全球走向重新开放,生活在“试错”中继续_OK阅读网
双语新闻
Bilingual News


双语对照阅读
分级系列阅读
智能辅助阅读
在线英语学习
首页 |  双语新闻 |  双语读物 |  双语名著 | 
[英文] [中文] [双语对照] [双语交替]    []        


全球走向重新开放,生活在“试错”中继续
Reopenings Mark a New Phase: Global ‘Trial-and-Error’ Played Out in Lives

来源:纽约时报    2020-05-08 03:08



        Sign up for NYT Chinese-language Morning Briefing.        (欢迎点击此处订阅NYT简报,我们将在每个工作日发送最新内容至您的邮箱。)
        The world is entering a period of high-stakes experimentation, with cities and countries serving as open-air laboratories for how to most safely and effectively reopen amid the coronavirus.        世界正进入一个高风险的实验期,城市和国家成了露天实验室,研究如何在新冠病毒肆虐下最安全有效地重新开放。
        Unable to wait indefinitely for science to answer every riddle about what makes infections spike in some circumstances and not others, governments are pushing ahead with policies built on a growing but imperfect understanding of the virus.        由于不能无限期地等待科学来回答每个谜题——哪些情况会导致感染激增,哪些情况不会——各国政府所推动的政策建立在对这种病毒不断增长但并不完善的认识基础上。
        And with little consensus on how best to balance public health against social and economic needs, societies are feeling their way through trade-offs that would be gut-wrenching even with better information on any given policy’s likely cost in lives and livelihoods.        对于如何更好地平衡公共卫生与社会和经济需求,几乎没有共识达成,各个社会正在权衡利弊中摸索,就算可以更深入了解特定政策可能造成的生命和生计损失,这种权衡也将是很痛苦的。
        “We’re in the middle of a global trial-and-error period to try to find the best solution in a very difficult situation,” said Tom Inglesbury, who directs the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University.        “我们正处在一个全球反复试验的时期,努力在一个非常困难的情况下找到最佳解决方案,”约翰·霍普金斯大学卫生安全中心(Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University)主任汤姆·英格斯伯里(Tom Inglesbury)说。
        The first wave of reopenings, predominantly in Asia and Europe, are providing a preview of what could become a continual process of experimentation and recalibration.        第一波重新开业潮主要在亚洲和欧洲,这是一个可能会不断持续下去实验和调整过程的预演。
        Each policy, like distancing students at Danish schools or temperature checks at Hong Kong restaurants, however based in scientific knowledge and calculated cost-benefit, is also a trial of what works, what’s worthwhile and what people will accept.        诸如丹麦的学校让学生保持距离,或者香港餐馆内的体温检查,每项政策都是基于科学知识和成本效益计算,也是在试验什么措施有效、什么东西有价值、人们会接受什么。
        Though experience bought in lives will convert some unknowns to knowns, many questions may remain unanswered for the duration of what is expected to be a one-to-two-year crisis.        虽然在生活中获得的经验会将一些未知转化为已知,但在预计将持续一到两年的危机期间,许多问题可能仍然没有答案。
        That includes what may be the hardest but most urgent question of all: What is the value of a life saved?        其中包括那个最困难但也最紧迫的问题:挽救生命的代价,究竟几何?
        Countries have little choice but to guess at stomach-turning ethical calculations. How many lives should be risked to save a thousand people from unemployment? To stop a generation of kids from falling behind in school? To salvage a sense of normalcy?        各国别无选择,只能在猜测中做出那个令人痛苦的道德考量。要让多少人冒着生命危险,才能使1000人免于失业?才能防止一代孩子的学业落后?才能挽回一种常态的感觉?
        While Dr. Inglesbury stressed that “there are a lot of principles that are based on public health and common sense” to guide us, he also said, “There’s no road map for this.”        虽然英格尔斯伯里博士强调,“有很多基于公共卫生和常识的原则”可以用来指导我们,但他也说,“这方面没有路线图”。
        Navigating the Unknowns        在未知中航行
        Many countries’ policies are shaped, in part, by how they navigate the gaps in knowledge about the virus.        在一定程度上,许多国家的政策是由对病毒认识的不同所决定的。
        For example: Does being outdoors drastically limit transmission?        例如:将活动转向户外是否能大幅限制传播?
        Lithuania, on the belief that it does, is closing streets in the capital to allow restaurants and bars to open outdoor-only services.        立陶宛相信这是可行的,因此封闭了首都的街道,以便餐馆和酒吧提供仅限户外的服务。
        Others are testing this hypothesis more tepidly. Bangkok is reopening parks but forbidding most activities that involve multiple people. Sydney is reopening beaches for swimming and surfing but not sunbathing or socializing.        其他地方则以更温和的方式检验这个假设。曼谷重新开放了公园,但禁止大多数涉及多人的活动。悉尼重新开放了海滩供人们游泳和冲浪,但不允许日光浴或社交活动。
        Another mystery: How easily, and widely, do children transmit the virus?        另一个谜是:儿童是否容易并且广泛传播新冠病毒?
