病毒迷思:为什么我们冒着从大流行中吸取错误教训的风险

K. Niemietz
{"title":"病毒迷思:为什么我们冒着从大流行中吸取错误教训的风险","authors":"K. Niemietz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3850626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The coronavirus pandemic has given rise to the phenomenon of \"Coronfirmation Bias\", a tendency to interpret the pandemic as a vindication of one’s worldview. Three ideas have become part of the conventional wisdom: that the UK was caught unprepared because a decade of austerity had hollowed out the public sector, that COVID-19 is a crisis of \"globalisation gone too far\", and that the NHS has been the star performer of the pandemic. All three of these conventional wisdoms can be challenged. We can see this by comparing the countries that coped best with the pandemic to those that coped worst. Among the former are the four \"Asian Tigers\": Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. They had exceptionally low levels of deaths, minimised the economic fallout, and preserved personal freedoms and a semblance of normal life. The UK, Spain, and Italy are among those that struggled most. All four had exceptionally high death rates, severe recessions, and stringent lockdown measures. Three things stand out from comparing them: better performers have lower levels of public spending and highly globalised economies and do not have national health services. The claim of this paper is not that best performers did well because they have low public spending levels or because they have non-NHS-type healthcare systems, but that an effective pandemic response is compatible with a variety of public spending levels, a variety of trade regimes, and a variety of healthcare systems.","PeriodicalId":439996,"journal":{"name":"Health & the Economy eJournal","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Viral Myths: Why We Risk Learning the Wrong Lessons from the Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"K. Niemietz\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3850626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The coronavirus pandemic has given rise to the phenomenon of \\\"Coronfirmation Bias\\\", a tendency to interpret the pandemic as a vindication of one’s worldview. Three ideas have become part of the conventional wisdom: that the UK was caught unprepared because a decade of austerity had hollowed out the public sector, that COVID-19 is a crisis of \\\"globalisation gone too far\\\", and that the NHS has been the star performer of the pandemic. All three of these conventional wisdoms can be challenged. We can see this by comparing the countries that coped best with the pandemic to those that coped worst. Among the former are the four \\\"Asian Tigers\\\": Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. They had exceptionally low levels of deaths, minimised the economic fallout, and preserved personal freedoms and a semblance of normal life. The UK, Spain, and Italy are among those that struggled most. All four had exceptionally high death rates, severe recessions, and stringent lockdown measures. Three things stand out from comparing them: better performers have lower levels of public spending and highly globalised economies and do not have national health services. The claim of this paper is not that best performers did well because they have low public spending levels or because they have non-NHS-type healthcare systems, but that an effective pandemic response is compatible with a variety of public spending levels, a variety of trade regimes, and a variety of healthcare systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":439996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health & the Economy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health & the Economy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3850626\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health & the Economy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3850626","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

冠状病毒大流行引发了“冠状病毒偏见”现象,即倾向于将疫情解释为对自己世界观的证明。有三种观点已经成为传统观点的一部分:英国没有做好准备,因为十年的紧缩使公共部门空心化;2019冠状病毒病是一场“全球化走得太远”的危机;NHS在这场大流行中表现出色。这三种传统智慧都可能受到挑战。我们可以通过比较应对疫情最好的国家和应对最糟糕的国家来看到这一点。前者包括“亚洲四小龙”:台湾、韩国、香港和新加坡。他们的死亡率极低,将经济影响降到最低,并保留了个人自由和表面上的正常生活。英国、西班牙和意大利的处境最为艰难。这四个国家都有极高的死亡率、严重的经济衰退和严格的封锁措施。比较这些国家,有三点很突出:表现较好的国家的公共支出水平较低,经济高度全球化,而且没有全国性的医疗服务。本文的主张并不是说,表现最好的国家之所以做得好,是因为它们的公共支出水平低,或者是因为它们拥有非nhs类型的医疗体系,而是说,有效的大流行应对措施与各种公共支出水平、各种贸易体制和各种医疗体系是兼容的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Viral Myths: Why We Risk Learning the Wrong Lessons from the Pandemic
The coronavirus pandemic has given rise to the phenomenon of "Coronfirmation Bias", a tendency to interpret the pandemic as a vindication of one’s worldview. Three ideas have become part of the conventional wisdom: that the UK was caught unprepared because a decade of austerity had hollowed out the public sector, that COVID-19 is a crisis of "globalisation gone too far", and that the NHS has been the star performer of the pandemic. All three of these conventional wisdoms can be challenged. We can see this by comparing the countries that coped best with the pandemic to those that coped worst. Among the former are the four "Asian Tigers": Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. They had exceptionally low levels of deaths, minimised the economic fallout, and preserved personal freedoms and a semblance of normal life. The UK, Spain, and Italy are among those that struggled most. All four had exceptionally high death rates, severe recessions, and stringent lockdown measures. Three things stand out from comparing them: better performers have lower levels of public spending and highly globalised economies and do not have national health services. The claim of this paper is not that best performers did well because they have low public spending levels or because they have non-NHS-type healthcare systems, but that an effective pandemic response is compatible with a variety of public spending levels, a variety of trade regimes, and a variety of healthcare systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信