带疫运行作者：郭泉 编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍 川普总统表示：“对于左媒内外的人，他们以为会在中期选举前夕引入新冠2.0（汉坦病毒）局面，大概是为了重燃邮寄投票骗局，这次不会得逞。放弃吧！”川普总统还下令恢复8000名“良知战士”的军籍，旨在纠正拜登政府时期疫苗强制令造成的不公待遇，为拒绝接种疫苗而被强制逐出军队的“良知军人”平反。哈德逊研究所：“郭教授，早上好！汉坦病毒来了！一些特定国家又要封控封城了，但川普总统会让美国社会‘带疫运行’。您在攻读博士、博士后之前，曾是南京大学社会学系应用社会学（法学）硕士，导师张彦、宋林飞、周晓虹、童星都是社会公共政策专家。我想听听您对川普总统‘带疫运行’公共政策的社会学分析。”兰德研究院：“太好了，一个是哈佛大学公共政策学博士，一个是南京大学社会学与哲学博士。‘带疫运行’是否与‘带癌生存’类似呢？很期待你们的对话！”我说：封城防控，其实源于14世纪威尼斯共和国首创的隔离制度。虽然在当时发挥过重大积极作用，但七个世纪后的今天，社会高度全球化，经济衰退与失业饥饿造成的社会危害，有时甚至比疫情本身更大，也更容易快速引发社会崩溃。有关特定国家的疫情封控，我们今天“莫谈国事”，只讨论美国社会的“带疫运行”。所谓“带疫运行”，可以被定义为一种适应性危机管理政策，其核心在于平衡疫情防控与经济社会的持续运转。这一政策通过分阶段调控、资源动态配置和精准干预，在保障公共卫生安全的同时，最大程度维持社会基本功能。一、政策特点与积极意义1. 弹性防控框架美国采取“三级重启模式”（监测期、恢复期、稳定期），允许各州依据本地疫情数据灵活调整管控强度。例如疫情较轻州份优先复工，重灾区则强化医疗资源配置，体现了分层响应机制的科学性。2. 技术创新应用美国推广“免下车检测站”（Drive-through Testing），大幅提升筛查效率，单日检测量达到百万级，同时降低交叉感染风险。此外，还依托私营医疗体系快速扩容ICU病床，并调用国民警卫队建设方舱医院，以增强医疗系统韧性。3. 经济托底保障美国通过《CARES法案》注入2.2万亿美元，包括：向居民直接发放现金补助（成人1200美元、儿童500美元）为中小企业提供3770亿美元薪资保护贷款扩大失业保险至零工经济从业者这些措施有效缓冲了失业潮冲击。2020年第二季度，美国居民可支配收入甚至逆势增长6.2%。二、政策理论基础这一模式被政治学界归纳为“适应性治理”（Adaptive Governance）的实践：1. 制度弹性联邦与州政府分权协作，例如联邦储备物资与州级应急行动中心联动。2. 动态学习依据实时疫情数据不断调整防控策略。在早期检测失误后，美国迅速放开商业机构检测权限。3. 社会参与通过公私合作机制，如药企加速疫苗研发、零售企业提供检测场地，以激活市场力量。三、成效与挑战“带疫运行”在短期内避免了医疗系统全面崩溃。2020年第三季度，美国GDP环比反弹33.1%。但这一政策也受制于联邦制固有矛盾。各州资源调配效率差异较大，导致“带疫运行”效果并不均衡。此次汉坦病毒尚处于大规模流行前夜，美国政府仍需未雨绸缪，持续优化检测追踪技术与跨州协调机制，以提升“带疫运行”的长期适应能力。约翰斯·霍普金斯大学评估指出，此类政策的关键，在于如何在不确定性中建立动态响应能力。其经验，为全球公共卫生事件治理提供了重要参考。兰德说：“你们南京大学与约翰斯·霍普金斯大学共建的中美研究中心，我去过。今年还会再去，到时一定拜访郭教授。”我说：“好的。‘金陵闲客自逍遥，笑看秦淮水月迢；身外浮名何足系，春风醉卧百花桥。’南京话里，我这种人叫‘无事佬’。你随时来，我随时陪你逛秦淮。”哈德逊说：“太好了。我最后还想请郭教授从政治、经济、文化等多维度，客观分析川普总统‘带疫运行’政策的背景与影响。”我说：先从政治角度看，川普政府强调经济稳定与个人自由，认为严格封控会削弱政府权威与民众信心。其政策逻辑建立在“小政府”理念之上，主张减少行政干预，维护市场自主运行。这反映出美国保守派政治哲学对政府权力的警惕，以及对个人选择权的重视。从经济角度看，“带疫运行”旨在避免大规模失业与企业倒闭，防止经济陷入深度衰退。美国经济高度依赖消费与服务业，长期停摆可能引发连锁反应。政府通过财政刺激与货币政策维持流动性，试图在公共卫生危机中维持经济韧性。从哲学角度看，该政策体现了实用主义与自由意志主义的结合。一方面强调现实效果，认为适度管控比全面封锁更符合实际需求；另一方面强调个体责任与自由，反对强制隔离等过度限制人身自由的措施。从医学与公共卫生角度看，科学界对病毒传播规律长期存在不同判断。特朗普政府依据部分医学观点，认为自然免疫与群体免疫具有可行性，因此主张通过分级防控保护高风险人群，而非全面封锁。当然，这一策略也面临医疗资源挤兑与长期健康风险的争议。最后，从社会学角度看，美国社会高度多元，不同群体对风险的认知与应对方式差异显著。政策需要兼顾不同阶层利益，避免社会进一步撕裂。