rodrik171_FABRICE COFFRINIAFP via Getty Images_worldhealthorganizationwho

2019冠状病毒病能否重塑世界？

Apr 6, 2020 Dani Rodrik

剑桥—危机有两种：一种是我们未曾防备的，因为意想不到；另一种是我们应当设防的，因为事实上我们已经有所预料。无论美国总统唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)为了逃避对这场灾难承担责任而作何发言，2019冠状病毒病都属于后一类危机。尽管冠状病毒本身是新出现的，而且疫情的爆发时间无法预测，但专家们都已经认为，这种类型的疫情很可能发生。

非典、中东呼吸综合征、H1N1、埃博拉和其他疾病的爆发已经多次敲响警钟。15年前，世界卫生组织修订和升级了应对疫情的全球机制，以修正2003年非典爆发期间全球应对措施的明显缺陷。

2016年，世界银行启动了流行病应急融资基金，向面临跨境卫生危机的低收入国家提供援助。最引人注目的是，就在冠状病毒疫情在中国武汉爆发的几个月前，一份美国政府部门报告已警告了特朗普政府，指出类似100年前那场大流感规模的流感疫情或将再次出现，而那场大流感曾导致全球约5, 000万人死亡。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 29 Comments on this article

Nitish Kashyap Jul 25, 2021

As you elaborated in the next paragraph the mode of this confirmation bias, I am curious as how do you conclude that the end results would be continuing death of neoliberalism, stronger populist autocrats and struggling left without discussing the interplay of these dominant conflicting tendencies in aggregate around the globe.
In your article you have highlighted the interesting contrasts from Italy, USA which gives us much hope for informed, learned and progressive practiced adopted by governments. What makes you think this does not pave way for an alternate future than what you have imagined?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adriana Esmeralda Apr 29, 2020

Excelent article. For me, COVID has already started remaking the world. Everyone's way of thinking and acting has been changed. From the people in the top, such as presidents of different nations, as well as blue collar employees and even unemployed people.
I own a small company (https://www.realgramas.com.br/) and the COVID has hit hard to us.
Once things gets better, everyone will see things differently and give much more value on the small things.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Harrington Apr 12, 2020

No real surprise here. The natural behavioral response to a crisis of risk and uncertainty is a heightening of group selection and group competition for resources.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Maurice Simpson Apr 12, 2020

The description of how different countries reacted to this contagious viral disease is accurate. Clearly, some governments have been more proactive and their population acted more responsibly than others. But the death toll isn’t yet known, or even predictable, for the laggards. Same is true for the price of the stalled economies, in terms of unemployment and social misery.

In view of both the human and economic destruction caused by COVID-19, to assume that most democracies of the world will act as if nothing happened is a stretch. Au contraire, expect voters to start putting their own interests ahead of the empty promises that their elected officials made. Those who have been cheerleading vs. leading will be exposed and voted out - On the condition that they live in a “functional” democracy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jay Kay Apr 12, 2020

By its very nature Globalism and all its trappings add to the probability of the advent of pandemic, financial collapse, economic collapse, social collapse, and or world war.

As a loaded submachine gun adds to the probability of a negative outcome in any given round of Russian roulette.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dirk Faegre Apr 12, 2020

So we can all agree that the world blinded itself to a coming pandemic, right? The indicators were there and are unrefutable now. We should have known better.

Now we all know there's another crisis coming (actually it's here already) and it's a good bit more devastating than coronavirus: Global Warming. I am saddened that it's not in the news right alongside the pandemic. Are we to do the same "I didn't realize" again even with the warnings that are clear, obvious and proven? I think so. Facing big trouble is sooo much easier when we wait for it to smack us directly than to plan ahead and admit we're getting in trouble and need to take action. Stand by for Round-2.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Per Kurowski Apr 12, 2020

If the percentage of those under 40 years of age that die of all causes, is higher than the percentage rate of that same age group that die from coronavirus, 0.26% in Italy April 11, how can it make any sense to subject the younger to a quarantine and its economic consequences?
http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2020/03/financial-escape-valves-in-times-of.html
- Curtis Carpenter Apr 12, 2020
  
  Because one can spread the disease to others regardless of their age, and some (young and old both) will die as a consequence?
  - Per Kurowski Apr 12, 2020
    
    Of course... but isolate the older... or have the older self-isolate like in Sweden... but let the young out.
    - Curtis Carpenter Apr 12, 2020
      
      I suppose I should ask how many dead (regardless of age) you find to be an acceptable price for being "let out." But somehow, I suspect it would be fruitless.
      
      Wouldn't it be even better to concentrate people over 50 in large camps where they could be assigned productive work that would keep them out of the way and busy until they die?
      - Michael Harrington Apr 12, 2020
        
        You’re muddying the point here with false moral equivalencies and choices. It’s not a question of trade offs between deaths, it’s a question of how to minimize deaths under any scenario.
        
        Curtis Carpenter Apr 12, 2020
        
        No. I don't think I'm "muddying the point," nor did I suggest that it is a question of "trade offs between deaths."
        
