钟南山：中国“零传播政策”并非高成本做法
11/01/2021
中国工程院院士钟南山说，中国采取的防疫“零传播政策”并非高成本做法。
据中国国际电视台（CGTN）报道，钟南山在接受CGTN采访时说，在目前的情况下，相较于感染后再治疗，中国采取的“零传播政策”并非成本过高，而是一种低成本的做法。
钟南山指出，“零传播”或“零容忍”，是不得已而为之的办法，因为病毒的传播太迅速，复制指数太高，尽管有疫苗，全世界的病死率仍在2%左右，这样高的病死率是不能够容忍的。
钟南山说，现在采取“零传播”做法，成本确实是很高的，但是和不管它、放开它相比，后者成本更高。
他说，现在一些国家采取了全部放开的方法，最近两个月出现大量感染，又要开始收缩，这样一来一回，成本更高，对民众、社会的心理影响也更大。
钟南山说，中国将采用逐步放开的策略，但目前总的政策还是“零容忍”。这种做法可以称为“持续性的零感染、零传播”，而不是绝对的零传播。
Oct 30, 2021
钟南山说，中国的这种防疫策略会持续多久，取决于世界其他国家的疫情防控，“中国做得再好，只要有开放、有输入，肯定还会有传播”。
中国清零抗疫模式“独此一家”？
文 / 察客
11/01/2021
上海迪士尼乐园因为一名确诊病例曾游玩一天，三万多人接受核酸检测。云南瑞丽市民接受检测已成日常，有一岁多孩子做了74次核酸检测。
江西铅山县因一人确诊，当地交通灯全调整成红灯以减少人员出行。内蒙古额济纳旗出现疫情，9000多名外地游客被迫滞留。
与全球多国相比，中国的疫情不算严重。一个14亿人口大国，近日每日新增病例基本为两位数，截至目前的累计死亡个案也少过6000起。在这样的情况下，中国继续实施几乎草木皆兵的严格抗疫措施，与全球走向“与病毒共存”的做法形成了强烈对比。
随着新西兰、澳大利亚、日本、韩国等纷纷放弃清零政策，在多家西方媒体的叙述下，中国清零抗疫模式近乎已成自成一格，并质疑这种抗疫模式能否持续。
西方媒体陆续检视清零抗疫模式
彭博社早在8月间就发文形容，中国的做法恐令中国持续数年“与世隔绝”。上周，《纽约时报》发出“为什么全世界只有中国还在坚持病毒清零政策？” 的长篇报道，法国国际广播电台也发布题为“中国恐怖清零为哪般？”的文章。
华尔街日报上周报道说，严格的政策将给中国的经济增长带来日益增加的成本。美国有线新闻网（CNN）今天发文称，随着亚太邻国开始与冠病共存，中国正日益被孤立。
在中国国内，云南瑞丽市前副市长戴荣里在微信公众号发文《瑞丽需要祖国的关爱》，道出这个边陲小城的居民因为多次封城，“正承受着千载难遇的大劫难”。之后，陆续有大陆和香港媒体报道称，瑞丽市民反映已接受近百次核酸检测，有的抱怨失去工作，生活陷入困难。
面对外国媒体的检视和国内部分民众的呼喊，中国清零抗疫模式再次被放到了聚光灯下审视。
“动态清零不是想做就能做到”
经常对外打前锋的官媒《环球时报》总编辑胡锡进昨晚在微博发文回应，批评西方媒体把矛头集体对准中国的清零政策。他说：“西方舆论就是很想把中国‘拉下水’，让我们放弃动态清零政策，变得跟他们‘一样烂’。”
他怒怼西方媒体对中国动态清零的嘲笑是“变态的”、“是羡慕嫉妒恨”，并语带自豪地说“动态清零不是哪个国家想做就能做到的”，美国和欧洲不想要吗？“问题是他们真的做不到。”
胡锡进还说，中国的动态清零政策决不能放弃，只要改弦更张为欧美意义上的“与病毒共存”，用不了几个月，中国就会全境沦陷，一天增加几万甚至十几万病例，单日死亡几百甚至上千人，“那样的情况决非大多数中国人愿意承受的”。
他提醒民众说， 防疫虽然对生活造成影响，让一些人有意见，但如果大量人感染，其中很多人死亡，公众的意见将更大。“大家还记得去年2月份前后武汉疫情期间舆论的意见有多大吗？”
胡锡进的微博帖文反映了两个要点。
一是认定中国人民无法承受“与病毒共存”将造成大量死亡的情况，绝大多数中国人都支持当下的动态清零政策，最好的例证就是武汉疫情期间引发的舆论热议。
二是在政治上向西方叫板，坚持中国的清零抗疫模式更具制度优越性，中国将自己视为坚定执行清零政策的获益者。
确实，好些国家的专家和官员都异口同声承认，中国有条件走坚持清零路线，源于其特殊国情，包括有庞大市场能自给自足、从上至下有效管控并长期落实“封城”措施、以惊人的速度做检测等，其他国家真办不到，中国清零抗疫模式确实可能就“独此一家”。
中国具备放弃“清零”的条件吗？
同样的，若倒过来看，中国当下有条件放弃清零吗？
胡锡进在微博中也说了，中国不是永远都要清零，但政策调整“需要更多医药科学的突破来支持”，而这样的“条件目前显然尚未成熟”。但胡并没有具体说明，中国当下欠缺什么条件，需要的医药科学突破又是什么。
外媒的报道提供了一些说法。据《纽约时报》报道，香港城市大学城市研究学者张珺表示，中国医疗资源高度集中在大城市，更偏远的地区可能很快会因病例增加而不堪重负。