部分民众担忧长期封控会导致心理健康恶化、教育中断以及社会孤立，因此支持有限度开放。我的结论是：川普政府的“带疫运行”政策，是基于特定政治理念、经济现实与科学认知的综合决策。其本质，是美国在极端危机下进行的一场特殊治理实验。其核心逻辑在于：通过分权决策、科技赋能与经济干预，在死亡风险可控的前提下，最大程度保障公民的生存权与发展权。尽管这一政策存在争议，但相关数据表明，它在一定程度上守住了民众生计底线，也为全球公共卫生治理提供了不同于封控模式的另一种参考路径。泉史公作《水城旧事鉴》昔欧罗巴有巨邑曰威尼斯，舟楫如云，商贾辐辏。元末之时，黑死病横行欧陆，十室九空。水城执政者夙夜忧叹，遂于港口设木栅，勒令远来舟船停泊外岛，凡四十日无恙者，方准入城。此“四十日之限”（Quarantino），实为后世封城隔离制度之滥觞。此法一行，疫气稍遏，商旅渐安，列邦争相效仿，诚为护佑生民之良策。然时移世易，今非昔比。观今世诸邦，产业全球化、供应链交错，万民依赖百工协作与商路流通而存续。若遇大疫仍拘泥古法，严锁城垣、断绝往来，其弊有三：一曰：百业凋敝，民失所依今之世界，产业链横跨万里。封锁一久，则工厂停摆、商贸断裂、百姓失业。当是时也，疫病未必先杀人，饥饿与贫困却可能更快摧毁社会。二曰：财用枯竭，邦本动摇现代国家财政高度依赖经济循环。长期封禁，必致税收锐减、债务高筑。财力一旦枯竭，则赈济无以为继，民怨沸腾，社会动荡之速，或甚于疫病蔓延。三曰：人心溃散，道义难继现代社会信息流通迅疾，人们长期困守，亲友隔绝，前途无望，则焦虑与绝望蔓延。此种精神创伤，非药石可医，实乃国家长远之隐忧。泉史公曰：威尼斯之制，诚为应急之智；然若不察时代变迁，机械套用于今日，恐成抱薪救火之举。医者医病，圣手医国。防疫之道，在于权衡：既要防疫气流毒，更须保民生、护元气。若因噎废食，使百业倾颓、万家冻馁，则纵暂避疫锋，终陷社会崩坏之渊。后世执政者，当审时度势，兼顾民生与秩序，方为经国之大道。
Living With the Virus
Author: Guo QuanEditor: Feng RengProofreader: Feng Reng
Translator:Shen Meihua
President Trump stated:
“As for those in and out of the left-wing media who thought they could create a ‘COVID 2.0’ (Hantavirus) scenario on the eve of the midterm elections—presumably to reignite the mail-in voting scam—it won’t work this time. Give it up!”
President Trump also ordered the reinstatement of 8,000 “warriors of conscience” to the military, aiming to rectify the unfair treatment resulting from the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate and to clear the names of “conscientious soldiers” who were forcibly discharged from the military for refusing to be vaccinated.
Hudson Institute:
“Good morning, Professor Guo! Hantavirus is on the rise! Certain countries are once again imposing lockdowns and city-wide restrictions, but President Trump intends to keep American society ‘operating with the virus.’ Before pursuing your Ph.D. and postdoctoral research, you earned a Master’s degree in Applied Sociology (Law) from the Department of Sociology at Nanjing University, where your advisors—Zhang Yan, Song Linfei, Zhou Xiaohong, and Tong Xing—were all experts in social public policy. I’d like to hear your sociological analysis of President Trump’s ‘living with the virus’ public policy.”
