快速的疫情上报系统，可以在短短两小时内将疫情上达北京，中国最高的疾病防疫专家在2019年曾经表示中国绝不会重演“非典”悲剧。但话音刚落，这个耗费巨资的系统并没有在这次病毒蔓延中发挥功效。或许我们永远都无法知道真相，但有一点很清楚，专业判断在明哲保身、没有承担的官僚系统中被冷冻了，生命的价值也同样在个人权力的棋盘上被抛之脑后。

这场疫情最大的讽刺是，全球最大的两个经济体在面对这场世界公共卫生大危机时，竟然上演了一出极为相似的闹剧。几乎每天陪同特朗普在白宫见记者的美国传染病首席专家福西不谄媚权贵，不介意道出与他旁边的总统立场不同的看法，其独立的专业精神不受政治的左右，但他的专业判断也同样被美国总统束之高阁。疫情在中国蔓延恶化之时，美国的科学家就发出警告，但美国疾病防疫中心、美国食品和药物管理局、美国卫生和公共服务部似乎都没有看到采取行动的紧迫性，更何况美国总统特朗普本人了。特朗普向来蔑视科学和专业的意见，联邦政府被一群科学怀疑论者把持。而特朗普就喜欢看极右的福克斯电视台，曾与中国同行舌战的女主播Trish Regan就鼓吹疫情是民主党的阴谋，而特朗普本人就是一个阴谋论者。他同样不信任主流媒体，不停地和主流媒体在白宫记者会上唇枪舌剑，甚至当众侮辱记者。特朗普也不重视来自情报机关的报告，警告疫情的严重性被中国低估和隐瞒，以及疫情将会蔓延全球。此外，特朗普对玩政治的兴趣多过抗疫，为了竞选就是不愿承认疫情迟早会冲击美国，他对疫情轻描淡写的原因也是因为民主党主政的纽约州、加州、华盛顿州受到重创，但共和党的红州并未受到太大的影响。纽约时报在3月28日刊登万字文，以“美国错失的一个月”为题，分析了美国因检测技术落后，法规不配套，白宫领导无方，政府官僚作风，导致美国失去了疫情防控的黄金30天。

美国的科技和医疗发达，美国的医疗开支占GDP的比例最高，达到了近18%，但美国至今的表现为何令人大跌眼镜？无法早期进行检测是疫情蔓延的元凶，美国疾病防控中心也不是不作为，但为何会发生这样灾难性的失误呢？这和欧美社会对新冠肺炎的轻视有相当大的关联。中国在修正了前期隐瞒疫情的错误之后，武汉封城的快速行动，为整个国际社会控制疫情争取了难得的宝贵时间。随后东亚各国和地区也纷纷采取行动，大体上都取得一定的成效，制止了新冠病毒的蔓延。遗憾的是，由于对疫情的认知存在极大的偏差，欧美国家都没有及时采取适当的应对措施，欧洲和美国先后演变成疫情的重灾区。此次疫情的另一个中心意大利，也只不过停飞了前往中国的航班。而美国早在1月3日就获得了中国的通报， 但美国和其它欧洲国家一样一直心态超然，觉得自己远隔重洋，“非典”只在东亚流行，便以为此次新冠肺炎也同样会局限在东亚地区。

而疫情在美国开始蔓延后，这场“甩锅”大战竟然也蔓延到国际社会，中美两国爆发了令人捧腹的唇枪舌战。中国外交部的新任发言人在推特上怀疑美军在武汉播毒，特朗普亲自上阵，恶意地称新冠肺炎为“中国病毒”。病毒起源地的争论凸显了各方意图透过“甩锅”来推卸应有的责任，其实起源地何罪之有？而美国国务卿蓬佩奥在特朗普改口之后，还坚持要将武汉病毒写进七大工业国外长的公报里，而被其它国家拒绝。美国自己浪费了一个多月的时间，疫情失控，特朗普却只会将矛头转移，掩盖自己抗疫能力的失误！更为严重的是，“中国病毒”经过他的大嘴巴，在推特里一天又一天地在说，传遍全球，造成了美国等地歧视亚裔人的犯罪上升。美国联邦调查局的一项全新研究，警告全美针对亚裔人的仇恨犯罪案件数目，因新型冠状病毒疫情的扩散而飙升，危及美国的亚裔社群。连新加坡总理李显龙在接受美国有线电视新闻网CNN采访的时候，不仅感慨美国失去了领导世界战疫的能力，而且惊叹这两个世界大国竟然可以如此低水平地进行“口水战”。

从亚洲到欧洲到美洲，昔日繁忙的大都会因这场疫情，生活已经停顿。这场疫情不仅暴露了我们制度的缺陷、系统的脆弱、和人性的罪恶，全球已经跌入新一轮的金融市场大动荡和全球经济大衰退，但不幸的是，我们不仅没有进行反思，却依旧在那里自我陶醉和自我撕裂！

我们缺乏反思

一场史无前例的病毒大流行正向全球各个角落冲撞，死亡笼罩着这个星球。但面对这场突如其来的天灾，其中多少人祸是可以避免的呢？

封口vs封城：围绕着这场人道危机的争论焦点从一开始就从这里展开。如果没有发生“封口”事件，新冠肺炎的蔓延是否会有另一个结局？我们无法知道答案，但我们知道至少不会如此惨烈。问题在于一个经济如此发达的国度，为何依旧无法实现一个开放社会所需要的基本条件；一个自信的社会为何难以拉响危机来临的警报声。而这并非个别和单一现象，这有如隐藏在我们社会中的毒瘤和顽疾，总是如此粗暴地压制善意的提醒和批评。