Oct 16, 2021
彭博社的一篇评论文章说，中国的医疗系统不够完善，截止2019年，每1000人仅有四个床位，比日本的14个床位要少很多。一旦冠病病例增加，死亡率恐怕不会低。
此外，中国虽然实现相对较高的全面接种率，国产灭活冠病疫苗在预防重症方面也被证明有效，但疫苗的有效性恐怕不足。
据路透社报道，中国截止10月29日已有75.8%的民众打满两剂疫苗，目前各地也已开启第三剂疫苗的施打工作，但打的都是中国国产的灭活疫苗，而不是有效性更强的mRNA疫苗。
临床试验显示，科兴和国医疫苗在总体上不如莫德纳和辉瑞的mRNA疫苗有效。《南华早报》今年6月曾报道，接种辉瑞疫苗者体内的抗体水平，比接种科兴疫苗者高得多。
引进国外现有mRNA技术是快速弥补短板的选项，但中国相信仍倾向于自主研发mRNA疫苗。据BBC报道，目前有三支中国国内的研发团队正在进行mRNA疫苗的研发工作。
中国清零冲击全球
中国是世界第二大经济体，清零抗疫模式不仅影响自身经济，也对向外产生连锁反应，包括冲击供应链和出境旅游，相信也是外媒关注中国清零抗疫模式的主因之一。
据华尔街日报报道，在上海等港口，由于船员接受冠病病毒检测，船舶经常出现滞留，造成供应链中断。法国外贸银行(Natixis)亚太区首席经济学家艾西亚说：“中国是大多数全球价值链的中心，实施如此严格的‘清零’政策，全球供应链的运转不良确实与这有一定的关系。”
清零措施也影响中国经济，包括上月的黄金周期间，国内旅游人数低于去年，显示零售业的销售情况不稳定。
中国9月份的外贸数据虽然好过市场预期，出口强劲增长，但经济也出现放缓迹象，第三季GDP年比成长率为4.9%，比路透社综合43家机构预期的5.2%来得低。另据彭博社上周报道，在电力短缺和房地产市场低迷加剧的情况下，经济学家已再次下调中国今明两年的经济增长预测。
彭博社评论文章认为，这都突显了中国经济的脆弱之处，也说明中国无法与世界长期隔绝。
中国为何坚持清零？
抗疫不只是医疗任务，更是政治任务。
好些外媒报道分析称，中国之所以坚持清零政策，政治是一大考量。中国在叙事中强调抗疫清零政策的优越性，是为证明中国制度的治理实力。这也是为什么，当上海传染病专家张文宏建议中国学习与病毒共存时，他在网上受到部分舆论攻击。
此外，中国明年还有两个重大活动登场，绝不容许任何闪失。一是明年2月北京冬季奥运会，另一个是年底召开的中共二十大。
一般相信，在那之前，中国将继续严防死守，不会松绑清零政策。如果在中共二十大之前放弃清零政策，就等于承认以前的做法不起作用，这将有损执政当局的威严，而对许多中国人来说，低病例数已成民族自豪感的来源。
英国卫报引述美国俄勒冈州立大学全球卫生中心主任纪骏辉说，中国从一开始就想向世界展示它有能力控制疫情，同时具备大规模动员能力。
纪骏辉说：“他们（中国）要被看成是这场疫情的拯救者，而非肇事者。”
香港行业组织亚洲证券业与金融市场协会上周致信港府，呼吁当局考虑进一步放宽边境管控措施。然而，港府次日不但表明不考虑放弃“零容忍”计划，还加码宣布进一步收紧措施。
所以，不管“中国特色”的清零政策如何一再被西方媒体质疑，在明年底之前相信都不会看到抗疫措施有任何松绑，哪怕只剩中国独自坚持这条清零道路。西方越是质疑，中国想必越是严防死守，看看香港就知道了。
China must insist on zero-COVID policy now and here is why
By Hu Xijin
11/01/2021
In recent days, there have been increasing voices on the internet that criticize China’s strict implementation of pandemic prevention measures. Western media have collectively targeted China’s zero-COVID-19 policy, slandering the sustainability of China’s anti-pandemic approach. The complaints on the internet are more complicated. Many of them are about the impact on normal life, and reflect real problems. However, Western opinion really wants to “pull China down” and let China abandon its dynamic zero-COVID policy and become “as bad as them”.