RAND Corporation:
“Wonderful！One holds a Ph.D. in Public Policy from Harvard University, and the other a Ph.D. in Sociology and Philosophy from Nanjing University. Is ‘living with the virus’ similar to ‘living with cancer’? I’m really looking forward to your discussion!”
I replied:
Lockdown-based epidemic control actually originated from the quarantine system first established by the Republic of Venice in the 14th century. Although it played a highly positive role at the time, seven centuries later, in today’s deeply globalized world, the social harm caused by economic recession, unemployment, and hunger may at times exceed the harm caused by the epidemic itself, and may even trigger rapid social collapse more easily.
As for pandemic controls in certain countries, today we shall “avoid discussing state affairs” and focus only on America’s model of “living with the virus.”
The so-called “living with the virus” approach may be defined as an adaptive crisis-management policy whose core objective is to balance epidemic prevention with the continued functioning of the economy and society.
Through phased regulation, dynamic allocation of resources, and targeted intervention, this policy seeks to preserve public health while maintaining essential social operations to the greatest extent possible.
I. Characteristics and Positive Significance of the Policy
1. Flexible Prevention Framework
The United States adopted a “three-phase reopening model” (monitoring phase, recovery phase, stabilization phase), allowing each state to adjust restrictions flexibly according to local epidemic conditions.
For example, states with milder outbreaks reopened earlier, while hard-hit regions strengthened medical resource allocation, reflecting the scientific nature of the tiered response mechanism.
2. Application of Technological Innovation
The United States promoted “drive-through testing” sites, greatly improving screening efficiency. Daily testing capacity reached the million-level while reducing the risk of cross-infection.
In addition, the country rapidly expanded ICU capacity through the private healthcare system and mobilized the National Guard to construct temporary field hospitals, thereby enhancing healthcare system resilience.
3. Economic Stabilization Measures
Through the CARES Act, the United States injected $2.2 trillion into the economy, including:
Direct cash payments to residents ($1,200 per adult and $500 per child)
$377 billion in payroll protection loans for small and medium-sized enterprises
Expanded unemployment insurance coverage for gig economy workers
These measures effectively cushioned the impact of mass unemployment. In the second quarter of 2020, disposable household income in the United States actually increased by 6.2% despite the crisis.
II. Theoretical Foundations of the Policy
Political scientists have categorized this model as a practical form of “Adaptive Governance.”
1. Institutional Flexibility
The federal and state governments cooperated through decentralized coordination, such as linking federal strategic reserves with state-level emergency operations centers.
2. Dynamic Learning
Prevention strategies were continuously adjusted according to real-time epidemic data. After early testing failures, the United States rapidly expanded testing authorization to commercial institutions.
3. Social Participation
Public-private cooperation mechanisms—including accelerated vaccine development by pharmaceutical companies and testing support from retail enterprises—helped mobilize market forces.
III. Achievements and Challenges
The “living with the virus” approach helped prevent the total collapse of the healthcare system in the short term. In the third quarter of 2020, U.S. GDP rebounded by 33.1% on a quarterly basis.
However, the policy was also constrained by the inherent contradictions of federalism. Differences in resource allocation efficiency among states led to uneven policy outcomes.
As Hantavirus remains at the threshold of possible wider spread, the U.S. government must continue improving testing, tracing technologies, and interstate coordination mechanisms in order to strengthen the long-term adaptability of the “living with the virus” model.
An assessment by Johns Hopkins University noted that the key to such policies lies in building dynamic response capacity amid uncertainty. Its experience provides an important reference for global public health governance.
RAND stated:
“I have visited the U.S.-China Research Center jointly established by Nanjing University and Johns Hopkins University. I will visit again this year and will certainly pay my respects to Professor Guo.”
I replied:
“Alright. ‘The idle guest of Jinling roams carefree, smiling at the distant moonlit waters of Qinhuai; worldly fame is not worth attachment, drunken in spring winds beside the Hundred-Flower Bridge.’ In Nanjing dialect, someone like me is called a wushilao—a man without worldly burdens. Come anytime, and I will accompany you through Qinhuai.”
Hudson then said:
“Wonderful. Finally, I would like Professor Guo to objectively analyze the background and impact of President Trump’s ‘living with the virus’ policy from political, economic, and cultural perspectives.”
I answered:
From a political perspective, the Trump administration emphasized economic stability and individual liberty, arguing that strict lockdowns would weaken governmental authority and public confidence.
