作者：李聪玲 编辑：张致君 校对：程筱筱 翻译：周敏
新冠疫情在中国爆发至今已数年，但那段时间所发生的一切，并未随着封控解除而真正过去。相反，它像一道尚未愈合的社会创伤，潜伏在无数家庭的记忆之中，也刻在这个民族的历史深处。对这场灾难的回顾，不应止于“疫情防控”的技术讨论，更无法简单归结为“不可抗力”。因为在这场瘟疫之中，造成大规模死亡、社会撕裂与长期心理创伤的，并不仅是病毒本身，而是一个长期依赖信息控制、行政强制与政治优先逻辑运转的统治体制。
2020年初，在疫情尚未全面爆发之前，风险信号事实上已经出现。武汉多名一线医生在临床中发现异常病例，并尝试以专业判断向同行示警。然而，这些出于职业责任的提醒，并未被视为公共卫生预警，而是迅速被定性为“扰乱秩序”。多名医生遭到约谈和训诫，其中最为人所知的，便是李文亮医生。李文亮并非政治异议人士，也未试图挑战权威。他只是履行了医生在正常社会中最基本的义务——基于事实提醒风险。然而，在高度集权的政治环境中，真相本身往往被视为不稳定因素。2020年2月7日，李文亮因感染新冠病毒去世。他的死亡，使这场疫情首次以一个具体而清晰的个人悲剧，呈现在公众面前。
疫情早期的信息延误与压制，后来被证明对防控窗口期造成了严重影响。多项研究与回顾性分析指出，如果在早期阶段采取更透明的信息披露与公共卫生应对措施，疫情的扩散规模与社会代价本可以显著降低。然而，在现实中，地方政府的首要反应并非风险沟通，而是舆情管控；并非医疗准备，而是维稳优先。这种反应模式，并非偶然失误，而是长期政治激励结构下的必然选择。
2020年1月23日，武汉宣布“封城”。这是一项在全球范围内都极为罕见的极端行政措施。封城本身是否具有公共卫生合理性，学界至今仍存在讨论，但可以确认的是，在实施过程中，相关配套准备严重不足。交通骤停、医疗资源调配失序、普通病患就医受阻，导致大量非新冠患者在封控期间陷入无医可治的境地。在官方统计中，这部分“次生死亡”长期缺乏系统呈现。与此同时，殡仪系统超负荷运转、骨灰集中发放等情况，被大量市民以影像与文字记录下来。多种迹象显示，官方公布的数据难以全面反映疫情对社会造成的真实生命损失。然而，这些问题并未得到公开、独立的调查，相关讨论也很快被纳入严格的信息管控之中。
疫情在武汉的失控并未促成制度反思，反而推动了一套更具政治化特征的防疫模式在全国铺开。“动态清零”最初被描述为临时应对策略，但在实践中逐渐演变为一条不可质疑的政治路线。病例数字、封控力度与官员问责机制直接挂钩，使公共卫生决策日益脱离专业判断，而更多服务于政治安全逻辑。在这一背景下，各地封控措施不断加码。一些社区被长期封闭，居民行动自由受到严格限制；核酸检测从风险筛查演变为日常行政要求；健康码成为影响出行、就医与基本生活的关键工具。多起经由媒体与民间记录披露的事件显示，孕产妇、老人及重症患者在封控环境中因就医受阻而遭遇严重后果，甚至失去生命。
这些悲剧往往被解释为“执行偏差”或“个别问题”，但从制度角度看，它们并非偶发。缺乏问责机制的权力结构，使得基层在压力传导下倾向于采取最严厉、最保守的手段，以规避政治风险。在这种逻辑中，个体生命的价值被不断边缘化，服从成为生存前提。
2022年11月，乌鲁木齐发生的一场居民楼火灾，使长期积累的不满与疑问集中爆发。火灾发生时，该小区处于持续封控状态。事后流出的现场影像与多方证词显示，逃生受阻、通道受限等因素，对人员伤亡产生了重要影响。尽管官方最初试图将事件与防疫政策切割，但随后相关部门也承认管理和应急处置存在严重问题。这场火灾之所以引发全国范围的情绪震荡，并不仅因为伤亡本身，而在于它以极其直观的方式揭示了封控政策可能带来的极端后果。当行政秩序被置于生命之上，当“按规定办事”压倒基本人道原则，防疫便不再是保护，而可能转化为风险本身。
随后在多地出现的白纸抗议，正是这种社会心理变化的集中体现。参与者并未提出复杂诉求，只是以最简单的方式表达对长期封控、信息不透明以及权力失责的不满。这一现象本身，已说明恐惧并非牢不可破，沉默也并非永久。然而，政策转向同样缺乏审慎准备。在2022年底，防疫措施迅速全面放开，但并未同步建立分级医疗、药物储备与重点人群保护机制。长期封控已削弱基层医疗承受能力，而突然放开则使医疗系统在短时间内承受巨大冲击。多地医院出现挤兑现象，药品供应紧张，殡葬系统承压。由于统计与信息发布的不透明，社会至今仍难以了解这一阶段的真实伤亡情况。
从极端封控到无序放开，这种政策急转弯并非科学调整的结果，而更像是在政治路线难以为继后的被动收场。在整个过程中，公众始终缺乏参与权与知情权，也缺乏对决策者进行问责的制度渠道。正是在这样的背景下，李文亮医生的象征意义愈发凸显。他并未制造危机，而是试图阻止危机；他并未挑战秩序，而是尊重事实。他的遭遇表明，在一个不允许说真话的体制中，专业良知本身就可能成为被打压的对象。
纪念李文亮，并不只是对个人命运的哀悼，更是对制度性失责的追问。如果没有新闻自由、司法独立与权力制衡，类似的灾难就无法被真正总结，只会以不同形式反复出现。疫情终将过去，但它所暴露的问题不会自动消失。一个将稳定置于生命之上的统治逻辑，一个将忠诚凌驾于专业之上的治理体系，本身就是对公共安全的持续威胁。记住李文亮，记住武汉，记住乌鲁木齐，不是为了延续仇恨，而是为了拒绝遗忘；不是为了情绪宣泄，而是为了防止历史重演。
Disaster Caused by Human Factors in the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Liquidation of Xi Jinping’s Autocratic Rule
Abstract: The enormous damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in China originated from information suppression and autocratic governance that prioritized politics. The death of Li Wenliang, extreme lockdowns, and the hasty reopening reveal a systemic failure of responsibility that urgently needs to be questioned and liquidated.