在危机抵达临界点之后义无反顾的“封城”行动，尽管惨烈，却也是迫不得已的孤注一掷，但我们并非事事都一定要以牺牲个体的代价来实现宏大的目标，文明是体现在对每一个生命的关怀上的。“封口”可以令一个民族、一个国家在全球失去信用和信任，即便在“封城”的巨大牺牲之后，受感染和死亡的官方的数据还是被质疑。扪心自问，为何中国常常成为这类被怀疑的目标与对象？一个真正开放的社会，和一个透明度高的社会，一定可以勇敢地面对真相并向大众提供真相。所幸，在疫情重击下，中国也出现了难得一见的媒体松绑现象。

另一方面，西方也常常从固有的认知出发，用有色眼镜看待中国的“封城”行动。在这场抗疫中，与东亚各地在武汉“封城”之后迅速进入作战状态完全不同，欧美各国不仅负面看待中国的“封城”行动，而且没有从中国的“封城”行动中嗅出危机的严重程度。

傲慢vs自大：这让我们再次活生生地看到了傲慢与无知，欧美各国普遍将最初在武汉出现的新病毒归结为黄种人的病。日本副首相兼财务大臣麻生太郎2月份曾在G20财长的一次会议上主动表示援助意大利和西班牙，却自讨没趣，欧洲国家非常不屑。意大利副总理后来在G7财政会议上更直截了当地表示，这是黄种人才会得的病，和他们西方人没有关系。无怪乎，意大利一度成为中国之外感染者最多的国家。特朗普的傲慢与自大终于在疫情横扫美国之后，被迫承认美国将面对比第二次世界大战还要惨重的死亡。

然而与西方的傲慢相对应的则是在中国自媒体的世界里无时不在的自大，在那里你只有看到中国成了全球抗疫的英雄和救世主，所有的悲剧都活脱脱地变成了赞歌的素材，而忘记了病毒是从武汉开始向全国和全球蔓延的。这样的自大在中国抗疫初现曙光之后，更是变成了对他国肆无忌惮的嘲笑。而最新的对象就是感染新冠肺炎人数最多的美国，却忘记了美国拥有强大的科技力量和发达的医疗体系，仅ICU（重症监护室）的床位数量就远远超过中国。而“傲慢”与“自大”这对孪生兄弟却拥有一个共同点：偏见。

吃野味vs戴口罩：在有关病毒源头的吃野味文化，以及防止病毒扩散的戴口罩文化的讨论中，我们也看到了类似的偏见。2003年“非典”之后中国人的确没有从中吸取惨痛的教训，及时关闭野味市场，不少人因而将此次病毒的爆发与中国人喜爱吃野味的文化联系在一起。这样的看法有其道理，中国人是时候改变吃野味的生活习俗。有趣的是，中国网民反而找出了纽约上流社会吃野味的视频，一时之间在朋友圈中疯传，证明美国人不过是五十步笑百步。不过这几年比较严重的传染病，包括中东呼吸综合症和甲型H1N1流感病毒并非源自中国。

另一方面，亚洲人戴口罩以防止病毒扩散基本是共识。但西方人，即便是生活在亚洲的西方人也不喜欢戴口罩。在西方，视口罩为病人标志的观念还带来了对亚裔人的歧视。在欧美各国生活的亚裔人处在戴口罩被歧视，不带口罩怕染上病毒的天人交战中。但在这次疫情重击欧美之后，戴口罩抵抗病毒的认知终于慢慢开始在欧美被接受了。

自媒体vs主流媒体（赞美vs批评）：在疫情的报道上，中国的主力军是自媒体，不管是赞歌，还是批评，自媒体带有更多的主观性和情绪性。而在许多其它地方，报道疫情的主力是主流媒体，力求客观。特别是美国媒体，其角色是监督政府，且喜欢监督全世界的政府，多数又是自由主义倾向，所以特朗普也反感美国主流媒体。但只有在美国这个国家，CBS记者胆敢在白宫怒怼总统为何要使用歧视性的“中国病毒”；NBC的记者质问特朗普吹捧效果未经证实的抗疫药物是否给美国人虚假的希望，并指美国数百万人活于恐惧中；纽约时报驻京记者张彦（Ian Johnson ）的“观点”文章，指出中国为美国赢得了时间却被美国白白浪费了；纽约时报的社论公开谴责特朗普政府官员的言词加剧了对亚裔的种族仇恨。

中国自媒体里那个发自纽约的抗疫日记，作者声称其素材全部取自美国媒体的公开报道，而非道听途说，语带双关。的确，当纽约成为美国的武汉时，我每天在美国电视新闻上看到的几乎全是“负面”消息。每一个活生生的人离开人世时的凄惨故事；病人因缺乏医疗设备无法获得及时医治的悲剧；医务人员面对死亡威胁战斗在第一线几乎崩溃的场面；停留在街边装满尸体的冰冻车和医院走廊里运尸袋的场景；质问白宫何时可以确保医疗设备运抵现场的愤怒；受到病毒感染威胁下美国海军官兵的呼吁；失去工作的普通人无法交付房贷的忧虑。在这里你看到的是恐惧，是担忧，是悲伤，在这里你听不到任何赞歌。

