當(dāng)歷史學(xué)家們評價(jià)每個(gè)國家如何應(yīng)對新冠疫情的時(shí)候,新西蘭肯定會引起他們的關(guān)注。
這個(gè)南太平洋國家是唯一一個(gè)明確致力于消滅病毒的西方國家。早在未出現(xiàn)死亡病例之前,新西蘭就實(shí)行了全球最嚴(yán)的封鎖措施,對感染者進(jìn)行隔離,以防止新冠疫情失控。
早期跡象顯示這些措施頗有成效。新增確診病例已經(jīng)降至數(shù)周最低,死亡病例為11人,是死亡人數(shù)最少的發(fā)達(dá)國家之一。新西蘭總理杰辛達(dá)·阿德恩在周一決定從下周開始部分放松隔離措施。目前,新西蘭政府要求除了必要工作者以外,所有人全部居家隔離。
上周四,阿德恩在惠靈頓告訴記者:“我們有機(jī)會做到其他國家做不到的事情,徹底消滅病毒?!钡娌灰旆潘上拗?。
對于島國新西蘭提出的消滅病毒這個(gè)遠(yuǎn)大目標(biāo),也不乏批評的聲音。有人認(rèn)為這個(gè)目標(biāo)并不現(xiàn)實(shí),而且新西蘭經(jīng)濟(jì)將為此付出毀滅性的代價(jià)。即使新西蘭成功地消滅了病毒,它還必須繼續(xù)長期關(guān)閉與其他多數(shù)國家的邊境,以防止輸入病例。而這將給新西蘭的創(chuàng)匯大戶旅游業(yè)帶來滅頂之災(zāi)。
奧塔哥大學(xué)(University of Otago)公共衛(wèi)生系教授、來自惠靈頓的邁克爾·貝克表示,新西蘭防疫措施的核心是被多數(shù)西方國家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者忽視的一個(gè)科學(xué)事實(shí),那就是病毒通常有5至6天的潛伏期,是流感的兩倍。貝克是新西蘭政府新冠病毒技術(shù)顧問組成員。
他說:“這意味著如果有人感染病毒,只要迅速將他們隔離,并把密切接觸者集中隔離,就能阻斷病毒的傳播鏈。我們無法這樣應(yīng)對流感,因?yàn)榈日业矫芮薪佑|者時(shí)已經(jīng)太遲了,他們又傳染了其他人。”
他說,大部分國家都像對待流感一樣處理新冠病毒,試圖減緩疫情的進(jìn)展,而不是將病毒徹底消滅。英美等國在發(fā)現(xiàn)確診病例令他們難以應(yīng)付之后,選擇了緩解和抑制的做法。
調(diào)整策略
新西蘭最初也采取了這種做法。在疫情初期,阿德恩表示要拉平病毒傳播的曲線,以確保醫(yī)療系統(tǒng)足以應(yīng)對疫情。
但在3月23日,她徹底改變了策略,宣布從兩天后開始執(zhí)行為期四周的全國隔離措施。她表示,模擬結(jié)果顯示,如果不采取隔離措施,“新西蘭會有數(shù)萬人死亡?!?/p>
工廠關(guān)閉,學(xué)校停課,只有超市、街角便利店和藥店可以繼續(xù)營業(yè)。當(dāng)時(shí)新西蘭只有102例確診病例,而且沒有死亡病例。而多數(shù)國家在死亡率大幅攀升之后才開始采取這種措施。英國同樣在3月23日宣布全國封城,但當(dāng)時(shí)其國內(nèi)已經(jīng)有6,650例確診病例,共335人死亡。
退出策略
新西蘭的防疫措施背后的理論是早期施行嚴(yán)格的限制措施,以阻斷病原體傳播,最終確定一個(gè)具體的退出策略。雖然這樣做可能會在初期帶來更嚴(yán)重的經(jīng)濟(jì)沖擊,但經(jīng)濟(jì)將很快恢復(fù)元?dú)?。緩解或抑制等替代措施可能要求居家隔離幾個(gè)月,反而延長了經(jīng)濟(jì)陣痛的時(shí)間。
新西蘭的策略需要具備大面積檢測和密切接觸者跟蹤能力。統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)顯示,這種策略取得了成效。雖然新西蘭的總確診病例增加到1,409例,但卻避免了歐洲和美國出現(xiàn)的指數(shù)級增長。新西蘭在上周五僅公布了8例新增確診病例,為四周來的最低增幅。