Author: Li Congling Editor: Zhang Zhijun Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Zhou Min
The COVID-19 pandemic has broken out in China for several years now, but what happened during that time has not truly passed with the lifting of lockdowns. On the contrary, it is like an unhealed social wound, lurking deep within the memories of countless families and etched into the history of this nation. A review of this disaster should not stop at technical discussions of “epidemic prevention and control,” nor can it be simply attributed to “force majeure.” Because in this plague, what caused mass deaths, social tearing, and long-term psychological trauma was not just the virus itself, but a ruling system that has long relied on information control, administrative coercion, and the logic of political priority.
At the beginning of 2020, before the pandemic had fully erupted, warning signals of risk had in fact already appeared. Many doctors in Wuhan discovered abnormal cases in clinical practice and attempted to warn their colleagues based on professional judgment. However, these reminders, issued out of professional responsibility, were not regarded as public health warnings but were quickly characterized as “disturbing the order.” Several doctors were summoned for talks and reprimanded; the most well-known among them was Dr. Li Wenliang. Li Wenliang was not a political dissident, nor did he attempt to challenge authority. He merely fulfilled the most basic obligation of a doctor in a normal society—warning of risks based on facts. However, in a highly centralized political environment, the truth itself is often regarded as an unstable factor. On February 7, 2020, Li Wenliang died of a COVID-19 infection. His death caused this pandemic to be presented before the public for the first time as a specific and clear personal tragedy.
The delay and suppression of information in the early stages of the pandemic were later proven to have had a severe impact on the window of opportunity for prevention and control. Multiple studies and retrospective analyses have pointed out that if transparent information disclosure and public health response measures had been taken in the early stages, the scale of the pandemic’s spread and the social cost could have been significantly reduced. However, in reality, the primary response of local governments was not risk communication, but public opinion management; not medical preparation, but maintaining stability as the priority. This response pattern was not an accidental mistake, but an inevitable choice under a long-term political incentive structure.