First of all, I would like to say that China’s dynamic zero-COVID policy must not be abandoned. Our pandemic prevention approach should not be abandoned halfway. If we change course to the European and US way of “coexistence with the virus,” China will fall victim to the virus within just a few months, with tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of cases a day. The daily death toll could mount to hundreds or even thousands of people. I believe that situation is definitely not something most Chinese are willing to bear.
Every time an outbreak occurs, the implementation of zero-COVID policy will mean economic and social costs. But if we don’t adopt this policy, it will lead to a serious spread of the virus, and the cost will only be higher. Some people have complained about the impact of pandemic prevention on their lives. But if a large number of people are infected and many of them die, the public will have more complaints. Do you remember how strong the public opinion was during the first outbreak in Wuhan around February last year? We must not forget the pain after our scars heal.
Dynamic zero-COVID policy is not something that any country can do if it wants to. If the US and Europe can do it, why didn’t they? The problem is that they really can’t do it. The US population is only a quarter of that of China’s, and its medical technology is very advanced, yet 740,000 people have died. According to Indian official statistics, 450,000 people have died. However, there must be a large number of deaths that have not been counted. Their media’s ridicule of China’s dynamic zero-COVID policy is twisted. To put it bluntly, they are jealous of China’s capability.
Next, I would like to say that while we insist on a dynamic zero-COVID policy, we must keep drawing lessons, improve the humanity side of the process, and minimize losses. Therefore, we must attach great importance to complaints for specific prevention and control measures on the internet. We must carefully examine whether the relevant measures are excessively strict and deviate from the specific situation. In addition, for bridgeheads like Ruili, Yunnan Province, how our society cares for, encourages, and helps them on a larger scale is also worthy of continuous research and reflection.
Almost all parts of China have experienced repeated occurrences of the pandemic. Many prevention and control measures have been proven to be highly effective. In order to shorten the time to reach zero-case, some places have adopted multiple measures at the same time. While this has achieved results, it has caused some people to pay a greater price in a short term. Whether the comprehensive economic and social price for doing so is cost effective or not, I think it still needs to be continuously verified in practice.
It is important to point out that public opinion believes that local officials are now very worried about being held accountable for their “ineffective anti-epidemic” measures. Therefore, some of the additional measures are promoted by such “political reasons.” This is worthy of attention. There is no tangible scale for precise prevention. In order to prevent further spread, sometimes the only way is to do it with excessive measures. However, such “excessive practices” should also be an “expansion” under the guidance of scientific control measures. Officials shall never think about “shirking responsibility”. To be honest, in many cases, it is not difficult for people to distinguish which measures belong to the large-scale blockade that is necessary for prevention and control when the situation is unclear, and which belong to the excessive prevention measures carried out by individual local officials for the sake of “political correctness.”
I want to add that zero-COVID policy won’t stay in China forever, but policy adjustments require support of more breakthroughs in medical science, and such conditions are obviously not yet mature. As far as today’s situation is concerned, my observation is that the vast majority of Chinese people support the dynamic zero-COVID policy. They understand the way the government of the place where a new outbreak occurs quickly takes strict prevention and control measures. Whoever encounters it, whether this is classified a close contact or sub-close contact, or a district is temporarily shut down, and life and work are immediately affected, some people will definitely feel down on their luck. Others will complain, but generally speaking, the way they express their dissatisfaction is restrained. Overall, people are cooperating with the dynamic zero-COVID policy. This policy is generally in line with the interests of the Chinese people. The public is not muddleheaded.
The epidemic will continue for a long time. Our society must maintain unity and coordination against it. When severe measures are taken by various local governments, it is important to take into consideration for the affected people. Opinions from any quarantine area must be listened to, so must all kinds of complaints on the internet. In the past two years, China has set an example of successful fight against the pandemic. This is a result of the joint fight and dedication of the entire Chinese people under the leadership of the Party and government. We will continue to unite.