新西蘭共有500萬居民,與愛爾蘭的人口數(shù)量相當(dāng),但愛爾蘭的確診病例超過13,000例,死亡近500人。雖然新西蘭的11例死亡病例與東南亞國家新加坡的10例相當(dāng),但新加坡低收入外國工人居住的集體宿舍可能導(dǎo)致感染病例飆升。
新西蘭與鄰國澳大利亞的對比則更加復(fù)雜。澳大利亞已經(jīng)公布確診病例6,468例,死亡病例增加到63例。但澳大利亞的感染率為每百萬人254例,低于新西蘭的每百萬人292例。
澳大利亞的防疫措施
澳大利亞并沒有像新西蘭一樣采取嚴(yán)格的限制措施,但是也獲得了一定防疫成果。澳大利亞允許更多行業(yè)繼續(xù)運(yùn)營,例如建筑業(yè)等,消費(fèi)者依舊可以理發(fā)或者買外賣,這些措施為許多低收入工人保住了飯碗。
堪培拉醫(yī)院(Canberra Hospital)的傳染病科醫(yī)生彼得·柯利格儂是澳大利亞政府聘請的疫情顧問。他表示:“澳大利亞沒有采取新西蘭的極端措施,但卻取得了更好的結(jié)果?!?/p>
柯利格儂質(zhì)疑新西蘭消滅病毒的策略的現(xiàn)實(shí)性。
他說:“事實(shí)是病毒無處不在,它遍布在世界各地。即使你在短期內(nèi)能取得成功,但長期內(nèi)怎么辦?隔離六個(gè)月?兩年?最終病毒一定會再次輸入?!?/p>
現(xiàn)在令人擔(dān)心的是無癥狀感染現(xiàn)象。有人可能沒有任何癥狀,但卻會傳播病毒,這種現(xiàn)象給抑制疫情蔓延帶來了更大的挑戰(zhàn)。
“虛幻”情境
澳大利亞首席醫(yī)學(xué)官布倫丹·墨菲在4月14日對新西蘭議會委員會表示,消滅病毒是一個(gè)“虛幻”情境。
他說:“我們采取了非常極端的抑制策略。顯然我們希望可以消滅病毒,(但)我們高度質(zhì)疑這種狀態(tài)能夠維持多久,因?yàn)槟銈冃枰扇O其嚴(yán)格的邊境防控措施?!?/p>
不過貝克認(rèn)為,盡量消滅病毒是有好處的,而且有證據(jù)顯示這個(gè)目標(biāo)是可以實(shí)現(xiàn)的,比如中國似乎已經(jīng)成功控制住了武漢的疫情,并且阻止了境內(nèi)的大范圍傳播。
他認(rèn)為,包括澳大利亞在內(nèi)的更多國家應(yīng)該采取消滅病毒的策略,并最終與中國、新加坡、韓國等國家形成一個(gè)“東半球集團(tuán)”,在集團(tuán)內(nèi)實(shí)現(xiàn)自由出行。
貝克說:“這或許有點(diǎn)樂觀,但至少我們有退出策略和方案。與歐洲和北美在可以預(yù)見的未來可能陷入的混亂相比,這種情境似乎更有吸引力?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:Biz
當(dāng)歷史學(xué)家們評價(jià)每個(gè)國家如何應(yīng)對新冠疫情的時(shí)候,新西蘭肯定會引起他們的關(guān)注。
這個(gè)南太平洋國家是唯一一個(gè)明確致力于消滅病毒的西方國家。早在未出現(xiàn)死亡病例之前,新西蘭就實(shí)行了全球最嚴(yán)的封鎖措施,對感染者進(jìn)行隔離,以防止新冠疫情失控。
早期跡象顯示這些措施頗有成效。新增確診病例已經(jīng)降至數(shù)周最低,死亡病例為11人,是死亡人數(shù)最少的發(fā)達(dá)國家之一。新西蘭總理杰辛達(dá)·阿德恩在周一決定從下周開始部分放松隔離措施。目前,新西蘭政府要求除了必要工作者以外,所有人全部居家隔離。
上周四,阿德恩在惠靈頓告訴記者:“我們有機(jī)會做到其他國家做不到的事情,徹底消滅病毒?!钡娌灰旆潘上拗?。
對于島國新西蘭提出的消滅病毒這個(gè)遠(yuǎn)大目標(biāo),也不乏批評的聲音。有人認(rèn)為這個(gè)目標(biāo)并不現(xiàn)實(shí),而且新西蘭經(jīng)濟(jì)將為此付出毀滅性的代價(jià)。即使新西蘭成功地消滅了病毒,它還必須繼續(xù)長期關(guān)閉與其他多數(shù)國家的邊境,以防止輸入病例。而這將給新西蘭的創(chuàng)匯大戶旅游業(yè)帶來滅頂之災(zāi)。