        Some countries are reopening schools, taking a calculated risk on indications that children might be relatively safe, while imposing restrictions in case they aren’t.        因为有迹象表明儿童可能相对安全,一些国家正在冒险重新开放学校;同时也实施限制措施,以防出现安全隐患。
        Denmark is opening schools to younger children, who are tentatively thought to be less at risk, but hedging with restrictions on class size.        丹麦让年龄较小的儿童返校,因为暂时认为他们的风险较小,但同时也对班级规模实行限制。
        Germany, meanwhile, is inviting back older children who, the thinking goes, might pose a higher risk of transmission but will better comply with rules on masks and distancing.        与此同时,德国让年龄较大的儿童返校,理由是,他们虽然可能会造成更高的传播风险,但更能遵守有关口罩和保持距离的规定。
        There is another set of unknowns: those pertaining to people’s behavior.        还有另一组未知数:它们与人们的行为有关。
        South Korea’s government is gambling on citizens voluntarily observing a litany of guidelines on everyday interactions, like bowing instead of hugging at funerals.        韩国政府把赌注押在公民会自愿遵守一系列日常交往的指导方针上,比如在葬礼上鞠躬而不是拥抱。
        In other areas, it is less trusting, using fines and digital monitoring to enforce mandatory quarantines for those thought to have even come into contact with an infected person.        在其他地区,政府对人们就不是那么信任了,它使用罚款和数字监控来强制隔离被认为与感染者有过接触的人。
        California will allow some businesses to offer curbside pickup, in the hopes that enough workers and consumers will embrace this, and safely enough to halt the economy’s free-fall without infections resurging.        加州将允许一些企业提供路边提货服务,希望有足够多的劳动力和消费者接受这种方式,在足够安全的情况下阻止经济直线下降,而又不会导致感染的增加。
        Georgia, meanwhile, lifted restrictions on businesses only to find that customers were largely unwilling to come back.        与此同时,佐治亚州取消了对企业的限制,结果却发现消费者基本上不愿回来。
        High-Stakes Trial-and-Error        高风险的试错
        Any reopening measure aims “to balance at least three different things,” said Ezekiel J. Emanuel, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.        宾夕法尼亚大学(University of Pennsylvania)医学伦理与卫生政策系主任伊齐基尔·J·伊曼纽尔(Ezekiel J. Emanuel)说,任何重新开放的措施都旨在“平衡至少三件不同的事情”。
        These are: Keeping infections low, to prevent health services from getting overwhelmed; keeping deaths low, which entails deterring higher-risk infections; and controlling economic and social burdens.        它们是:保持低感染率,防止卫生服务不堪重负;保持较低的病亡率,这需要遏制较高风险的感染;控制经济和社会负担。
        But even if we expect a given policy to improve one metric and worsen another, gaps in knowledge about the coronavirus mean we don’t know by how much.        但是,即使能预测到某个既定政策将改善其中一项指标或恶化另一项指标,对新冠病毒的认识不足仍意味着,我们无法确定改善或恶化的程度有多大。
        “Figuring out the right balance is obviously the chief problem here,” Dr. Emanuel said. “It’s really hard.”        “找到合适的平衡点显然是最主要的问题,”伊曼纽尔博士说。“这真的很难。”
        German officials who partially reopened factories, for example, have little way of anticipating either how many people will get sick or how many jobs will be saved as a result.        例如,将工厂部分重新开放的德国官员几乎无法预知这样做会使多少人患病,或能因此保住多少人的工作。
        The only way to know for sure whether a policy’s upsides are worth its costs is, in many cases, to try it and watch what happens.        在许多情况下,要确定一项政策的益处是否值得所付出的代价,唯一方法就是尝试实践并观察会发生什么。
        Each step toward reopening, then, is also a set of experiments with whole societies serving as guinea pigs — or, if you prefer, explorers stepping boldly into the unknown. Either way, few expect the process to be clean.        因此,重新开放的每个步骤也是一系列将整个社会作为小白鼠的实验——或者你也可以说,这是探险家大胆地踏入未知之地。无论是哪种,不会有多少人指望这个过程会是整齐有序的。
        “I think it’s unlikely we’ll get the balance all correct at the start, since it’s the first time we’re doing any of this,” Dr. Inglesbury said.        英格斯伯里说:“由于所有这些都是我们第一次尝试,我认为我们不可能一开始就面面俱到。”
        Sure enough, Germany’s infection numbers ticked back up, though modestly enough that the country continues its slow reopening.        可以肯定的是,尽管在适度地持续缓慢开放,德国的感染人数还是回升了。
        India, on the other hand, saw a sharper increase after some restrictions were lifted — raising the possibility of a return to lockdown, as some Chinese cities have already done.        另一方面,印度在取消一些限制后感染急剧增长——这增加了恢复封锁的可能性,就像中国一些城市已经做的那样。
        Even failed experiments might offer hard-won lessons, in theory allowing each reopening to be safer than the last.        即使失败的实验也可能会提供来之不易的教训,从理论上讲,每次重新开放都要比上一次更安全。
