(CNN)The US response to coronavirus has been consistently inconsistent. It''s also uniquely American.

(CNN)美國對冠狀病毒的反應一直不一致。這也是美國獨有的。


There are no national guidelines and no organized efforts to reopen the country beyond what measures states have taken. Public health officials say one thing while governors say another and President Donald Trump says something else entirely. We Americans are left to make up our own minds.

除了各州采取的措施外,沒有任何國家指導方針和有組織的努力來重新開放這個國家。公共衛生官員這么說,州長那么說,總統特朗普又完全給出不同的說法。我們美國人只能自己做決定。

It''s a symptom of American individualism, a national value that prizes personal freedoms, limited government and free will over all else.

這是美國個人主義的一個癥狀,是一種重視個人自由、有限政府和自由意志的國家價值觀。

"It''s always been the orientation of America on balance, compared to other countries, to put a priority on individual freedom and liberty," says Andrea Campbell, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the intersection of politics and public health.

麻省理工學院研究政治與公共衛生交叉點的政治學教授安德里亞·坎貝爾:“與其他國家相比,優先考慮個人自由和行動自由始終是美國的方向?!?。


It''s also sown deep political divides, distrust of centralized authority and even skepticism of science. And it''s informing the country''s unruly response to this pandemic.

這也播下了深刻的政治分歧,對中央集權的不信任,甚至對科學的懷疑。它造成了國家對這一流行病的難以控制的反應。

It''s reinforcing our partisan politics

它加強了我們的黨派政治


Now, even the pandemic is refracted through an ideological lens.

現在,即使是大流行也是通過意識形態的有色眼鏡展現出來的。

"Nothing binds groups together like facing a common enemy," says Ann Keller, a University of California-Berkeley associate professor who studies pandemic responses. "But we''re still treating members of the other party as the enemy rather than the virus."

加州大學伯克利分校研究大流行反應的副教授安凱勒說:“沒有什么比面對共同的敵人更能將群體團結在一起?!钡覀內匀话褜Ψ疆斪鲾橙?,而不是病毒?!?


His supporters are listening. So are those who detest him. Both hear what they want to.

他的支持者在傾聽。厭惡他的人也是如此。兩者都聽他們想聽的。

In an April CNN poll, a plurality of Americans (55%) said the federal government has done a poor job of preventing the spread of the coronavirus. But 80% of Republicans said the federal government has done a good job, and 85% of Democrats said the opposite.

美國有線電視新聞網(CNN)在4月份的一項民意調查中,眾多美國人(55%)表示,聯邦政府在防止冠狀病毒傳播方面做得很差。但80%的共和黨人認為聯邦政府做得很好,85%的民主黨人則相反。

Questions over reopening are fraught, too. More than half of Republicans in the same poll said they feel comfortable returning to their normal routines. Just a quarter of Democrats said the same.

關于重新開放的問題也令人擔憂。在同一項民意調查中,超過一半的共和黨人表示,他們覺得回到讓生活回歸正常沒問題。只有四分之一的民主黨人說了同樣的話。


In this unsettling time, even the wearing of a face mask has become a political statement.

在這個令人不安的時刻,連戴口罩都成了一種政治宣言。


But the coronavirus isn''t being viewed in the same way.

但是冠狀病毒并不是以同樣的方式被看待的。


It''s feeding anger toward state governments

它激起了對州政府的憤怒

Americans have resented centralized power since they dumped tea in Boston Harbor. Many still bristle when they think politicians are stepping on their freedoms -- even in a pandemic.

自從在波士頓港傾倒茶葉以來,美國人一直對中央集權感到不滿。當他們認為政客們正在踐踏他們的自由時,許多人仍然怒不可遏——即使是在一場流行病中。

Because there was never a nationwide stay-at-home order and the virus didn''t unfold evenly across the country, some states took decisive early action, which might''ve helped them avoid potentially devastating outcomes, says David Rosner, a sociomedical historian at Columbia University''s Mailman School of Public Health.