威权vs民主：这次全球抗疫的叙事已经成为中国模式和西方模式之争，甚至上升到威权还是民主体制在抗疫中哪个更有成效的争论，但不少人却忘记了无论何种体制都有其成功与失败的经验与教训。在欧洲成为重灾区之后，德国的死亡率却一直很低，这或许与日耳曼民族的自律有关。在亚洲处于恐慌的时候，日本并没有跟随中国封城、没有跟随韩国大面积检测，但也没有像欧美发达国家那样失控，这或许与大和民族的自律和生活习惯有关。如果将抗疫简单地看成是中国体制的胜利，那么韩国、日本、新加坡、香港、台湾等地又是何种体制？无疑，中国自上而下的动员力量，让全球看到了中国体制战胜疫情的超强能力，但自下而上的公民社会的应变和调整能力在纽约成为疫情重灾区之后，同样令人刮目相看。

纽约在中央公园、体育场迅速建起方舟医院，并加快对受感染疑似人员的检测。来自全美的六万多名医务人员主动报名成为自愿者，自发前往纽约支援人手不足的医院，“捷蓝”航空免费载送这些医护人员“上战场”，酒店免费提供住宿，企业慷慨捐赠急需的防护用品和医疗设备，但没有企业对这些行动发稿、做公关、高调宣传。即便美国总统面对新冠肺炎的反应丑态百出，但这个国家所幸不是一个人说的算，受疫情影响最大的纽约州、加州、华盛顿州都不理睬他的狂言妄语。而美国的体制也决定了联邦政府对州一级政府的事务不可干涉，即便特朗普想对纽约和临近的两个州“封城”，但纽约州州长公开反对，使得特朗普不得不放弃这一想法。特朗普随心所欲，疫情还未控制，就要求复活节恢复经济运作，但疾病专家和媒体则公开和他唱对台戏。因此，应对病毒需要在一个自下而上的公民社会里，民众敢于承担公民应有的责任和义务。

在全球面对这场前所未有的大灾难时，我们需要理性地思考人类的失误和失败，而非指责和推卸。这场大灾难离落幕之日还有漫漫长路，但这场天灾与人祸也给人类提供了一次难得的反思机会。在这场疫情结束之后，或许全球终将明白这不是“中国病毒”，是各国必须共同面对的“世界病毒”，病毒恰恰因我们人类的傲慢、自大、和自私而四处肆虐。在这个全球化被污名化的时代，尽管国与国的界线依旧分明，但病毒绝不会只在一国的边境线内停留。我们比以往任何时候都更需要有全球的视野和全球的胸怀，我们必须学会如何合作去共同应对前所未有的挑战。

庚子年常常是灾难之年，但或许也是转折之年。在新冠病毒横扫全球之后，这不应该是我们重拾孤立的时刻，而是通向一个不一样的全球化新时代的新起点。

Why China Must Be Held Accountable for the Coronavirus Pandemic

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is waging a ferocious, global propaganda campaign designed to deflect blame for the origin and spread of the COVID-19 outbreak from Wuhan, China. Moreover, Beijing is trying to take advantage of the pandemic to increase its global standing and influence. There are three main reasons why the world must hold the CCP accountable for the first global pandemic in a century.

Morality

The first reason the CCP must be held accountable for the pandemic is that morality demands it. General Secretary Xi Jinping’s regime has refused to accept responsibility for allowing the epidemic to spread uncontrolled, first in Wuhan, then throughout China, and finally beyond its borders to the rest of the world. Chinese officials knew of the seriousness of the pandemic as early as December, yet waited weeks to begin restricting travel, allowing millions of Wuhan residents to visit relatives elsewhere in the country and abroad for Lunar New Year celebrations, spreading the virus as they went. British scientists have argued that if Beijing had acted just three weeks earlier, it could have reduced the spread of the virus by 95 percent.

We also know that in the time before the outbreak’s seriousness became apparent outside China, the CCP destroyed laboratory samples and punished the brave doctors and citizens who tried to warn their countrymen and the world about the pathogen, while refusing foreign offers of help. We are almost certain that Beijing dramatically underreported the number of deaths in Wuhan, and is no longer reporting new infections in China. Leaked photos have shown huge lines of Chinese waiting for the cremated remains of their loved ones in Wuhan, and widely shared calculations on social media of crematoria activity estimate up to 46,000 deaths in Wuhan alone, far above the country’s official death toll of just 3,300. Riots are breaking out as people desperate to leave Wuhan’s Hubei province are stopped at internal checkpoints.

In short, the CCP, which for years has claimed to be a responsible member of the global community, showed its true colors when this crisis hit. It can no longer be denied that Xi’s regime is a danger to the world. Justice demands it be held morally culpable for its dangerous and callous behavior.

Global Governance

The second reason that Beijing must be held accountable is a political one: The CCP’s actions have gravely undermined global political governance. As legal expert James Kraska has noted, China was morally and legally bound, as a party to the 2005 International Health Regulations, to “provide expedited, timely, accurate, and sufficiently detailed information to [the World Health Organization] about . . . potential public health emergencies” such as the coronavirus. Instead of doing so in this case, Beijing actively misled the WHO about the crucial fact that the pathogen was transmitted between humans. The result is that Xi can no longer credibly claim the CCP adheres to international law, and that the corruptibility of long-standing intergovernmental organizations such as the WHO is more apparent than ever.

Moreover, despite being portrayed as a selfless provider of medical aid to other affected countries, Beijing is actually reaping hundreds of millions in profits by selling equipment to panic-stricken governments abroad. Much of that is useless and is being returned by Spain, the Czech Republic, and Malaysia, among other countries. This sort of thing is typical of the least altruistic regime on earth, and worse may be on the way: Xi’s government will likely expect political favors from the countries it has “aided” during the crisis, the same way that aid recipient Greece was pressured to block an EU statement on Chinese human rights in 2017.