港专家：香港没条件与冠病病毒共存
10/24/2021
香港政府专家顾问、中大呼吸系统科讲座教授许树昌说，香港整体的冠病疫苗接种率目前仅约六成，加上长者的接种率低，不但难达到“绝对清零”，目前也没有条件采取“与病毒共存”的策略。
综合网媒“香港01”、香港电台、文汇网报道，许树昌今早在商台节目上说，香港整体疫苗接种率大约六成，但长者接种率低；此外，有约四成接种者选择注射中国大陆的科兴疫苗，有数据显示其抗体于接种两针六至八个月后，降至低水平。因此，他认为香港没有条件采取“与病毒共存”的策略。
许树昌也说，英国等国家决定采取“与病毒共存”的策略后，冠病确诊个案严重暴发，加上冬季即将来临，他预估未来将会有更多变量。
许树昌还提到，如果民众首两剂接种灭活平台的疫苗，第三针转为接种另一平台的疫苗、例如核酸疫苗会较好，因为可刺激产生更多抗体。他相信，可能每一至两年，民众或要接种冠病疫苗加强剂一次。
康希诺：两剂灭活加强一剂吸入 抗体最高升300倍
10/17/2021
中国康希诺生物公司发布吸入式冠病疫苗研究成果，临床数据显示，两剂灭活加强一剂吸入，中和抗体水平最高可上升300倍。
据澎湃新闻报道，康希诺生物股份公司首席科学官朱涛在第21届中国生物制品年会期间进行了《腺病毒载体疫苗研发历程——如何与病毒赛跑》的主题演讲。
在介绍吸入式腺病毒载体新冠疫苗克威莎加强免疫的临床数据解读时，朱涛提到，接种两剂灭活疫苗后6个月，序贯加强一剂克威莎吸入剂型，中和抗体水平相比加强之前升高250-300倍；若同源加强一剂灭活疫苗，中和抗体水平相比加强前升高30倍。
康希诺生物在其微信公众号上发文称，以吸入型腺病毒载体新冠疫苗进行异源序贯加强，相较第三针灭活疫苗加强更有优势，抗体升高倍数，约是以一剂灭活疫苗加强的7-8倍。另外，吸入序贯免疫可获得针对原型株、Alpha、Beta、Gamma、Delta株的高效中和抗体。
文章还提到，数据显示，接种两针次灭活新冠疫苗后，用不同疫苗加强免疫，腺病毒载体疫苗加强效果最好，mRNA疫苗效果接近腺病毒载体，灭活或者亚单位疫苗加强显著低于腺病毒和mRNA疫苗，其中和抗体水平差异接近10倍。
对于雾化吸入式疫苗的有效性，12日晚间，江苏省疾控中心副主任、临床疫苗专家朱凤才在一次分享中也提到，雾化吸入可获得粘膜免疫、细胞免疫、体液免疫“三重保护”，在病毒入侵位置预防感染和阻断传播，保护自己也保护他人。雾化吸入新冠疫苗在加强、序贯免疫效果显著，适用于风险人群的大规模加强免疫。
Inhalable vector-based COVID-19 vaccine increases antibodies 300-fold, better than mRNA & inactivated type as booster
By Global Times
10/17/2021
According to latest lab studies, China’s first aerosolized COVID-19 vaccine has showed an increase of 250- to 300-fold in neutralizing antibody levels after two rounds of inactivated vaccine administration, proving greater efficacy in using a combination of different types of vaccines to enhance effects.
Taking the CanSinoBIO’s aerosolized inhaled adenovirus type-5 vector-based COVID-19 vaccine (Ad5-nCoV) as a booster shot after completing two doses of inactivated vaccine shots for half a year is proven to be safe and significantly more immunogenic than taking an inactivated vaccine as a booster, said Zhu Tao, co-founder and chief scientific officer of the CanSinoBIO, at a recent industrial conference.
In contrast, neutralizing antibodies can increase by only 30 times if taking an inactivated vaccine as a booster after two inactivated vaccine shots.
Zhu cited a previous study conducted in Turkey whose data showed a booster dose of the mRNA vaccine widely used in Western countries for people administered along with two inactivated doses can increase the neutralizing antibodies by about 25 times as compared with a booster dose of the inactivated vaccine again.
These clinical trials suggested that a heterologous prime-boost regimen can increase the breadth, intensity and duration of the immune response, more than a homogeneous booster shot.
US researchers previously conducted clinical trials on a heterologous booster shot regimen with three approved vaccines – one adenovirus-based vaccine by Johnson & Johnson and two mRNA vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer. The results similarly showed that heterologous enhanced immunity had obvious advantages.