        Would you like to explain your understanding of "false moral equivalences" -- in this context, or any other?
        
        Michael Harrington Apr 12, 2020
        
        "I should ask how many dead (regardless of age) you find to be an acceptable price for being "let out.""
        
        I think you do understand the moral underpinnings and condemnation behind this rhetorical question. No deaths are acceptable and zero deaths are impossible, so asking such questions is merely a rhetorical device that makes a false moral equivalence. It would be the same if I asked you how many deaths caused by an economic crisis are acceptable. Your allusion to "concentration camps" is the same thing. Neither is helpful to the debate.
        
        Curtis Carpenter Apr 12, 2020
        
        Not worth a response.
        
        Michael Harrington Apr 12, 2020
        
        True. We can only hope you will follow your own advice.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Whitelaw Apr 9, 2020

I appreciate the fact of social inertia as outlined in this article. However, past trends are not necessarily predictors of the future (as any investor knows). One could as well argue that crises can create spaces in which societies are open to shifts, whether these shifts intensify a trend as the author suggests, or reverse them.
For example, a large proportion of US households live "paycheque to paycheque". After this, how many will make a stronger commitment to having a rainy day fund on hand? I would be surprised if COVID-19 did not drive a major increase in savings rates, reversing a decades-long trend. Businesses and individuals may similarly reduce their financial leverage in order to make them less vulnerable to economic shocks.
At the end of the day, we have agency, and a time of crisis is a time of opportunity. If we want to see a shift or a reversal in recent trends, it is up to us to drive that shift. That's what Victor Orban has done to continue to concentrate power, and there is no reason to think other, better shifts are not equally possible.
- Michael Harrington Apr 12, 2020
  
  Yes, perhaps we will become much more human by becoming far more decentralized and autonomous. Humanity is a face to face thing.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Junior Garcia Apr 9, 2020

It is practically impossible to anticipate serious events, but it does not mean that we cannot consider the possibility of occurrence. In this sense, ecological economists have been working for decades with this possibility, the occurrence of events with great impact on society and the Economy. But unfortunately, we have not been heard by governments, society and academia. If the possibility of this type of event had been considered by decision makers, we might have been better prepared to face the situation. Will we learn something? Will we consider research beyond conventional orthodoxy and heterodoxy in economics, for example, research by ecological economists?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
N C Apr 8, 2020

I don't understand why a catalyst that intensifies already-existing trends cannot produce pathways to meaningful change at a systemic level. Nearly any systemic change happens as a result of interactions among trends, many of which are not new but had previously produced an equilibrium. Aren't there second or third order effects of the intensification of trends that would not appear but for the catalyst? And it seems to me those effects can upset the equilibrium or produce a new one.

A brief explanation of his underlying view of systems and change could help me understand why the intensification of trends is meaningless or irrelevant.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Philip Edge Apr 7, 2020

On general government characteristics this argument is undoubtedly true. This question becomes interesting where internal divides come to the fore and internal power struggles intensify. Take the case of Germany, in which the conservative party is struggling whether to move towards the right with Friedrich Merz or continue on a centrist course.
For the time being it seems as though the crisis is stabilising governing power but depending on crisis management this may change drastically. In other words, CoVid-19 will certainly not reverse countries' trajectories but it may still lead to dramatic shifts of power between fractions which are already mobilised.
This is where the left may also stand a chance: In the US Bernie Sanders has been advocating for health care for all. Less successfully, Corbyn's last campaign was focused around the NHS and mobilised a significant minority constituency.
As the focus of politics shift, so may power in countries where it is not too cemented.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
john zac Apr 6, 2020

Who know? Maybe Chinese immune systems are better conditioned to fight this type of virus. We won't really know anything till we see numbers we can trust. The truly sad part of all of this experience is the fact that people seem to lack in the agency to self organize and to self rule, thus destroying the concept of autonomy . Trump's errors have been well documented but couldn't Cuomo or the mayor have shut down the subways? It seems no one can make the right decisions thus trapping us in a world of self aggrandized despots that may take orders from capital, computers or even their flawed ego
- Michael Harrington Apr 12, 2020
  
  Agree. More autonomy and self reliance that also lays the foundation for social community.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Petey Bee Apr 6, 2020
  
  There is only one kind of government which would be willing to pay the perceived* economic price of responding in time (within 2-3 weeks of when all the signs of an out of control lethal infectious disease outbreak are unequivocally evident) ...
  
  That type of government is neither capitalist nor socialist nor authoritarian nor democracy. It is one which has experienced the situation before (or in a significantly less likely scenario, one that has the humility to learn from others.)
  
  Trump, Cuomo etc all knew that if they took action and crashed the stock market before there were enough dead bodies in the street, their political careers would end. Repub and Dem the same in this regard. In authoritarian countries where oligarchs play the part of the merciless market, the dynamic is the same.
  