Those who believe that good global governance, however flawed, is an important tool for maintaining international peace and for contributing to development and growth should be appalled at how the CCP is undermining the liberal international architecture and suborning global institutions to its will. The normalization of such misbehavior cannot be allowed to stand.

Protecting against the Next Deadly Pathogen

The third reason Beijing must be held responsible is to prevent another pandemic from ravaging the world in the future. As we saw in the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Dallas, Texas, and are seeing again now, the era of globalization has allowed once-isolated pathogens to leap across national boundaries. Dr. Anthony Fauci of the CDC is among many who have pointed out that Italy has been devastated by the Wuhan coronavirus partly because it hosts a huge number of Chinese tourists as well as workers in the northern manufacturing regions where the virus emerged. In all, 310,000 Chinese live in Italy, and many returned there after visiting China for the Lunar New Year, spreading the virus to their adopted home country. This was, again, the fault of CCP officials, who failed to implement the proper travel restrictions despite knowing of the outbreak’s seriousness.

If Beijing escapes blame for its failure to curb the coronavirus pandemic, its lies, and its attempts to cover up the pathogen’s seriousness — or, worse yet, if it actually earns global plaudits for its actions — then no country will feel the need to be honest with the world when another epidemic breaks out, and the same deadly fiasco will repeat itself. Meanwhile, an emboldened CCP will grow only more aggressive and repressive, having learned that it can fool and bully the world into submission. Quite simply, if nation states do not understand that there will be repercussions for such malfeasance, then our globalized world will suffer more coronavirus-style pandemics in the future.

Beijing freely chose to deny the truth of COVID-19, and its governing malpractice and incompetence helped unleashed a pandemic on the world. For the sake of morality, political governance, and the future, the world must speak truth to power, remember the facts, and condemn the CCP’s actions.

转：尤瓦尔·赫拉利：冠状病毒之后的世界

Yuval Harari: the world after coronavirus

人类现在正面临全球危机。这也许是我们这一代人最大的危机。各国的人民和政府在未来几周内做出的决定，很可能会改变未来世界的走向。影响的不仅是医疗保健系统，还将影响我们的经济、政治和文化。我们必须迅速果断地采取行动，但还应考虑到这些行动的长期后果。在不同方案之间做选择时，我们不仅要问自己，如何克服眼前的威胁，而且还要问问自己，风暴过后我们将居住在什么样的世界上。是的，风暴终将过去，人类将继续存在，我们大多数人仍将活着，但将生活在一个不同的世界。

许多短期的紧急措施将成为生活的一部分。这就是紧急措施的性质，它们加快了历史进程。通常情况下，可能需要花费数年时间进行审议的决定，现在几小时内即可通过。不成熟甚至危险的技术投入使用，因为不采取任何行动的风险更大。整个国家都在大型社会实验中充当豚鼠。每个人都在家工作，并且仅远程交流时会发生什么？整个学校和大学都上网时会发生什么？通常情况下，政府、企业和学校永远不会同意进行此类实验。但现在不是正常时期。

在危机时刻，我们面临两个特别重要的选择。第一个是在极权主义监视与公民赋权之间的选择。第二个问题是在国族孤立主义与全球团结之间的选择。

皮肤之下的监控

为了遏制瘟疫，所有人都必须遵守某些准则。有两种主要方法可以实现此目的。一种方法是政府监视人民，并惩罚违反规则的人。如今，人类历史上首次，技术有能力一直监控每个人。五十年前，克格勃无法每天24小时追踪2.4亿苏联公民，也不可能有效处理收集到的所有信息。克格勃依靠人类特工和分析师，不可能跟踪每个公民。可是现在，政府可以不用特务，而依靠无处不在的传感器和强大的算法去实现这个目标，。

在与冠状病毒的斗争中，一些政府已经部署了新的监视工具。最突出的例子就是中国。通过严密监视人们的智能手机，使用数以亿计的面部识别摄像头，并迫使人们检查并报告其体温和医疗状况。中国政府不仅能迅速的识别疑似病毒感染者，还可以追踪他们的轨迹而甄别出与他们有过接触的人。大量的手机应用提醒人们附近的感染病例。

这种技术应用不仅存在于亚洲。以色列总理本杰明·内塔尼亚胡（Benjamin Netanyahu）最近授权以色列安全局，部署监视技术以追踪冠状病毒患者，该技术通常用于与恐怖分子作战。当国会相关委员会拒绝批准该措施时，内塔尼亚胡提出了一项"紧急命令"。你可能会争辩说，这些并没有新意。近年来，政府和公司都在使用越来越先进的技术来跟踪、监视和操控。但是，如果我们不谨慎的话，现在的瘟疫可能将是人类监控史上一个重要的分水岭。不仅因为它可能使迄今为止拒绝使用大规模监视工具的国家，出现监控正常化，而且更重要的是，它表明监控从"皮肤之上"急剧转变为"皮肤之下"。

以前，当你的手指触摸智能手机的屏幕并单击链接时，政府想知道你的手指到底在单击什么。但是由于冠状病毒，政府关注的重点已经转移，现在政府希望知道你的手指的温度及其皮肤下的血压。

紧急布丁法案

对于监控，我们面临的一个问题是，我们已经不知道我们是如何被监控的。监控技术正以惊人的速度发展，十年前的科幻小说如今已成为市井旧事。作为一项思想实验，请考虑一个假设的政府，该政府要求每个公民每天都要佩戴生物特征识别手环，以监测24小时的体温和心率。所得数据通过政府算法进行存储和分析。这些算法甚至会在症状出现之前就知道你生病了，并且他们还将知道你去过哪里以及遇到了谁。感染链可以大大缩短，甚至完全切断。可以说，这样的系统可以在几天之内停止流行病的蔓延。听起来很棒，对吧？