        “Is there a resurgence of cases based on particular patterns of easing social distancing?” Dr. Inglesbury asked. “Do we discover that there are cares occurring in mass transit? Are the things that Hong Kong is doing with restaurants working?”        “在某种特定模式的社交间距限制放松下,病例是否重新出现了?”英格斯伯里问道。“我们是否发现了公共交通中发生的病例?香港对餐馆所做的措施是否起效?”
        But there is a wrinkle: Cities and countries are tending to change several things at once, and that makes it hard to isolate specific lessons. A policy might appear to fail in some circumstances and succeed in others, slowing the world’s ability to learn.        但是有一个问题:城市和国家趋向于同时作出几个改变,这导致难以将教训的归因分离开。一项政策在某些情况下似乎会失败,而在另一些情况下会成功,从而减慢了世界的学习能力。
        Gut-Wrenching Trade-Offs        痛苦的权衡
        Even if the world could quantify with certainty how a particular policy affects both the virus and social welfare, there is no formula for how to balance the two.        即使世界可以将某项特定政策如何影响病毒和社会福利确定无疑地量化,也没有办法平衡两者。
        That has forced world leaders to confront a question that ethicists have wrestled with for years: How much should society be willing to sacrifice to save a life?        这迫使世界各国领导人面对多年来一直困扰伦理学家的一个问题:社会愿意为拯救生命作出多少牺牲?
        Put another way, how many people should lose their jobs to save one life, knowing that extended unemployment is associated with reduced life expectancy? How many people should be allowed to die if it lets a community keep the local factory running?        换句话说,如果已知长期失业与预期寿命的降低相关,为了挽救一条生命,可以有多少人失业?如果让社区保持当地工厂的运转,可以允许多少人死亡?
        “One of the things that’s new here is the trade-off between people’s long-term futures,” said Dr. Emanuel, the medical ethicist.        医学伦理学家伊曼纽尔说:“这里的一个新事物是人们的长远未来之间的权衡。”
        With no easy formulas or answers, he said, “Someone’s got to make those trade-offs. I don’t know what else to do.”        他说,没有简单的公式或答案,“必须做出一些权衡。我不知道还能怎么办。”
        For President Trump, more than any other leader so far, the upsides of reopening exceed even the most extreme risk — he is also among the only leaders to push for reopening as cases continue rising in many parts of the country. That, experts warn, could invite more economic damage than relief.        对于特朗普总统而言,重新开放的好处甚至超过了最极端的风险,他比任何领导人都相信这一点。他还是唯一几个在全国许多地区病例持续上升的情况下推动重新开放的领导人之一。专家警告说,由此带来的经济损失可能多于缓解。
        Other courses of action demand weighing human life against civil liberties, social inequality, even cultural value.        其他行动准则需要在人类生活与公民自由、社会不平等甚至文化价值之间权衡。
        South Korea is taking steps toward restarting its baseball league, which is both a business and a source of enjoyment for millions. Hong Kong is allowing some access to libraries.        韩国正在着手重新启动其职业棒球联赛,这既是商业,也是百万人的娱乐之源。香港允许部分开放图书馆。
        And Americans are already debating whether there is a point at which enforcement of social distancing — through monitoring, fines or outright coercion — carries unacceptable costs to individual liberty.        而且,美国人已经在争论强制实行保持社交距离——通过监督、罚款或直接的强迫——所牺牲的个人自由在何种程度上会令人无法接受。
        Reshaped Societies        重塑社会
        What begin as economic or public health questions quickly become, with no other way to answer them, matters of philosophy and values.        起初是经济或公共卫生的问题,便很快成了难以回答的哲学和价值观问题。
        How aggressive should schools be in reopening? New outbreaks might imperil adults who are older or have pre-existing conditions. But a year of lost school can set back a child for life.        学校应该以多大的步幅进行重新开放?新的疫情也许会威胁到老人或存在基础病的成年人。但是一年的失学给孩子造成的阻碍将是影响一生的。
        Is the value of partially reopening a cultural site like Broadway measured in economic terms alone, or also in the happiness it brings to theater goers, and its contribution to culture? Is that enough to put lives at risk?        重新开放像百老汇这样的文化场所的价值,是仅从经济角度衡量,还是以为观众带来的欢乐以及对文化的贡献来衡量?它的价值是否值得冒生命危险?
        Concessions in freedom and privacy — already being made in individualistic South Korea — could endure after the pandemic is over. The choices that are made could add up to societies reconfigured around the values that informed them.        个人主义的韩国已经作出了对自由和隐私的让步,这种让步在疫情结束后可能会延续下去。这些抉择,可能会叠加到已经根据所获得的价值观进行了重组的社会上去。
        As the consequences of those choices mount, the costs of fighting the pandemic will become clearer every week.        抉择的后果日渐累积,抗疫的代价会随着时间推移越来越清晰。
        “It’s going to be a very difficult balancing act,” Dr. Inglesbury said.        “这将是一种非常困难的权衡,”英格斯伯里说。
                
   返回首页                  

OK阅读网 版权所有(C)2017 | 联系我们