哥倫比亞大學郵遞員公共衛生學院的社會醫學歷史學家大衛·羅斯納說,由于從來沒有全國性的居家令,病毒也沒有在全國范圍內均勻傳播,一些州采取了果斷的早期行動,這可能有助于它們避免潛在的破壞性后果。

"The fact that different states at different moments had the ability to shape their own reaction was a good thing," Rosner says. "They didn''t depend on a federal government that had no coherent activity, actions or ability to shape a federal response to illness and disease."

“事實上,不同的州在不同的時刻有能力決定自己的應對,這是一件好事?!?羅斯納說:“他們并不依賴于一個活動、行動或能力沒有一致性,無法制定對病情和疾病的應對的聯邦政府?!?

Limited government is a conservative ideal, which may explain why Trump has handed the reins back to the states.

有限的政府是一個保守派的理想,這也許可以解釋為什么特朗普已經把控制權交還給了各州。

Without national guidelines and an organized response, states, counties and residents have been left to make their own choices, either in line with or against public health advice.

沒有國家指導方針和有組織的應對措施,州、縣和居民只能根據公共衛生建議作出自己的選擇,要么遵守,要么反對。



But Americans have obeyed and even welcomed government intervention in past crises, Rosner notes. In the 1930s President Franklin Delano Roosevelt grew the federal government''s powers permanently with New Deal programs that helped pull the country out of the Great Depression.

但是,羅斯納指出,美國人服從甚至歡迎政府干預過去的危機。20世紀30年代,富蘭克林·德拉諾·羅斯??偨y通過新政計劃永久地增強了聯邦政府的權力,幫助美國擺脫了大蕭條。

And again during World War II, Americans largely accepted sweeping changes for the communal good. Food and clothing were rationed and the economy became almost entirely industrial -- all in service of the war effort.

在第二次世界大戰期間,美國人基本上接受了為公共利益而進行的全面變革。食物和衣服都是定量供應的,經濟幾乎完全工業化——都是為戰爭服務的。

"We''re not seeing Americans pull together in the way we thought they would, like the sacrifices made in World War II," Keller says. "People saw it as part of being an American, and people found meaning in those individual sacrifices. I think it''s striking that we''re not seeing that."

“我們沒有看到美國人像我們想象的那樣團結在一起,就像二戰中做出的犧牲一樣?!?凱勒說:“當時人們把它看作是身為美國人的責任,人們從這些個人的犧牲中找到了意義。我認為我們現在沒能看到這一切是令人震驚的?!?

It''s reflecting our distrust of science

這反映了我們對科學的不信任

Rosner lived through the polio crisis in the 1950s. Lines outside physician''s offices would wrap around buildings and down several blocks, and within 25 years, polio was virtually eradicated from the US.

羅斯納在20世紀50年代經歷了脊髓灰質炎危機,醫生辦公室外的隊伍長到圍繞著建筑物和幾個街區,之后在25年內,脊髓灰質炎幾乎從美國根除。

The same may not be true if and when a coronavirus vaccine becomes available.

當冠狀病毒疫苗可用時,情況可能就不同了。

That''s because of a meager but vocal (and growing) mistrust in science, punctuated by the climate crisis and the anti-vaccine movement. People in these groups view scientific experts as dictatorial figures whose decisions strip people of their freedoms to choose what''s best for them.

這是因為人們對科學不信任的聲音雖然無理卻十分洪亮(聲勢還在上升),加上氣候危機和反疫苗運動。這些群體中的人們把科學專家視為獨裁的人物,他們的決定剝奪了人們選擇最適合自己的東西的自由。

The most divisive scientific topics of our time, climate change and vaccination, are well-studied. The novel coronavirus is not. It emerged at the tail end of 2019, and we are still learning more about its transmission.

我們這個時代最具分裂性的科學課題,氣候變化和疫苗接種,都得到了很好的研究。但新型冠狀病毒沒有。它是在2019年底出現的,我們仍在進一步了解它的傳播。

Guidance around it has changed rapidly, most notably where masks are concerned. That only fuels further mistrust in people already skeptical of science.