Its policy logic was rooted in the philosophy of “small government,” advocating reduced administrative intervention and preserving autonomous market operation. This reflected the American conservative tradition’s wariness toward government power and its emphasis on individual choice.
From an economic perspective, the “living with the virus” strategy sought to prevent mass unemployment and business collapse, thereby avoiding deep economic recession. The American economy depends heavily on consumption and the service sector, making prolonged shutdowns potentially catastrophic.
Through fiscal stimulus and monetary policy, the government attempted to preserve economic resilience during the public health crisis.
From a philosophical perspective, the policy embodied a combination of pragmatism and libertarianism. On one hand, it emphasized practical outcomes, arguing that moderate controls were more realistic than total lockdowns. On the other hand, it stressed individual responsibility and freedom, opposing excessive restrictions such as compulsory isolation.
From a medical and public health perspective, scientific opinion regarding viral transmission has long differed. Based on certain medical viewpoints, the Trump administration considered natural immunity and herd immunity to be viable strategies, advocating targeted protection for high-risk populations rather than comprehensive lockdowns.
Naturally, this strategy also faced controversy over healthcare system overload and long-term health risks.
Finally, from a sociological perspective, American society is highly diverse, and different groups perceive and respond to risk in very different ways. Policymaking therefore needed to balance the interests of multiple social strata and avoid further polarization.
Some citizens feared that prolonged lockdowns would worsen mental health, disrupt education, and deepen social isolation, and therefore supported limited reopening.
My conclusion is this:
The Trump administration’s “living with the virus” policy represented a comprehensive decision shaped by specific political philosophy, economic realities, and scientific understanding.
In essence, it was a unique governance experiment undertaken by the United States during an extreme crisis. Its core logic lay in maximizing citizens’ rights to survival and development—under conditions where mortality risks remained controllable—through decentralized decision-making, technological empowerment, and economic intervention.
Although controversial, available data suggest that the policy preserved basic livelihoods for many citizens and offered the world an alternative governance pathway distinct from strict lockdown models.
Master Quan’s “Reflections on the Old Water City”
In Europe there once stood a great city called Venice, where ships filled the waterways and merchants gathered in abundance.
At the end of the Yuan dynasty, the Black Death swept across Europe, leaving villages deserted and populations devastated.
The rulers of the water city worried day and night, and thus erected barriers at the ports, ordering arriving ships to remain upon offshore islands. Only after forty days without signs of illness were they permitted to enter the city.
This “forty-day period” (Quarantino) became the origin of later quarantine and lockdown systems.
Once this policy was implemented, the spread of the epidemic was somewhat curbed, and trade and travel gradually returned to normal. Other nations vied to follow suit, and it truly proved to be an effective strategy for protecting the people.
However, times have changed, and the present is not what it once was.
Observing the nations of today, with the globalization of industries and the intertwining of supply chains, the survival of all people depends on the collaboration of various trades and the flow of commerce. If, in the face of a major epidemic, we remain bound by ancient methods—strictly sealing city gates and severing all communication—there are three major drawbacks:
First: All industries decline, and the people lose their means of support
In today’s world, supply chains span thousands of miles. If lockdowns persist, factories will shut down, trade will grind to a halt, and people will lose their jobs.
At such a time, the pandemic itself may not be the first to claim lives; hunger and poverty may instead destroy society even more swiftly.
Second: Exhaustion of resources, the foundation of the state shaken
Modern national finances rely heavily on economic circulation. Prolonged lockdowns will inevitably lead to a sharp drop in tax revenue and mounting debt.
Once financial resources are exhausted, relief efforts cannot be sustained, public discontent will boil over, and social unrest may spread even faster than the pandemic itself.
Third: The collapse of public morale, the erosion of moral values
In modern society, information flows rapidly. When people are confined for extended periods, cut off from loved ones, and face a bleak future, anxiety and despair spread.
Such psychological trauma cannot be cured by medicine alone; it is a long-term hidden concern for the nation.
Master Quan Shi said:
The measures of Venice were indeed a wise response to an emergency; however, if we fail to recognize the changes of the times and mechanically apply them to the present day, we risk committing the folly of trying to extinguish a fire with a bundle of firewood.
A physician treats illness; a sage heals the nation.
The path to epidemic prevention lies in balance: while we must guard against the spread of the virus, we must also safeguard the people’s livelihoods and preserve their vitality.
If we abandon the meal because of a choking hazard, causing all industries to collapse and countless households to suffer from cold and hunger, then even if we temporarily evade the epidemic’s onslaught, we will ultimately plunge into the abyss of social collapse.
Future rulers must assess the times and circumstances, balancing the welfare of the people with social order—this is the true path to governing the nation.