奧塔哥大學(xué)(University of Otago)公共衛(wèi)生系教授、來自惠靈頓的邁克爾·貝克表示,新西蘭防疫措施的核心是被多數(shù)西方國家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者忽視的一個(gè)科學(xué)事實(shí),那就是病毒通常有5至6天的潛伏期,是流感的兩倍。貝克是新西蘭政府新冠病毒技術(shù)顧問組成員。
他說:“這意味著如果有人感染病毒,只要迅速將他們隔離,并把密切接觸者集中隔離,就能阻斷病毒的傳播鏈。我們無法這樣應(yīng)對流感,因?yàn)榈日业矫芮薪佑|者時(shí)已經(jīng)太遲了,他們又傳染了其他人。”
他說,大部分國家都像對待流感一樣處理新冠病毒,試圖減緩疫情的進(jìn)展,而不是將病毒徹底消滅。英美等國在發(fā)現(xiàn)確診病例令他們難以應(yīng)付之后,選擇了緩解和抑制的做法。
調(diào)整策略
新西蘭最初也采取了這種做法。在疫情初期,阿德恩表示要拉平病毒傳播的曲線,以確保醫(yī)療系統(tǒng)足以應(yīng)對疫情。
但在3月23日,她徹底改變了策略,宣布從兩天后開始執(zhí)行為期四周的全國隔離措施。她表示,模擬結(jié)果顯示,如果不采取隔離措施,“新西蘭會有數(shù)萬人死亡?!?/p>
工廠關(guān)閉,學(xué)校停課,只有超市、街角便利店和藥店可以繼續(xù)營業(yè)。當(dāng)時(shí)新西蘭只有102例確診病例,而且沒有死亡病例。而多數(shù)國家在死亡率大幅攀升之后才開始采取這種措施。英國同樣在3月23日宣布全國封城,但當(dāng)時(shí)其國內(nèi)已經(jīng)有6,650例確診病例,共335人死亡。
退出策略
新西蘭的防疫措施背后的理論是早期施行嚴(yán)格的限制措施,以阻斷病原體傳播,最終確定一個(gè)具體的退出策略。雖然這樣做可能會在初期帶來更嚴(yán)重的經(jīng)濟(jì)沖擊,但經(jīng)濟(jì)將很快恢復(fù)元?dú)?。緩解或抑制等替代措施可能要求居家隔離幾個(gè)月,反而延長了經(jīng)濟(jì)陣痛的時(shí)間。
新西蘭的策略需要具備大面積檢測和密切接觸者跟蹤能力。統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)顯示,這種策略取得了成效。雖然新西蘭的總確診病例增加到1,409例,但卻避免了歐洲和美國出現(xiàn)的指數(shù)級增長。新西蘭在上周五僅公布了8例新增確診病例,為四周來的最低增幅。
新西蘭共有500萬居民,與愛爾蘭的人口數(shù)量相當(dāng),但愛爾蘭的確診病例超過13,000例,死亡近500人。雖然新西蘭的11例死亡病例與東南亞國家新加坡的10例相當(dāng),但新加坡低收入外國工人居住的集體宿舍可能導(dǎo)致感染病例飆升。
新西蘭與鄰國澳大利亞的對比則更加復(fù)雜。澳大利亞已經(jīng)公布確診病例6,468例,死亡病例增加到63例。但澳大利亞的感染率為每百萬人254例,低于新西蘭的每百萬人292例。
澳大利亞的防疫措施
澳大利亞并沒有像新西蘭一樣采取嚴(yán)格的限制措施,但是也獲得了一定防疫成果。澳大利亞允許更多行業(yè)繼續(xù)運(yùn)營,例如建筑業(yè)等,消費(fèi)者依舊可以理發(fā)或者買外賣,這些措施為許多低收入工人保住了飯碗。
堪培拉醫(yī)院(Canberra Hospital)的傳染病科醫(yī)生彼得·柯利格儂是澳大利亞政府聘請的疫情顧問。他表示:“澳大利亞沒有采取新西蘭的極端措施,但卻取得了更好的結(jié)果?!?/p>
柯利格儂質(zhì)疑新西蘭消滅病毒的策略的現(xiàn)實(shí)性。
他說:“事實(shí)是病毒無處不在,它遍布在世界各地。即使你在短期內(nèi)能取得成功,但長期內(nèi)怎么辦?隔離六個(gè)月?兩年?最終病毒一定會再次輸入?!?/p>
現(xiàn)在令人擔(dān)心的是無癥狀感染現(xiàn)象。有人可能沒有任何癥狀,但卻會傳播病毒,這種現(xiàn)象給抑制疫情蔓延帶來了更大的挑戰(zhàn)。
“虛幻”情境
澳大利亞首席醫(yī)學(xué)官布倫丹·墨菲在4月14日對新西蘭議會委員會表示,消滅病毒是一個(gè)“虛幻”情境。
