IN ONE SENSE it marks the return of politics as usual; in another it is a sign of looming crisis. On October 13th Britain’s opposition Labour Party split sharply from the government, calling for a 「circuit-breaker」, a two- or three-week national lockdown to cut the spread of covid-19. As Europe and America struggle with a surge in cases, other governments may also come under pressure to do the same. It would be a mistake. The benefits of a national lockdown no longer justify the costs. At this stage of the pandemic governments should focus on local measures.
從某種意義上來講，這標誌著政治返回正軌；換個角度，則是危機瀕臨的信號。10月13日，英國反對黨工黨徹底與政府切割，呼籲推出「熔斷」政策，即實施為期兩至三周的全國性封鎖，以遏制新冠疫情的蔓延。在美國和歐洲為激增的確診病例正焦頭爛額之際，一些國家的政府也可能迫於壓力採取這樣的措施。這可能是一個錯誤的政策，會得不償失。疫情發展到這個階段，政府應將重心放在因地施策上。
The impulse to do something is understandable. New reported daily cases in Britain are at a record seven-day average of over 15,000 and are doubling every two weeks. Local leaders are angered by confusing orders from Whitehall. No wonder Labour has seized on Boris Johnson’s faltering performance.
要有一翻作為的衝動是可以理解的。英國每日新報告的確診病例數的7天平均值突破15000例，每兩周翻一番。英國政府發出的指令混亂不堪，地方政府為此感到憤憤不平。英國首相詹森的治國表現起伏不定，也難怪工黨揪著這點不放。
Backers of a short, sharp lockdown say it would save lives—perhaps 7,000 or so according to modelling for scientists advising the government. By cutting the virus’s spread, the National Health Service would be spared the sort of overload that caused so many deaths in Italy earlier in the year. Once the epidemic had been reset at a lower level, the tracing system might be able to deal more promptly with the daily burden of new cases, helping to lower the rate of infections.
支持短期間嚴格封鎖政策的人士表示，這能挽救約7000人的生命——這是根據英國政府科學家顧問所構建的模型得出的數據。通過減少新冠病毒的傳播，英國國家醫療服務體系將不必超負荷狀態——今年早些時候，義大利因此出現死亡人數激增的情況。一旦將疫情控制在較低水平，疫情追蹤或許能夠更及時處理每日新增病例的負擔，有助於降低病毒感染率。
A national lockdown makes sense only if a country is completely overwhelmed and underprepared—as at the start of the pandemic. Neither is true of Britain today. Although the recorded number of cases in Britain is over three times its peak in April, the comparison is misleading. For all the system’s faults, the daily volume of tests is over 20 times what it was then. Mild cases that would have gone unreported six months ago are now picked up (see chart). This helps explain why deaths, at around 450 last week, are still just 8% of what they were in April. The fatality rate will increase, because it lags behind cases by three to four weeks. But better treatments are also saving lives. In choosing to act, deaths are more important than cases.
全國性封鎖政策只有在國家不堪重負，準備不足時才會顯得有意義——一如新冠疫情剛開始時的那樣。如今的英國並非如此，儘管英國記錄的病例數量是四月份峰值的三倍多，這種比較具有誤導性。由於整個醫療出現問題，現在每天的檢測數量是當時的20多倍。六個月前未經報告的輕微病例現在進行了統計(見圖)。這能解釋上周死亡人數約450人，卻仍只有4月份的8%。由於從病例演變成死亡有約三至四周的過渡期，死亡率將會增長。但是，更好的治療莫過於挽救生命，相較於病例本身，挽救死亡則顯得更為重要。
It is not clear that a national circuit-breaker would have lasting benefits. The disease would start to accelerate again as soon as it was lifted. As the year draws on, people will spend more time indoors, where the virus spreads easily. The burden of proof is on the proponents of a circuit-breaker to show that the well-documented shortcomings of Britain’s tracing system could be fixed by a three-week reorganisation or by a temporarily lower caseload. Compliance is also in doubt. Although polls support tough action, Britons seem to make an exception for themselves. A recent paper finds that just 18% of those who should have isolated themselves in the summer stuck strictly to the rules. If people flout them, the circuit-breaker may be kept for longer than three weeks, lowering compliance still further.
全國性封鎖政策能持續帶來多少好處？目前還尚未可知。一旦解除封鎖，病例就會再次加速增長。隨著時間的推移，人們會花更多的時間待在室內，卻更易於病毒傳播。支持全國封鎖政策的人士有責任證明英國病毒追蹤系統的缺陷能通過三周的重構或臨時減少確診病例負擔來得到解決。民眾能否遵從這個政策也令人懷疑。雖然有民意調查支持採取強硬行動，英國人似乎在為自己破例。最近的一篇論文發現，在夏天那些本應在家進行隔離的人中，僅有18%的人嚴格遵守政策。如果人們無視這些政策，封鎖可能持續三周多，人們遵守封鎖政策的意願會進一步下降。
It would also be economically ruinous. In April, at the height of the first lockdown, Britain’s output was one-quarter lower than it had been in February. The IMF argues that lockdowns may be worth it if they create an economy that can fully reopen for business. But nobody is suggesting that a short circuit-breaker could suppress the virus to that extent. And the trade-off would be even less worthwhile if you factor in the toll on mental health, the delay in treating other illnesses and the effects on long-term employment and education.
全國性封鎖會毀滅經濟。在4月份封鎖最為嚴厲的時候，英國的產出比2月份下降了四分之一。國際貨幣基金組織認為，如果封鎖政策能創造一個能讓企業全面復工的經濟體，那麼這麼做或許是有價值的。可是，沒有人認為短期的封鎖政策可以在某種程度上抑制病毒。若你把心理健康的損害、治療其他疾病的延誤以及長期對就業和教育的影響考慮在內，這種權衡就更不值得了。
To get covid-19 under control Britain should focus on sustainable local measures: identifying vulnerable groups, finding ways to protect them, identifying trade-offs, instigating local testing and recruiting leaders to generate local support. A circuit-breaker sounds like a scientific solution to a runaway problem. The reality would be a costly mess.
為了控制新冠疫情，英國應將重點放在可持續的地方措施上：找出弱勢群體，找到保護他們的方法，確定折衷方案，鼓勵本地新冠檢測，招募地方領導人讓本地提供支持。封鎖政策聽起來像是解決疫情失控的科學方法，而現實卻是一團糟，代價不小。
編譯：郭香若
編輯：翻吧君
來源：經濟學人（2020.10.17）
翻吧·與你一起學翻譯
微信號：translationtips