圍繞著它的指導已經迅速改變,尤其是在涉及口罩的方面。這只會進一步加深對那些已經對科學持懷疑態度的人的不信任。

It''s telling, too, that the CDC has taken a backseat in handling the crisis, Keller says. It started when the CDC''s initial coronavirus tests failed and delayed the response for weeks. And CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield has been much less visible than Dr. Anthony Fauci, who heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

凱勒說,這也說明疾病預防控制中心在處理危機方面已經退居次要地位。疾病控制中心最初的冠狀病毒測試失敗并將反應推遲了數周后才開始。疾病預防控制中心主任羅伯特·雷德菲爾德博士的知名度遠低于國家過敏和傳染病研究所所長安東尼·福奇博士。

It may have weakened the White House''s confidence in the health agency, Keller says.

凱勒說,這可能削弱了白宮對衛生局的信心。

"For some reason, the CDC has not regained its footing and has not been given leave to create a national-level response," she says. "The organization that has always led pandemic responses nationally looks to be incredibly hobbled."

“由于某些原因,疾病預防控制中心還沒有重新站穩腳跟,也沒有獲得在國家層面上做出反應的許可?!?她說:“一直在全國范圍內領導大流行應對工作的組織現在看起來步履蹣跚,令人難以置信?!?

It''s fortifying our belief that America knows best

它強化了我們的信念 ,即美國最懂

We defend our freedoms fiercely. We bark in the face of fear, and we don''t like being told what to do. We''re Americans, and we''ve emerged victorious from every crisis we''ve ever weathered, right?

我們極力捍衛我們的自由。我們敢于挑戰恐懼,不喜歡別人告訴我們該做什么。我們是美國人,我們在經歷過的每一次危機中都取得了勝利,對吧?

So it''s hard to imagine the US taking the same approach to the coronavirus as Hong Kong, where arriving passengers are apprehended at the airport, required to wear tracking bracelets and mandated to stay in quarantine for two weeks upon arrival. Our approach also wasn''t as lax as Sweden, where residents have lived freely, without lockdowns, since the pandemic began.

所以很難想象美國會和香港一樣采取同樣的方法,乘客會在到達機場時被拘留,必須佩戴跟蹤手鐲,并在抵達后被強制隔離兩周。但我們的方法也不像瑞典那樣松懈,自從大流行開始,那里的居民就在沒有封鎖的情況下自由生活。

We haven''t followed any countries'' leads. That''s the American way — our individualistic identity is a global one, too.

我們沒有跟隨任何國家的領導。這是美國人的方式——我們的個人主義身份也是全球性的。

"Americans have this very strong sense of American exceptionalism -- that the US is different than other countries and superior in many ways," Campbell says.

坎貝爾說:“美國人有一種非常強烈的美國例外論意識,即美國與其他國家不同,在許多方面更為優越?!?。

The US and South Korea saw their first confirmed cases around the same time. But by mid-April, South Korea was counting only 30 new cases daily, compared to 20,000 in the US. That''s because the East Asian country quickly opened hundreds of testing facilities, imposed quarantine measures on travelers from Wuhan, China, in early January and recruited contact tracers from the start.

美國和韓國在同一時間首次發現確診病例。但到了4月中旬,韓國每天只有30起新病例,而美國有2萬起。這是因為這個東亞國家在1月初迅速開放了數百個檢測設施,對來自中國武漢的旅客實施了檢疫措施,并從一開始就招募了接觸追蹤人員。

South Korea''s model worked. The US lagged behind it.

韓國的模式奏效了。美國落后于它。

"You''d imagine that people would take [other countries'' responses] as evidence that continuing to quarantine and social distance are effective responses to the virus," Campbell says. "But what we''ve seen is kind of poo-pooing what other countries do and thinking we know best."

坎貝爾說:“你可以想象,人們會把(其他國家的反應)作為證據,證明繼續隔離和社會距離是對病毒的有效反應。但我們所看到的是,對其他國家的做法感到不滿,認為我們自己最了解?!?

It''s leading our cost-benefit approach to the virus

它引領著我們用高成本效益手段解決病毒

American individualism is the driving force behind another national value -- capitalism, which requires people to act in their self-interest.

美國的個人主義是另一個國家價值觀背后的驅動力——資本主義,它要求人們為自己的利益而行動。

So, when weighing the tradeoffs of social distancing, many Americans make their decision with some capitalistic cost-benefit analysis. The cost is life as we know it -- going to restaurants, shopping, visiting friends, working at an office. The benefit is our health, and the health of loved ones and strangers.