缺点当然是，这种恐怖的新监控系统一旦具有合法性的后果。例如，如果你知道我单击的是 Fox News 的链接而不是 CNN 的链接，则可以提示你一些有关我的政治观点甚至个性的信息。但是，如果你可以在我观看视频时监视我的体温、血压和心率变化，则可以了解使我发笑、使我哭泣以及使我真正非常生气的原因。要知道，愤怒、喜悦、无聊和爱是生物现象，就像发烧和咳嗽一样。识别咳嗽的相同技术也可以识别发笑。 如果公司和政府开始大量收集我们的生物识别数据，他们将比我们自己更了解我们，那么他们不仅可以预测我们的感受，还可以操纵我们的感受，并向我们出售他们想要的任何东西，从商品到政治观点。生物识别监控将使Cambridge Analytica 公司的数据黑客策略看起来像石器时代。想象一下2030年的朝鲜，那时每个公民都必须每天24小时佩戴生物识别手环。如果您听取了伟大领袖的演讲，而手环发现你有愤怒的迹象，那么你就完蛋了。

当然，政府可以将生物特征识别，作为紧急情况下采取的临时措施。一旦紧急情况结束，这些措施就会取消。但是，临时措施有持久保持下去的巨大惯性，尤其考虑到新的紧急状态可能会再次出现。例如，我的祖国以色列在1948年的独立战争期间宣布进入紧急状态，通过了一系列临时措施，包括从新闻审查、没收土地到制作布丁的特殊规定（不是开玩笑哦）。独立战争早就赢得了胜利，但以色列从未宣布过结束紧急状态，并且也没有废除了1948年的许多"临时"措施（紧急布丁法令倒是于2011年被废除）。

即使在冠状病毒的感染者降至零的情况下，一些渴望获取公民数据的政府也可能会说，由于害怕第二次冠状病毒流行，或者因为中部非洲正在出现新的埃博拉病毒，他们需要保持生物特征监测系统继续运行。因为......你懂的。近年来，在我们的隐私问题上，一场激烈的战斗一直在进行。冠状病毒危机可能会打破这个平衡。因为当人们在隐私和健康之间做出选择时，他们通常会选择健康。

肥皂警察

实际上，要求人们在隐私和健康之间进行选择是问题的根本所在。因为这是一个错误的选择。我们可以并且应该同时享受隐私和健康。我们可以选择保护我们的健康，阻止冠状病毒流行，不是通过建立极权主义的监视制度，而是通过增强公民的权力。最近几周，韩国，台湾和新加坡，都精心实施了一些最成功的遏制冠状病毒流行的措施，这些国家虽然使用了跟踪应用程序，但更多地依赖于广泛的测试、诚实的报告以及充分掌握信息的公众的自愿合作。

集中监控和严厉惩罚并不是使人们遵守有益规则的唯一方法。当人们被告知科学事实，并且人们信任公共当局会告诉他们这些事实时，即使没有"老大哥"盯着，公民也会做正确的事情。一个有上进心和充分掌握信息的人群，通常比受到管辖的无知人群要强大得多。

肥皂洗手就是一个例子，这是人类卫生学上最伟大的进步之一。这个简单的动作每年可以挽救数百万的生命。虽然现在被认为是理所当然，但是直到19世纪，科学家才发现用肥皂洗手的重要性。以前，即使是医生和护士，也无需洗手就从一台外科手术转到另一台外科手术。今天，数十亿人每天洗手，不是因为担心什么肥皂警察在后面盯着，而是因为他们了解事实。我用肥皂洗手是因为我听说过病毒和细菌，我知道这些微小的生物会引起疾病，并且我知道肥皂可以清除它们。

但是要达到这种合规与合作水平，你需要信任。人们需要信任科学、信任公共权威以及信任媒体。在过去的几年中，不负责任的政治家故意破坏了对科学、公共当局和媒体的信任。现在，这些同样不负责任的政治家可能会倾向于走专制主义的道路，说什么你们不能信任公众会做正确的事。

通常，已经侵蚀了多年的信任不能在一夜之间重建。但现在不是正常时期，在危机时刻，思想也会迅速变化。多年以来，你的兄弟姐妹之间可能会发生激烈的争吵，但是当发生紧急情况时，你突然发现了隐藏的信任和友善，并急于互相帮助。要重新建立人们对科学、公共当局和媒体的信任，而不是建立一个监控政权，现在并不晚。我们当然也应该利用新技术，但是这些技术应该赋予公民权力。 我完全赞成监控自己的体温和血压，但不应该使用这些数据来创建一个功能强大的政府。相反，这些数据应该使我能够做出更明智的个人选择，这些数据也要让政府对它做出的决策承担责任。

如果我可以一天24小时追踪自己的病情，我不仅会了解自己是否对他人构成健康危害，而且还会了解哪些习惯对我的健康有所帮助。而且，如果我能够访问和分析有关冠状病毒传播的可靠统计数据，我将能够判断政府是否在告诉我真相，以及它是否在采取正确的政策来对抗流行病。每当人们谈论监控的时候，请记住，相同的监控技术通常不仅可以由政府用于监控个人，而且可以由个人用于监控政府。

因此，冠状病毒的流行是对公民身份的主要考验。在未来的日子里，我们每个人都应该选择信任科学数据和医疗保健专家，而不是相信毫无根据的阴谋论和自私自利的政治家。如果我们不能做出正确的选择的话，我们可能会发现自己放弃了我们最宝贵的自由，相信只有听任政府监控才是维护我们健康的唯一途径。

