作者：郭泉   

  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。

编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏

Operating Amidst an Epidemic

Author: Guo Quan

President Trump stated: “For the people inside and outside the left-wing media, they thought they would introduce a COVID 2.0 (Hantavirus) situation on the eve of the midterm elections, probably to reignite the mail-in voting scam. This time it won’t succeed. Give it up!”

President Trump also ordered the reinstatement of 8,000 “warriors of conscience” to military status, aiming to correct the unjust treatment caused by the vaccine mandates during the Biden administration, and to rehabilitate the “soldiers of conscience” who were forced out of the military for refusing to be vaccinated.

Hudson Institute:

“Good morning, Professor Guo! Hantavirus has arrived! Some specific countries are going to impose lockdowns and close cities again, but President Trump will let American society ‘operate amidst the epidemic.’ Before pursuing your PhD and post-doctoral studies, you were a Master of Applied Sociology (Law) in the Department of Sociology at Nanjing University. Your advisors Zhang Yan, Song Linfei, Zhou Xiaohong, and Tong Xing are all experts in social public policy. I would like to hear your sociological analysis of President Trump’s public policy of ‘operating amidst the epidemic.'”

RAND Corporation:

“Wonderful, one is a PhD in Public Policy from Harvard University, and the other is a PhD in Sociology and Philosophy from Nanjing University. Is ‘operating amidst an epidemic’ similar to ‘living with cancer’? Looking forward to your dialogue!”

I said:

Lockdown and epidemic control actually originated from the quarantine system first created by the Republic of Venice in the 14th century. Although it played a major positive role at that time, today, seven centuries later, society is highly globalized. The social harm caused by economic recession, unemployment, and hunger is sometimes even greater than the epidemic itself, and it is also easier to quickly trigger a social collapse.

Regarding the epidemic lockdowns in specific countries, today we shall “not discuss state affairs” and only discuss the American society’s “operating amidst the epidemic.”

The so-called “operating amidst the epidemic” can be defined as an adaptive crisis management policy. Its core lies in balancing epidemic prevention and control with the continuous functioning of the economy and society.

Through phased regulation, dynamic resource allocation, and precise intervention, this policy maximizes the maintenance of basic social functions while ensuring public health and safety.

I. Policy Characteristics and Positive Significance

1. Flexible Control Framework

The United States adopted a “three-stage reopening model” (monitoring phase, recovery phase, stabilization phase), allowing each state to flexibly adjust control intensity based on local epidemic data.

For example, states with milder epidemics were given priority to resume work, while hard-hit areas strengthened the allocation of medical resources, reflecting the scientific nature of the layered response mechanism.

2. Application of Technological Innovation

The United States promoted “drive-through testing stations,” greatly improving screening efficiency, reaching a daily testing volume of millions, while reducing the risk of cross-infection.

In addition, it relied on the private medical system to quickly expand ICU beds, and called upon the National Guard to build mobile cabin hospitals to enhance the resilience of the medical system.

3. Economic Bottom-Line Protection

The United States injected $2.2 trillion through the CARES Act, including:

Direct cash subsidies to residents ($1,200 per adult, $500 per child)

$377 billion in Paycheck Protection Program loans for small and medium-sized enterprises

Expanding unemployment insurance to gig economy workers

These measures effectively cushioned the impact of the unemployment wave. In the second quarter of 2020, the disposable income of U.S. residents even grew counter-trend by 6.2%.

II. Theoretical Basis of the Policy

This model is summarized by the political science community as the practice of “Adaptive Governance”:

1. Institutional Flexibility

The federal and state governments decentralized and collaborated; for example, federal reserve supplies were linked with state-level emergency operation centers.

2. Dynamic Learning

Prevention and control strategies were continuously adjusted based on real-time epidemic data. After early testing errors, the United States quickly opened up testing authority to commercial institutions.

3. Social Participation

Through public-private partnership mechanisms, such as pharmaceutical companies accelerating vaccine research and development, and retail enterprises providing testing venues, market forces were activated.

III. Achievements and Challenges

“Operating amidst the epidemic” prevented a total collapse of the medical system in the short term. In the third quarter of 2020, U.S. GDP rebounded by 33.1% quarter-on-quarter.

However, this policy was also constrained by the inherent contradictions of the federal system. The efficiency of resource allocation varied greatly among states, leading to an uneven effect of “operating amidst the epidemic.”

The current Hantavirus is still on the eve of a large-scale epidemic. The U.S. government still needs to take precautions, continuously optimize testing and tracking technologies, and cross-state coordination mechanisms to improve the long-term adaptation capability of “operating amidst the epidemic.”

An assessment by Johns Hopkins University pointed out that the key to such policies lies in how to establish a dynamic response capability amidst uncertainty. Its experience provides an important reference for global public health event governance.

RAND said:

“I have been to the Center for Chinese and American Studies jointly established by your Nanjing University and Johns Hopkins University. I will go there again this year, and I will definitely visit Professor Guo then.”

I said:

“Great. ‘The idle guest of Jinling enjoys freedom and leisure, watching the Huai River water and the moon from afar with a smile; why should one be bound by worldly fame, drunk in the spring breeze, lying on the Hundred Flowers Bridge.’ In the Nanjing dialect, a person like me is called a ‘Wushi-lao’ (a person with nothing to do). Come anytime, and I will accompany you to stroll along the Qinhuai River anytime.”