The study showed that boosting with any of the three vaccines currently licensed or authorized for emergency use in the US will stimulate an anamnestic response in persons who previously received any of the primary series of any of these vaccines. Homologous boosters increased neutralizing antibody titers 4.2- to 20-fold whereas heterologous boosters increased titers 6.2- to 76-fold, said the research report published on medRvix on October 13.
So far, at least 13 provinces and regions in China, such as East China’s Anhui and Fujian provinces, and Central China’s Hubei Province, have initiated programs to enhance residents’ immunity against COVID-19.
The latest studies proved that taking the approved Chinese vaccines – inactivated and vector-based ones – in heterologous a booster regime is expectedly the most effective one among all current world-wide regimens using the mRNA vaccine as a booster.
Global Times
Tel: 551-580-4856 | Email: F.WINNIE.S@GMAIL.COM
诚招美国和加拿大法律服务代理
因公司发展需要，诚招美国和加拿大法律服务代理。
要求：
懂英语、或西班牙语、或法语。
能合法工作有社安号或工号。
无需改行， 可以兼职。
大学生和有销售经验优先考虑。
自雇生意公司发美国报税1099，加拿大T4A
有意了解详情， 请扫码加微信， 非诚勿扰！
阿斯利康抗体鸡尾酒药物后期研究取得成功
文 / 陈慧璋
10/11/2021
（早报讯）英国生物制药公司阿斯利康周一（11日）说，其试验性冠病抗体鸡尾酒药物在一项后期研究中成功减少非住院患者演变成重症或死亡。
路透社报道，出现七天或少于七天症状的冠病患者使用这款名为AZD7442的抗体鸡尾酒药物后，演变成重症或死亡的风险降低了50%，这符合了这项临床试验的目标。
阿斯利康研发部执行副总裁潘加洛斯说：“使用我们这款抗体药物对冠病病毒进行早期干预，可以显著降低病情恶化的风险，并可为患者持续提供六个月以上的保护。”
另外，阿斯利康也计划把这款抗体鸡尾酒药物开发为适用于无法对冠病疫苗产生足够免疫力的人的冠病药物。
阿斯利康上周已就这款抗体鸡尾酒药物作为冠病预防性药物，向美国药物监管当局申请紧急使用授权。
日本调查：接种首剂阿斯利康疫苗 66%出现倦怠感
10/03/2021
（早报讯）日本卫生、劳动与福利部研究小组日前公布的调查结果显示，在首次接种英国阿斯利康冠病疫苗的每三人当中，大约有两人会出现倦怠感。这是日本政府首次公布有关阿斯利康疫苗不良反应的调查结果。
新华社引述日本广播协会电视台（NHK）报道，研究小组对今年8月以来在日本八所医疗机构接种第一剂阿斯利康疫苗的179人展开调查。
结果显示，大约66%的人出现倦怠感；51%的人出现头痛症状；47%的人则发烧，体温达37.5摄氏度以上。越年轻，越容易出现上述不良反应，且多见于接种后的第二天和第三天。
研究小组负责人、顺天堂大学医学系客座教授伊澄信表示，其他冠病疫苗在第二剂接种后更易出现症状，而调查数据显示，阿斯利康疫苗在第一剂接种后更易出现不良反应。
据NHK报道，截至当地时间星期六（10月2日）傍晚6时30分（新加坡时间晚上7时30分），日本新增1246起冠病确诊病例，累计确诊病例达170万3880起；新增死亡病例则有32起，累计1万7719起死例。
2 out of 3 feel fatigue after 1st AstraZeneca jab
10/03/2021
Japanese researchers have found that two out of three people experienced fatigue after their first shot of the AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine.
A research team of the health ministry analyzed the symptoms of 179 people who received their first dose at eight medical institutions across the country since August.
Sixty-six percent felt fatigue, 51 percent had headaches, and 47 percent developed a fever of 37.5 degrees Celsius or higher.
The symptoms mostly occurred one or two days after the shot and were more common among young people.
This is the first time the government has released its survey on side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Professor Ito Suminobu at the medical school of Juntendo University heads the research team.
Ito says data from clinical trials showed that recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine more likely experienced side effects after their first jab, while recipients of other vaccines developed symptoms more often after the second dose.
The professor says his team will continue to study side effects.
The health ministry says 28,997 people in Japan had received the AstraZeneca vaccine as of September 12, and no deaths had been reported.
One-thousand 190 people had been confirmed dead after receiving either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines.
The ministry says the figure per million people was 17.2 for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and 2.4 for the Moderna vaccine.
Officials say no causal link to the inoculation was established in any of those cases.