我们需要一项全球计划

我们面临的第二个重要选择是在国族主义孤立与全球团结之间做选择。流行病本身和由此产生的经济危机都是全球性问题，只有全球合作才能有效解决这些问题。

首先，为了战胜病毒，我们需要在全球范围内共享信息。这是人类相对于病毒的最大优势。中国的病毒和美国的病毒不会相互交换如何感染人的心得。但是中国可以向美国传授许多有关冠状病毒及其应对方法的宝贵经验，一位意大利医生清晨在米兰发现的东西很可能晚上在德黑兰挽救生命。当英国政府对几项政策犹豫不决时，它可以从一个月前已经面临类似困境的韩国人那里获得建议。但是，要做到这一点，我们需要一种全球合作与信任的精神。

各国应该愿意公开地分享信息，谦虚地寻求建议，并且应该信任所收到的数据和见解。我们还需要全球范围内的努力来生产和分销医疗设备，尤其是测试套件和呼吸机。与其每个国家都尝试在本地进行生产并囤积任何设备，不如在全球范围内协调一致地努力，就可以大大加快生产速度，并确保可以更公平地分配救生设备。正如各国在战争中将关键产业国有化一样，人类与冠状病毒的战争可能会要求我们将关键的生产线"人类化"。较少冠状病毒病例的富裕国家，应该愿意向较多病例的较贫穷国家提供宝贵的设备，并相信如果以后需要帮助，别的国家也会同样帮助自己。

我们可能会考虑采取类似的全球努力来召集医务人员。当前受影响较小的国家可以派遣医务人员到世界上受灾最严重的地区，以帮助他们，并获得宝贵的经验。如果未来流行病的发病重点转移了，帮助就会开始朝相反的方向流动。

经济方面也非常需要全球合作。考虑到经济和供应链的全球性，如果每个政府在完全不顾其他政府的情况下做自己的事情，结果将是混乱和危机加深。我们需要一项全球行动计划，越快越好。

另一个要求是达成全球旅行协议。所有国际旅行暂停数月之久，将造成巨大的困难，并阻碍与冠状病毒的战争。各国需要进行合作，以便至少允许一小撮重要的旅客继续过境：科学家，医生，记者，政治人物，商人。这可以通过对旅行者在本国进行的预检查达成全球协议来实现。如果你知道只有经过严格检查的旅客才可以乘坐飞机，那么你会更愿意接受他们进入你的国家。

不幸的是，目前各国几乎没有做任何这些事情。国际社会陷入了集体瘫痪。房间里似乎没有大人。人们原本希望在几周前看到全球领导人紧急会议，以制定一项共同的行动计划。七国集团领导人仅在本周组织了一次电视会议，但并未制定任何此类计划。

在先前的全球危机（例如2008年金融危机和2014年埃博拉疫情）中，美国担当了全球领导者的角色。 但是现任美国政府已经放弃了领导人的职务。它已经非常清楚地表明，它更关心美国的伟大而不是关心人类的未来。

这届政府甚至放弃了它最亲密的盟友。当它禁止所有来自欧盟的旅行时，它都没想到要事先通知欧盟，更不用说与欧盟商讨这一重要决定了。据称，美国曾向一家德国制药公司出价10亿美元，来购买新的 Covid-19 疫苗的垄断权，这使德国感到震惊。即使美国现任政府最终改变了立场，并提出了一项全球行动计划，也没人会去追随一个从不承担责任，从不承认错误，并将所有责任归咎于他人，荣誉归咎于自己的领导人。如果美国留下的空白没有其他国家填补，那么不仅阻止当前的疫情会变得更加困难，而且也将在未来继续毒害国际关系。当然，每次危机也是一个机会。我们必须希望，当前瘟疫将帮助人类认识到全球不团结带来的严重危害。

人类需要做出选择。我们是走全球团结的道路，还是继续各据一方？如果我们选择不团结，这不仅会延长危机，而且将来可能会导致更严重的灾难。如果我们选择全球团结，这将不仅是对抗冠状病毒的胜利，也是抗击可能在21世纪纠缠人类的所有未来流行病和危机的胜利。

Humankind is now facing a global crisis. Perhaps the biggest crisis of our generation. The decisions people and governments take in the next few weeks will probably shape the world for years to come. They will shape not just our healthcare systems but also our economy, politics and culture. We must act quickly and decisively. We should also take into account the long-term consequences of our actions. When choosing between alternatives, we should ask ourselves not only how to overcome the immediate threat, but also what kind of world we will inhabit once the storm passes. Yes, the storm will pass, humankind will survive, most of us will still be alive — but we will inhabit a different world.  

Many short-term emergency measures will become a fixture of life. That is the nature of emergencies. They fast-forward historical processes. Decisions that in normal times could take years of deliberation are passed in a matter of hours. Immature and even dangerous technologies are pressed into service, because the risks of doing nothing are bigger. Entire countries serve as guinea-pigs in large-scale social experiments. What happens when everybody works from home and communicates only at a distance? What happens when entire schools and universities go online? In normal times, governments, businesses and educational boards would never agree to conduct such experiments. But these aren’t normal times.  

In this time of crisis, we face two particularly important choices. The first is between totalitarian surveillance and citizen empowerment. The second is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity.  

 Under-the-skin surveillance 

In order to stop the epidemic, entire populations need to comply with certain guidelines. There are two main ways of achieving this. One method is for the government to monitor people, and punish those who break the rules. Today, for the first time in human history, technology makes it possible to monitor everyone all the time. Fifty years ago, the KGB couldn’t follow 240m Soviet citizens 24 hours a day, nor could the KGB hope to effectively process all the information gathered. The KGB relied on human agents and analysts, and it just couldn’t place a human agent to follow every citizen. But now governments can rely on ubiquitous sensors and powerful algorithms instead of flesh-and-blood spooks. 