  ---
  *in reality the economic cost of delaying response is far higher. But there are no known organizational structures that reward prevention.
  - Dirk Faegre Apr 12, 2020
    
    "They" did not crash the stock market. It had been hanging in the balance for some time. All it needed was a gentle push to go into a dive -- which it did.
    
    Recall that there was the sufferance of inverted yields on and off for some time. Paying negative interest had always been an indicator of trouble on the way. The market was clearly over heated and in need of a 'correction'; exceptionally low oil prices were causing worldwide trouble; auto companies had been facing problems for some time; China tariffs; Boeing was in a mess (737Max) with no end in sight and all the while investors were busy jumping for joy at their good fortunes while "sitting in their counting houses counting all their winnings" -- the market was due to fall off the cliff and the push came from a pandemic.
    I'd suggest that anyone who couldn't see it coming before the pandemic, wasn't paying attention and should have learned from the housing market bubble when it was equally obvious that a crash was coming -- housing prices will never, ever, "go up forever" and we know that if we're willing to get a grasp on reality. It took Fed Chairman Greenspan years to grasp that, which demonstrates how blind we can be when we're blinded by 'free income'.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  - john zac Apr 6, 2020
    
    They didn't crash the stock market...Capital crashed the market or the few that control the capital. And let's not forget Buffet sold transports last week and that's a leading indicator
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Godfree Roberts Apr 6, 2020

"China’s response was typically Chinese: suppression of information about the prevalence of the virus, a high degree of social control, and a massive mobilization of resources once the threat became clear."

Nonsense. China did not suppress information. The late Dr. Li was also late with his social media share: Wuhan Central Hospital had raised the alarm two days before his irresponsible leak precipitated panic.
- Dr Remi Okeke Apr 6, 2020
  
  So? Suppression of information by China here does not specifically mean suppression by the Chinese authorities. "The late Dr. Li was also late with his social media share". So, information was "suppressed" in China.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Pula Apr 6, 2020

RE:"Will COVID-19 Remake the World?" No, because someone else already did, for more than a second time.

I do love the badge at the bottom left of the cover page for the encompassed databases(all puns intended) (In the three referenced links below 10 lines).
"THE SCIENCE of WHERE". Yes, it most definitely is. However, it is a little bit more than just the science of where. Many at and from Harvard are more than quite cognizant of that second fact and subsequent others.

The real problem posed is that "the science of where", and all the little bits that are really much more than just "the science of where" are being misapplied and utilized, utilized, utilized (I could really repeat that word more than three times, but really, as we all know, 3 is the magic number, so I won't. ) incorrectly.

Here are 3 clues so that some one with some common sense can start functioning more correctly. That is still a real human administrative functional possibility, which is most different and distinct from a "not probability".

1.https://doc.arcgis.com/en/esri-demographics/data/business.htm
2.https://www.esri.com/en-us/store/overview
3.https://doc.arcgis.com/en/arcgis-online/administer/credits.htm
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Pula Apr 6, 2020

Isn't the real problem an over reaction to an unknown factor, with unknown results, due to a myriad of intermediate unknowns? Why make a volcano out of a mole hill? Efforts are progressing in unilateral and vertical directions, and probably subversive(which need to be discounted tremendously, mind you) directions. Situation is progressing to maintain order, sustain society sort of, and minimize negative disruption and disruptive forces (those two word groups definitely deserve an exclamatory, if not extraordinary discounting process-which I will not take the time today to even begin to explain).
In the mean time, because that is exactly where we are all at, at different points, or really nodes around the globe (kind of funny how that visually replicates the image of the Sars-COV-2 virus), most of us are getting to begin another day.

Also, in the mean time, there was a great article by Vanda Brown in my email. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/04/03/what-coronavirus-means-for-online-fraud-forced-sex-drug-smuggling-and-wildlife-trafficking/

There are some very interesting digressions from just what the coronavirus may mean for certain things and certain activities. There could be numerous positive implications affecting certain group behavioral responses especially because of the many negative effects of the tracked open market economies, due to undocumented, and unregulated black market activities. However, a big negative is the real-time unknown escalating predicting effects of drone activities for anybody attempting to access a walk, to perform an activity such as taking-a-walk as a pedestrian, and even in the process of accessing a personal vehicle from a garage, or parked site to any street anywhere in real time. Besides physical impact restrictions due to unidentified close and low flying objects, my word, what about the noise? Is a human being going to have their mouth+ nose covered, and their ears covered, while always wearing an ankle monitor(like chained to a block)? It will be totally, and absolutely unsafe for anyone to exit their confined, assigned, and designated personal space. Any self initiated concept of activity, such as movement must have been mistakenly forgotten by some other AI, was IT deliberate?

New confirmed path as a result of analysis of COVID-19 New World: Safety issues corrected by allowing no movement, at any time, or any place for any human being without permissions.

Who determines the new permissions?
First step in the new path: define- just what were the old permissions?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/g7kA21Uzh

2019冠状病毒病能否重塑世界？

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Beware Viral Enabling Acts

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

2019冠状病毒病能否重塑世界？

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification