Flu control methods reflect different values

• Source: Global Times
• [08:14 October 28 2009]
• Comments

Nevertheless, some countries have been more unconcerned toward the potential pandemic. These governments have barely taken any large-scale measures, and an indifferent public also believes that excessive publicity and responses may lead to panic and the waste of resources.

The US, as a typical representative of such an attitude, has been blamed for its lack of enough action in flu prevention, which has led to a sharp rise in the number of infected people. The US has also "exported" lots of virus carriers, due to its loose management at borders.

The debate over flu prevention seemed to be settled when the US declared a national emergency: "Overreaction" had the upper hand.

But is this really the truth? From my perspective, when preventing and controlling the flu, countries ought to stress more coordination, cooperation and information-sharing, and avoid falling into arguments over methods of flu control.

In fact, the US government's lack of adequate prevention nand the Chinese government's "overreaction" were different decisions made by the two governments based on the different circumstances they were facing, which reflected the differences in their management mechanisms.

Americans, believing "that government is best which governs least," emphasize the protection of individual rights and interests. Consequently, people often rely more on themselves when combating epidemics. During various disasters, the US has nevertheless shown itself capable of coping time and time again.

In contrast, in China, a powerful government controls most resources, and thus needs to undertake more responsibilities. The undeveloped healthcare system further reinforces people's reliance on the government. The pressure to do something thus is far more than in the US.

Therefore, faced with wasting money or a possible loss of life, a powerful government tends to choose "overreaction" rather than "inadequate preparation."

This is a natural choice after evaluating both alternatives, and a necessary selection of stressing collective interests in China's social management.

In this argument over flu prevention methods, what we really need to notice is that the Chinese government was criticized for untimely prevention during SARS, but blamed for overreaction in the current flu prevention.

These are not comments based on the facts anymore, but bearing some hidden agendas.

In recent years, along with the success of the path to modernization with "Chinese characteristics," disputes over
China's economic growth, democracy and social management have become more and more fierce.

China faces blame from some Western commentators for any route it takes. Sometimes, the disputes are even raised to the ideological level, which reflects the anxiety of some Western countries due to the setbacks in promoting their own systems and values.

Human beings have faced numerous disasters in history. It is hard to say that either "inadequate prevention" or "overreaction" is right, since both are based on different cultural traditions and values.

The A (H1N1) flu epidemic may well worsen this fall and winter. In the wave of globalization, each country and each individual should foster a sense of cooperation in combating the flu, rather than getting involved in disputes over methods of prevention. This goes not only for the flu, but also for other issues that affect us all.

The author is a Beijingbased Journalist