In their battle against the coronavirus epidemic several governments have already deployed the new surveillance tools. The most notable case is China. By closely monitoring people’s smartphones, making use of hundreds of millions of face-recognising cameras, and obliging people to check and report their body temperature and medical condition, the Chinese authorities can not only quickly identify suspected coronavirus carriers, but also track their movements and identify anyone they came into contact with. A range of mobile apps warn citizens about their proximity to infected patients.

This kind of technology is not limited to east Asia. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel recently authorised the Israel Security Agency to deploy surveillance technology normally reserved for battling terrorists to track coronavirus patients. When the relevant parliamentary subcommittee refused to authorise the measure, Netanyahu rammed it through with an “emergency decree”.
You might argue that there is nothing new about all this. In recent years both governments and corporations have been using ever more sophisticated technologies to track, monitor and manipulate people. Yet if we are not careful, the epidemic might nevertheless mark an important watershed in the history of surveillance. Not only because it might normalise the deployment of mass surveillance tools in countries that have so far rejected them, but even more so because it signifies a dramatic transition from “over the skin” to “under the skin” surveillance.

Hitherto, when your finger touched the screen of your smartphone and clicked on a link, the government wanted to know what exactly your finger was clicking on. But with coronavirus, the focus of interest shifts. Now the government wants to know the temperature of your finger and the blood-pressure under its skin.

 The emergency pudding 

One of the problems we face in working out where we stand on surveillance is that none of us know exactly how we are being surveilled, and what the coming years might bring. Surveillance technology is developing at breakneck speed, and what seemed science-fiction 10 years ago is today old news. As a thought experiment, consider a hypothetical government that demands that every citizen wears a biometric bracelet that monitors body temperature and heart-rate 24 hours a day. The resulting data is hoarded and analysed by government algorithms. The algorithms will know that you are sick even before you know it, and they will also know where you have been, and who you have met. The chains of infection could be drastically shortened, and even cut altogether. Such a system could arguably stop the epidemic in its tracks within days. Sounds wonderful, right?

The downside is, of course, that this would give legitimacy to a terrifying new surveillance system. If you know, for example, that I clicked on a Fox News link rather than a CNN link, that can teach you something about my political views and perhaps even my personality. But if you can monitor what happens to my body temperature, blood pressure and heart-rate as I watch the video clip, you can learn what makes me laugh, what makes me cry, and what makes me really, really angry. 
It is crucial to remember that anger, joy, boredom and love are biological phenomena just like fever and a cough. The same technology that identifies coughs could also identify laughs. If corporations and governments start harvesting our biometric data en masse, they can get to know us far better than we know ourselves, and they can then not just predict our feelings but also manipulate our feelings and sell us anything they want — be it a product or a politician. Biometric monitoring would make Cambridge Analytica’s data hacking tactics look like something from the Stone Age. Imagine North Korea in 2030, when every citizen has to wear a biometric bracelet 24 hours a day. If you listen to a speech by the Great Leader and the bracelet picks up the tell-tale signs of anger, you are done for.

You could, of course, make the case for biometric surveillance as a temporary measure taken during a state of emergency. It would go away once the emergency is over. But temporary measures have a nasty habit of outlasting emergencies, especially as there is always a new emergency lurking on the horizon. My home country of Israel, for example, declared a state of emergency during its 1948 War of Independence, which justified a range of temporary measures from press censorship and land confiscation to special regulations for making pudding (I kid you not). The War of Independence has long been won, but Israel never declared the emergency over, and has failed to abolish many of the “temporary” measures of 1948 (the emergency pudding decree was mercifully abolished in 2011).

Even when infections from coronavirus are down to zero, some data-hungry governments could argue they needed to keep the biometric surveillance systems in place because they fear a second wave of coronavirus, or because there is a new Ebola strain evolving in central Africa, or because . . . you get the idea. A big battle has been raging in recent years over our privacy. The coronavirus crisis could be the battle’s tipping point. For when people are given a choice between privacy and health, they will usually choose health.

 The soap police 

Asking people to choose between privacy and health is, in fact, the very root of the problem. Because this is a false choice. We can and should enjoy both privacy and health. We can choose to protect our health and stop the coronavirus epidemic not by instituting totalitarian surveillance regimes, but rather by empowering citizens. In recent weeks, some of the most successful efforts to contain the coronavirus epidemic were orchestrated by South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. While these countries have made some use of tracking applications, they have relied far more on extensive testing, on honest reporting, and on the willing co-operation of a well-informed public.

Centralised monitoring and harsh punishments aren’t the only way to make people comply with beneficial guidelines. When people are told the scientific facts, and when people trust public authorities to tell them these facts, citizens can do the right thing even without a Big Brother watching over their shoulders. A self-motivated and well-informed population is usually far more powerful and effective than a policed, ignorant population.

Consider, for example, washing your hands with soap. This has been one of the greatest advances ever in human hygiene. This simple action saves millions of lives every year. While we take it for granted, it was only in the 19th century that scientists discovered the importance of washing hands with soap. Previously, even doctors and nurses proceeded from one surgical operation to the next without washing their hands. Today billions of people daily wash their hands, not because they are afraid of the soap police, but rather because they understand the facts. I wash my hands with soap because I have heard of viruses and bacteria, I understand that these tiny organisms cause diseases, and I know that soap can remove them. 