Hudson said:

“Wonderful. Lastly, I would also like to ask Professor Guo to objectively analyze the background and impact of President Trump’s ‘operating amidst the epidemic’ policy from multiple dimensions such as politics, economy, and culture.”

I said:

First, looking from a political perspective, the Trump administration emphasized economic stability and individual freedom, believing that strict lockdowns would weaken government authority and public confidence.

Its policy logic was built upon the philosophy of “small government,” advocating for the reduction of administrative intervention and maintaining the independent operation of the market. This reflects the vigilance of American conservative political philosophy toward government power, as well as the emphasis on individual right to choose.

From an economic perspective, “operating amidst the epidemic” aimed to avoid mass unemployment and business closures, preventing the economy from falling into a deep recession. The U.S. economy is highly dependent on consumption and the service industry; long-term shutdowns could trigger a chain reaction.

The government attempted to maintain liquidity through fiscal stimulus and monetary policy, trying to sustain economic resilience during a public health crisis.

From a philosophical perspective, this policy embodied a combination of pragmatism and libertarianism. On one hand, it emphasized realistic effects, believing that moderate control was more in line with practical needs than a total lockdown; on the other hand, it emphasized individual responsibility and freedom, opposing excessive restrictions on personal freedom such as mandatory isolation.

From a medical and public health perspective, the scientific community has long held different judgments on the patterns of virus transmission. The Trump administration, based on certain medical viewpoints, believed that natural immunity and herd immunity were feasible, and therefore advocated protecting high-risk populations through tiered prevention and control, rather than a comprehensive lockdown.

Of course, this strategy also faced controversies regarding the strain on medical resources and long-term health risks.

Finally, from a sociological perspective, American society is highly diverse, and different groups have significantly different perceptions of and responses to risks. Policies need to balance the interests of different social strata to avoid further tearing the society apart.

Some citizens worried that long-term lockdowns would lead to worsening mental health, educational disruption, and social isolation, and therefore supported limited reopening.

My conclusion is:

The Trump administration’s policy of “operating amidst the epidemic” was a comprehensive decision based on specific political concepts, economic realities, and scientific cognitions.

Its essence was a special governance experiment conducted by the United States under an extreme crisis. Its core logic lay in: maximizing the protection of citizens’ rights to survival and development under the premise of controllable death risks, through decentralized decision-making, technological empowerment, and economic intervention.

Although this policy remains controversial, relevant data indicate that it guarded the baseline of public livelihood to a certain extent, and also provided another reference path for global public health governance that is different from the lockdown model.

Quan Shicong’s Composition: The Mirror of Past Events in the Water City

In ancient times, there was a great city in Europe called Venice, where boats gathered like clouds and merchants converged.

During the late Yuan Dynasty, the Black Death raged across the European continent, leaving ten houses out of ten empty.

The rulers of the Water City sighed and worried night and day. Consequently, they set up wooden barricades at the port and ordered ships arriving from afar to anchor at outer islands; only those who remained without illness for forty days were permitted to enter the city.

This “forty-day limit” (Quarantino) was truly the origin of the lockdown and isolation systems of later generations.

Once this law was implemented, the pestilence was slightly contained, merchants and travelers gradually found peace, and various nations rushed to emulate it. It was truly an excellent strategy to protect and nurture the people.

However, times have changed, and the present is nothing like the past.

Observing the nations of the world today, industries are globalized and supply chains are intertwined. Millions of people rely on the cooperation of various trades and the circulation of trade routes to survive. If one encounters a great epidemic yet still rigidly adheres to ancient methods, strictly locking city walls and severing interactions, there are three harms:

First: All industries wither, and the people have nothing to rely on

In today’s world, supply chains span tens of thousands of miles. Once a lockdown is prolonged, factories halt, commerce fractures, and ordinary people lose their jobs.

At such a time, the epidemic may not kill people first, but hunger and poverty may destroy society faster.

Second: Financial resources drain dry, and the foundation of the state shakes

Modern state finances are highly dependent on the economic cycle. Long-term blockades will inevitably lead to sharp decreases in tax revenues and high accumulation of debts.

Once financial capacity is exhausted, relief efforts cannot be sustained, public grievances will boil over, and the speed of social turmoil may be faster than the spread of the disease.

Third: People’s hearts scatter, and moral resolve is hard to maintain

In modern society, information flows rapidly. When people are trapped and confined for a long time, separated from relatives and friends, and hopeless about the future, anxiety and despair will spread.

This kind of spiritual trauma cannot be cured by medicine, and it constitutes a long-term hidden worry for the nation.

Quan Shicong says:

The system of Venice was truly the wisdom of emergency response; however, if one does not examine the changes of the era and mechanically applies it to today, it is feared it will become an act of carrying firewood to put out a fire.

Physicians treat illnesses, but master hands heal the state.

The way of epidemic prevention lies in balance: one must both prevent the spread and poisoning of the epidemic air, and even more so, protect public livelihood and safeguard the vital energy.

If one gives up eating for fear of choking, causing all industries to collapse and tens of thousands of households to freeze and starve, then even if the edge of the epidemic is temporarily avoided, the nation will ultimately sink into the abyss of social collapse.

Rulers of future generations should judge the hour and size up the situation, balancing both livelihood and order, for that is the great way of governing a country.

Editor: Feng Reng Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Shen Meihua