因此,當權衡社會距離的權衡時,許多美國人會用一些資本主義的成本效益分析來做出決定。我們知道,代價就是生活——去餐館、購物、拜訪朋友、在辦公室工作。好處是我們的健康,親人和陌生人的健康。

Making sacrifices to help a stranger may be a hard sell for some.

對某些人來說,為幫助一個陌生人而做出犧牲可能是很難的。

"The issue with the coronavirus is that it''s not very visible," Keller says. "You don''t know who you''re protecting, who''s avoided getting sick from your actions. That''s a big ask of people, especially when it appears that not everyone is doing it or that the criteria seems to be different in different parts of the country."

凱勒說:“冠狀病毒的問題是它不太明顯。你不知道你在保護誰,誰避免了你的行為得病。這對人們來說是一個很難的要求,尤其是當似乎不是每個人都在做這件事,或者在全國不同地區的標準似乎不同時?!?

Coronavirus isn''t something we can see rip through the country like a tornado. The benefits, too, are invisible. If coronavirus guidelines work, they may not seem like they were ever necessary, because fewer people will have gotten sick.

冠狀病毒并不像龍卷風那樣席卷全國。但好處也是看不見的。如果冠狀病毒指南起作用的話,它們看起來可能就是從來都沒有必要的,因為只有較少的人得病。

But people will remember what they lost by making those sacrifices.

但是人們會記住他們為此犧牲了什么。

It''s easier for policymakers to weigh their response to coronavirus with a utilitarian approach. By that philosophy, the minority will suffer so that the majority may benefit.

對于政策制定者來說,用功利主義的方法衡量他們對冠狀病毒的反應更為容易,根據這一理念,少數人將受苦受難,以便多數人受益。

More than 89,000 Americans have died from coronavirus. But more than 36 million have filed for unemployment. If lawmakers rely on that ratio alone to decide whether to reopen, the decision is already made.

超過89000名美國人死于冠狀病毒。但超過3600萬人申請失業。如果立法者僅僅依靠這一比例來決定是否重新開放,那么決定毫無懸念。

But we can still fight this together

但我們仍然可以一起戰斗

If the virus is with us for many more months, we may move toward a united response, Keller says.

凱勒說,如果病毒在我們身邊多呆幾個月,我們可能會采取一致的應對措施。

"There is potential that we will see something that looks more like Americans pulling together, a more common view of what kind of sacrifices are necessary," she says.

她說:“我們可能會看到一些看起來更像是美國人團結在一起的東西,一種更普遍的觀點,即什么樣的犧牲是必要的?!?。

Americans have "great traditions" of coming together when crises threaten us, Rosner says. From the Great Depression to 9/11, we''ve weathered conflicts that have tested our national mettle.

羅斯納說,美國人有“偉大的傳統”,當危機威脅到我們時,他們會團結起來。從大蕭條到911,我們經受住了考驗我們國家勇氣的沖突。

The conditions of coronavirus are more fraught than those crises, but Keller thinks that the longer we live with this, the greater the pressure to coalesce to defeat it.

冠狀病毒的情況比那些危機更令人擔憂,但凱勒認為,我們越是忍受這種情況,聯合起來戰勝它的壓力就越大。

Not every American subscribes to the historic definition of individualism that prizes oneself over the communal good. Some are exercising their individual will to stay home if they can, in line with public health advice. And those of us who can''t stay home are largely following the safest protocols for how to act in the workplace.

并不是每個美國人都贊同個人主義的歷史定義,即把自己的價值凌駕于公共利益之上。一些人根據公共衛生建議,正在基于他們的個人意愿盡可能呆在家里。我們中那些不能呆在家里的人在很大程度上遵循著最安全的工作方式。

Americans don''t want to live in fear of an invisible enemy, and we don''t want our country to crumble. But to beat this crisis, we may need to balance individual liberties with collective sacrifice. That doesn''t come naturally to us, but we can do it. We''ve done it before.

美國人不想生活在對一個看不見的敵人的恐懼中,我們也不希望我們的國家崩潰。但要戰勝這場危機,我們可能需要平衡個人自由和集體犧牲。這對我們來說不是自然而然的,但我們可以做到。我們以前做過。