Recently, a special commentator and former editor-in-chief of the Global Times, Hu Xijin, published an article in which he called on cities to try not to engage in large-scale silent management. It Reads :
The ninth edition of the “Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Prevention and Control Plan” stipulates that all inbound personnel will be subject to 7+3 quarantine and observation, and the state announced yesterday that it will create convenient conditions for foreign company personnel and family members to enter China, and also mentioned 7+3, in most cases , it should be the upper limit of the time for all Chinese cooperation in prevention and control and cannot be arbitrarily extended.
An epidemic in one of our cities, hundreds of new infections every day, is already very serious, those who are in close contact with infected people in the city and those who intersect with them in time and space will be isolated or placed under home medical observation. This is reasonable. In order to cut off the undetected infection chain in time, it is also medically justified to carry out short-term lockdowns and virus disinfection of residential areas or activity sites of confirmed cases and to delineate certain lockdown areas. But it should also be noted that the average risk of carrying the virus among those under medical observation in our city is lower or even much lower than the average among those currently arriving. Because those who come to living and working environments full of viruses are, strictly speaking, close contacts or intersections of time and space.
Inbound personnel 7+3 is not to please them but has a good scientific basis. Depending on the incubation period of the Omicron variant, 7+3 is effective in detecting virus carriers. If the entry is so high-risk, but 7+3 is enough, then close contact in domestic cities and isolation and medical observation at the intersection of time and space should also comply with the 7+3-time limit.
Therefore, anyone who is in centralized isolation or after 10 days of lockdown should be the overwhelming majority and should be considered a right to be guaranteed. A city’s fight against the pandemic can continue, but the lockdown population should change, and if the same group of people are locked down for more than 10 days due to the same epidemic, it is usually unreasonable, and I hope that basic understanding can be established everywhere.
I know that once an outbreak spreads at multiple points, the risk points flow and cross, and the situation is more complicated if a community continues to be infected, but this cannot be a common situation. A community is closed and controlled, everyone does not leave their homes, and it is basically clear who has contracted the virus after 7 days and who may be safe. Those infected are sent to intensive treatment, and those who remain positive continue to be placed under medical observation at home for 3 days, after which they should be able to reintegrate into social life. Although the infected person was found in this community, since everyone has not left the house in the last 7+3 days, the probability of further mutual infection is very low, in order to seek insurance, let other negative residents stay at home for a few more days and should not be more than a week after the last positive transfer. If it continues to expand, it should be characterized as excessive epidemic prevention.
The silence of the streets cannot be arbitrarily exceeded 10 days. When foreign personnel continue to enter the Chinese mainland in a 7+3 fashion, there is no reason or justification for large blocks to remain silent for more than 10 days. Therefore, prevention and control measures must be precise, meticulous and targeted, not one-size-fits-all, “one spoonful of stew”.
In general, the current prevention and control work in various places pays more and more attention to the principle of precision, and this fundamental aspect of prevention and control must be recognized that the large-scale closure and control work in most places now focuses on no more than 10 days. However, there are still netizens on the Internet who say that a certain city has been closed for “forty days” or even “two months”, and I think that the city where complaints are concentrated should be taken seriously to see if some areas of the city have indeed experienced a long-term lockdown, and this situation should undoubtedly be resolutely adjusted.