But to achieve such a level of compliance and co-operation, you need trust. People need to trust science, to trust public authorities, and to trust the media. Over the past few years, irresponsible politicians have deliberately undermined trust in science, in public authorities and in the media. Now these same irresponsible politicians might be tempted to take the high road to authoritarianism, arguing that you just cannot trust the public to do the right thing.

Normally, trust that has been eroded for years cannot be rebuilt overnight. But these are not normal times. In a moment of crisis, minds too can change quickly. You can have bitter arguments with your siblings for years, but when some emergency occurs, you suddenly discover a hidden reservoir of trust and amity, and you rush to help one another. Instead of building a surveillance regime, it is not too late to rebuild people’s trust in science, in public authorities and in the media. We should definitely make use of new technologies too, but these technologies should empower citizens. I am all in favour of monitoring my body temperature and blood pressure, but that data should not be used to create an all-powerful government. Rather, that data should enable me to make more informed personal choices, and also to hold government accountable for its decisions.

If I could track my own medical condition 24 hours a day, I would learn not only whether I have become a health hazard to other people, but also which habits contribute to my health. And if I could access and analyse reliable statistics on the spread of coronavirus, I would be able to judge whether the government is telling me the truth and whether it is adopting the right policies to combat the epidemic. Whenever people talk about surveillance, remember that the same surveillance technology can usually be used not only by governments to monitor individuals — but also by individuals to monitor governments.

The coronavirus epidemic is thus a major test of citizenship. In the days ahead, each one of us should choose to trust scientific data and healthcare experts over unfounded conspiracy theories and self-serving politicians. If we fail to make the right choice, we might find ourselves signing away our most precious freedoms, thinking that this is the only way to safeguard our health.

 We need a global plan 

The second important choice we confront is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity. Both the epidemic itself and the resulting economic crisis are global problems. They can be solved effectively only by global co-operation.

First and foremost, in order to defeat the virus we need to share information globally. That’s the big advantage of humans over viruses. A coronavirus in China and a coronavirus in the US cannot swap tips about how to infect humans. But China can teach the US many valuable lessons about coronavirus and how to deal with it. What an Italian doctor discovers in Milan in the early morning might well save lives in Tehran by evening. When the UK government hesitates between several policies, it can get advice from the Koreans who have already faced a similar dilemma a month ago. But for this to happen, we need a spirit of global co-operation and trust.

Countries should be willing to share information openly and humbly seek advice, and should be able to trust the data and the insights they receive. We also need a global effort to produce and distribute medical equipment, most notably testing kits and respiratory machines. Instead of every country trying to do it locally and hoarding whatever equipment it can get, a co-ordinated global effort could greatly accelerate production and make sure life-saving equipment is distributed more fairly. Just as countries nationalise key industries during a war, the human war against coronavirus may require us to “humanise” the crucial production lines. A rich country with few coronavirus cases should be willing to send precious equipment to a poorer country with many cases, trusting that if and when it subsequently needs help, other countries will come to its assistance.

We might consider a similar global effort to pool medical personnel. Countries currently less affected could send medical staff to the worst-hit regions of the world, both in order to help them in their hour of need, and in order to gain valuable experience. If later on the focus of the epidemic shifts, help could start flowing in the opposite direction.

Global co-operation is vitally needed on the economic front too. Given the global nature of the economy and of supply chains, if each government does its own thing in complete disregard of the others, the result will be chaos and a deepening crisis. We need a global plan of action, and we need it fast.

Another requirement is reaching a global agreement on travel. Suspending all international travel for months will cause tremendous hardships, and hamper the war against coronavirus. Countries need to co-operate in order to allow at least a trickle of essential travellers to continue crossing borders: scientists, doctors, journalists, politicians, businesspeople. This can be done by reaching a global agreement on the pre-screening of travellers by their home country. If you know that only carefully screened travellers were allowed on a plane, you would be more willing to accept them into your country.   

Unfortunately, at present countries hardly do any of these things. A collective paralysis has gripped the international community. There seem to be no adults in the room. One would have expected to see already weeks ago an emergency meeting of global leaders to come up with a common plan of action. The G7 leaders managed to organise a videoconference only this week, and it did not result in any such plan.

In previous global crises — such as the 2008 financial crisis and the 2014 Ebola epidemic — the US assumed the role of global leader. But the current US administration has abdicated the job of leader. It has made it very clear that it cares about the greatness of America far more than about the future of humanity.

This administration has abandoned even its closest allies. When it banned all travel from the EU, it didn’t bother to give the EU so much as an advance notice — let alone consult with the EU about that drastic measure. It has scandalised Germany by allegedly offering $1bn to a German pharmaceutical company to buy monopoly rights to a new Covid-19 vaccine. Even if the current administration eventually changes tack and comes up with a global plan of action, few would follow a leader who never takes responsibility, who never admits mistakes, and who routinely takes all the credit for himself while leaving all the blame to others. 
If the void left by the US isn’t filled by other countries, not only will it be much harder to stop the current epidemic, but its legacy will continue to poison international relations for years to come. Yet every crisis is also an opportunity. We must hope that the current epidemic will help humankind realise the acute danger posed by global disunity.

Humanity needs to make a choice. Will we travel down the route of disunity, or will we adopt the path of global solidarity? If we choose disunity, this will not only prolong the crisis, but will probably result in even worse catastrophes in the future. If we choose global solidarity, it will be a victory not only against the coronavirus, but against all future epidemics and crises that might assail humankind in the 21st century.

Yuval Noah Harari is author of ‘Sapiens’, ‘Homo Deus’ and ‘21 Lessons for the 21st Century’ Copyright © Yuval Noah Harari 2020