On January 23, 2020, Wuhan announced a “city lockdown.” This was an extreme administrative measure extremely rare even on a global scale. Whether the lockdown itself possessed public health rationality is still being discussed in academia, but what can be confirmed is that during the implementation process, relevant supporting preparations were seriously insufficient. The sudden halt of transportation, the disorder in medical resource allocation, and the obstruction of medical treatment for ordinary patients caused a large number of non-COVID patients to fall into a state of having no medical care during the lockdown. In official statistics, this part of “secondary deaths” has long lacked a systematic presentation. Meanwhile, the funeral system operating beyond capacity and the centralized distribution of ashes were recorded by a large number of citizens through images and text. Various signs indicate that the data released by the authorities find it difficult to fully reflect the true loss of life caused by the pandemic to society. However, these issues have not been subjected to open and independent investigation, and related discussions were quickly incorporated into strict information control.
The loss of control over the pandemic in Wuhan did not lead to institutional reflection, but instead promoted a set of epidemic prevention models with more political characteristics to spread across the country. “Dynamic Zero-COVID” was initially described as a temporary response strategy, but in practice, it gradually evolved into an unquestionable political line. Case numbers, lockdown intensity, and official accountability mechanisms were directly linked, causing public health decision-making to increasingly deviate from professional judgment and serve more the logic of political security. In this context, lockdown measures in various places were continuously escalated. Some communities were closed for long periods, and the freedom of movement for residents was strictly restricted; PCR testing evolved from risk screening into a daily administrative requirement; the Health Code became a key tool affecting travel, medical treatment, and basic life. Multiple incidents disclosed through media and folk records showed that pregnant women, the elderly, and critically ill patients encountered severe consequences—even losing their lives—due to the obstruction of medical treatment in the lockdown environment.
These tragedies are often explained as “execution deviations” or “individual problems,” but from an institutional perspective, they are not accidental. A power structure lacking an accountability mechanism makes the grassroots, under the transmission of pressure, inclined to adopt the most severe and conservative means to evade political risks. In this logic, the value of individual lives is continuously marginalized, and obedience becomes the prerequisite for survival.
In November 2022, a fire in a residential building in Urumqi caused long-accumulated dissatisfaction and questions to erupt collectively. When the fire occurred, the compound was under continuous lockdown. Field images and testimonies from multiple parties that leaked afterward showed that factors such as blocked escape routes and restricted passages had a major impact on the casualties. Although the authorities initially tried to decouple the incident from epidemic prevention policies, relevant departments subsequently admitted that there were serious problems in management and emergency handling. The reason this fire triggered a nationwide emotional shock was not just because of the casualties themselves, but because it revealed in an extremely direct way the extreme consequences that lockdown policies could bring. When administrative order is placed above life, and when “acting according to regulations” overrides basic humanitarian principles, epidemic prevention is no longer protection but may transform into risk itself.
The “White Paper Protests” that subsequently appeared in many places were a concentrated manifestation of this change in social psychology. The participants did not put forward complex demands but merely expressed dissatisfaction with the long-term lockdowns, lack of information transparency, and failure of power in the simplest way. This phenomenon itself has already shown that fear is not unbreakable, and silence is not permanent. However, the policy turn similarly lacked prudent preparation. At the end of 2022, epidemic prevention measures were quickly and fully lifted, but a tiered medical system, drug reserves, and protection mechanisms for key populations were not established simultaneously. Long-term lockdowns had already weakened the capacity of grassroots medical care, while the sudden reopening caused the medical system to endure a huge shock in a short period. Medical runs occurred in many hospitals, drug supplies were tight, and the funeral system was under pressure. Due to the opacity of statistics and information release, society still finds it difficult to understand the true casualty situation of this stage.
From extreme lockdown to disorderly reopening, this policy U-turn was not the result of scientific adjustment, but more like a passive withdrawal after the political line became unsustainable. Throughout the process, the public consistently lacked the right to participate and the right to know, and also lacked institutional channels to hold decision-makers accountable. It is in this context that the symbolic significance of Dr. Li Wenliang has become increasingly prominent. He did not create a crisis but tried to prevent one; he did not challenge order but respected the facts. His encounter showed that in a system where telling the truth is not allowed, professional conscience itself may become an object of suppression.
Commemorating Li Wenliang is not just mourning a personal fate, but questioning systemic failure of responsibility. Without freedom of the press, judicial independence, and checks and balances of power, similar disasters cannot be truly summarized and will only reappear repeatedly in different forms. The pandemic will eventually pass, but the problems it exposed will not disappear automatically. A ruling logic that places stability above life, and a governance system that elevates loyalty above professionalism, is in itself a continuous threat to public safety. Remembering Li Wenliang, remembering Wuhan, and remembering Urumqi is not for the sake of continuing hatred, but for refusing to forget; it is not for emotional venting, but for preventing history from repeating itself.