他說:“我們采取了非常極端的抑制策略。顯然我們希望可以消滅病毒,(但)我們高度質(zhì)疑這種狀態(tài)能夠維持多久,因?yàn)槟銈冃枰扇O其嚴(yán)格的邊境防控措施。”
不過貝克認(rèn)為,盡量消滅病毒是有好處的,而且有證據(jù)顯示這個(gè)目標(biāo)是可以實(shí)現(xiàn)的,比如中國似乎已經(jīng)成功控制住了武漢的疫情,并且阻止了境內(nèi)的大范圍傳播。
他認(rèn)為,包括澳大利亞在內(nèi)的更多國家應(yīng)該采取消滅病毒的策略,并最終與中國、新加坡、韓國等國家形成一個(gè)“東半球集團(tuán)”,在集團(tuán)內(nèi)實(shí)現(xiàn)自由出行。
貝克說:“這或許有點(diǎn)樂觀,但至少我們有退出策略和方案。與歐洲和北美在可以預(yù)見的未來可能陷入的混亂相比,這種情境似乎更有吸引力?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:Biz
When historians assess how countries approached the coronavirus pandemic, New Zealand is sure to stand out.
The South Pacific nation is alone among its western peers in explicitly attempting to eradicate the virus. It adopted one of the strictest lockdowns in the world before a single death was reported, and has isolated infections to keep the disease from spreading out of control.
The early signs are promising. The rate of new infections has dwindled to the lowest in weeks, and the death toll -- at 11 -- is one of the lowest among developed nations. The prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, decided on Monday to start easing some quarantine measures that requires everyone but essential workers to stay at home.
“We have the opportunity to do something no other country has achieved -- elimination of the virus,” Ardern told reporters last Thursday in Wellington, as she cautioned against relaxing restrictions too quickly.
The island nation’s lofty goal of elimination is not without critics, who say it’s unrealistic and comes at a devastating economic cost. Even if New Zealand succeeds, its borders will have to remain closed to much of the world for a considerable period to keep the virus out. That will decimate the tourism industry, its largest source of foreign exchange earnings.
Central to New Zealand’s approach is a scientific fact that most western leaders appear to have ignored, according to Michael Baker, a professor at the University of Otago’s Department of Public Health in Wellington who sits on the government’s Covid-19 Technical Advisory Group. That is that the virus usually has an incubation period of five to six days, twice as long as influenza.
“That means that when someone gets sick, if you isolate them quickly and round up their contacts, you can quarantine those people and interrupt that chain of transmission,” said Baker. “With influenza you can’t really do that because by the time you’ve found their contacts it’s too late, they’ve infected other people.”
And yet most countries treated Covid-19 as if it were influenza, he said, trying to slow its advance rather than eradicate it. Nations including the U.K. and the U.S. opted for such mitigation and suppression efforts after they found themselves overwhelmed by cases.
Changing Tactics
New Zealand’s initial response took that approach too. In the early stages of the outbreak, Ardern spoke of “flattening the curve” of the virus’s spread to ensure the health system could cope.
That all changed on March 23, when she announced a four-week nationwide lockdown would commence two days later, saying modeling showed that without the measures “tens of thousands of New Zealanders could die.”
Industries were shuttered, schools were closed, and the only shops allowed to stay open were supermarkets, some corner stores and pharmacies. At that stage, New Zealand had only 102 cases and no deaths. Most countries resorted to such measures only after fatalities soared. When the U.K. announced its lockdown, also on March 23, it had 6,650 Covid-19 cases and 335 people had already died.
Exit Strategy
The theory is that imposing tough restrictions early halts the spread of the pathogen and eventually allows an exit strategy to crystallize. The economic hit may be worse upfront, but activity can resume sooner. The alternatives of mitigation or suppression may require restrictions to stay in place for many months, prolonging the economic pain.
New Zealand’s strategy, which requires extensive testing and contact-tracing capabilities, is supported by the statistics. While total cases have risen to 1,409, it has avoided the exponential growth seen in Europe and the U.S. Just eight new infections were reported last Friday, the lowest number in four weeks.
The island nation, with 5 million residents, has a similar population to Ireland, which has seen more than 13,000 infections and almost 500 deaths. And while New Zealand’s 11 fatalities compare with 10 in Singapore, that Southeast Asian country is now struggling with a wave of infections from dormitories housing low-wage foreign workers.
A comparison with neighboring Australia is more complicated. Australia has far more cases, at 6,468, and deaths have climbed to 63. But the infection rate comes out to 254 per million people, less than New Zealand’s 292 per million.
Australia’s Approach
Australia’s results have come despite less stringent restrictions. It has allowed more industries to continue operating, such as construction, and consumers can still get a haircut or buy a takeaway meal, keeping many workers on lower incomes employed.
“Australia is doing better than New Zealand without going to that extreme,” said Peter Collignon, an infectious diseases physician at Canberra Hospital who advises the Australian government.
Collignon questions whether New Zealand’s eradication strategy is realistic.
“The reality is this virus is everywhere, it’s all around the world,” he said. “So even if you’re successful for a short period of time, how long do you do this for? Six months? Two years? Invariably, you’re going to get the virus re-introduced.”
One concern is the phenomenon of asymptomatic transmission. The possibility that people can pass along the disease even though they show no symptoms underscores the challenge of containing the pandemic.
‘Nirvana’ Scenario
Brendan Murphy, Australia’s chief medical officer, told a New Zealand parliamentary committee April 14 that eradicating the virus is a “nirvana” scenario.
“We are pursuing a very aggressive suppression strategy,” he said. “Obviously we would like to achieve elimination (but) we’re pretty doubtful that could be maintained for the long-term given the incredible border measures you would need to have.”
For Baker, there are benefits in trying to eliminate the virus, as well as evidence it can be done -- China, for example, appears to have succeeded in stopping the Wuhan epidemic and preventing wider transmission within its borders.
He believes more countries, including Australia, could yet adopt elimination strategies and eventually form an “eastern hemisphere bloc” with nations like China, Singapore and South Korea within which travel will be possible.
“Maybe it’s a bit optimistic, but at least we have an exit strategy and a plan,” Baker said. “That seems a lot more appealing than the mess that Europe and North America are going to be in for the foreseeable future.”