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

(CNN)美国对冠状病毒的反应一直不一致。这也是美国独有的。


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,没有任何国家指导方针和有组织的努力来重新开放这个国家。公共卫生官员这么说,州长那么说,总统特朗普又完全给出不同的说法。我们美国人只能自己做决定。



It''s the ideal that birthed the US, when colonists split from the British monarchy to establish their own nation. It powered pioneers who ventured west to the frontier, where they settled their own towns and made their own rules. It''s in our DNA.

当殖民者为了建立自己的国家而从英国君主制中分裂出来时,这就是诞生美国的理想。它推动了拓荒者们冒险向西来到边境,在那里他们定居自己的城镇,制定自己的规则。这在我们的DNA里。

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.

这也播下了深刻的政治分歧,对中央集权的不信任,甚至对科学的怀疑。它造成了国家对这一流行病的难以控制的反应。

It''s reinforcing our partisan politics

它加强了我们的党派政治

Republicans and Democrats interpret individualism differently, and those divides are more pronounced than ever in our deeply polarized political climate.

共和党人和民主党人对个人主义的理解不同,在我们极度两极分化的政治环境中,这些分歧比以往任何时候都更加明显。

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

现在,即使是大流行也是通过意识形态的有色眼镜展现出来的。

"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."

加州大学伯克利分校研究大流行反应的副教授安凯勒说:“没有什么比面对共同的敌人更能将群体团结在一起。”但我们仍然把对方当作敌人,而不是病毒。”

President Trump has changed his tune on coronavirus throughout the pandemic, often at the same briefing. He publicly disagreed with public health officials on reopening schools, recommended masks while saying he doesn''t plan to wear one and repeatedly downplayed the severity of the virus.

特朗普总统在大流行期间市场改变他对冠状病毒的看法,甚至经常是在同一个简报会上。他公开反对公共卫生官员重新开学,建议戴口罩,同时说他不打算戴,并一再淡化病毒的严重性。

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

他的支持者在倾听。厌恶他的人也是如此。两者都听他们想听的。

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.

美国有线电视新闻网(CNN)在4月份的一项民意调查中,众多美国人(55%)表示,联邦政府在防止冠状病毒传播方面做得很差。但80%的共和党人认为联邦政府做得很好,85%的民主党人则相反。

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.

关于重新开放的问题也令人担忧。在同一项民意调查中,超过一半的共和党人表示,他们觉得回到让生活回归正常没问题。只有四分之一的民主党人说了同样的话。


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

在这个令人不安的时刻,连戴口罩都成了一种政治宣言。

It''s possible for even a deeply divided America to overcome party divides. Keller points to President George W. Bush, whose popularity soared from the low 50s to 90% in the days after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Terrorism was a national threat, and there was no question of that threat''s legitimacy.

即使是分裂严重的美国也有可能克服党派分歧。凯勒指出,在2001年9月11日恐怖袭击发生后的几天里,布什总统的支持率从50左右的低点飙升至90%。恐怖主义是一种国家威胁,这种威胁的合法性是毫无疑问的。

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

但是冠状病毒并不是以同样的方式被看待的。


It''s feeding anger toward state governments

它激起了对州政府的愤怒

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.

自从在波士顿港倾倒茶叶以来,美国人一直对中央集权感到不满。当他们认为政客们正在践踏他们的自由时,许多人仍然怒不可遏——即使是在一场流行病中。



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

有限的政府是一个保守派的理想,这也许可以解释为什么特朗普已经把控制权交还给了各州。

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.

没有国家指导方针和有组织的应对措施,州、县和居民只能根据公共卫生建议作出自己的选择,要么遵守,要么反对。

For weeks, protesters have led rallies to reopen their states'' economies. And instead of directing their ire toward the federal government, they''re targeting governors responsible for the stay-at-home orders.

数周来,抗议者一直在领导集会,以重开他们国家的经济。他们并没有把怒火指向联邦政府,而是把矛头对准了负责下达居家令的州长。

Republican governors like Maryland''s Larry Hogan and Democrats like Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan have stoked the rage of residents who accuse them of stifling their rights to reopen their small business or go to a hair stylist.

马里兰州的拉里·霍根等共和党州长和密歇根州的格雷琴·惠特默等民主党人激起了居民的愤怒,他们指责这些人扼杀了他们重开小企业或去理发的权利。

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,罗斯纳指出,美国人服从甚至欢迎政府干预过去的危机。20世纪30年代,富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福总统通过新政计划永久地增强了联邦政府的权力,帮助美国摆脱了大萧条。

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.

在第二次世界大战期间,美国人基本上接受了为公共利益而进行的全面变革。食物和衣服都是定量供应的,经济几乎完全工业化——都是为战争服务的。

"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."

“我们没有看到美国人像我们想象的那样团结在一起,就像二战中做出的牺牲一样。” 凯勒说:“当时人们把它看作是身为美国人的责任,人们从这些个人的牺牲中找到了意义。我认为我们现在没能看到这一切是令人震惊的。”

It''s reflecting our distrust of science

这反映了我们对科学的不信任

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.

罗斯纳在20世纪50年代经历了脊髓灰质炎危机,医生办公室外的队伍长到围绕着建筑物和几个街区,之后在25年内,脊髓灰质炎几乎从美国根除。

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

当冠状病毒疫苗可用时,情况可能就不同了。

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.

这是因为人们对科学不信任的声音虽然无理却十分洪亮(声势还在上升),加上气候危机和反疫苗运动。这些群体中的人们把科学专家视为独裁的人物,他们的决定剥夺了人们选择最适合自己的东西的自由。

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.

我们这个时代最具分裂性的科学课题,气候变化和疫苗接种,都得到了很好的研究。但新型冠状病毒没有。它是在2019年底出现的,我们仍在进一步了解它的传播。


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.

凯勒说,这也说明疾病预防控制中心在处理危机方面已经退居次要地位。疾病控制中心最初的冠状病毒测试失败并将反应推迟了数周后才开始。疾病预防控制中心主任罗伯特·雷德菲尔德博士的知名度远低于国家过敏和传染病研究所所长安东尼·福奇博士。

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

凯勒说,这可能削弱了白宫对卫生局的信心。


It''s fortifying our belief that America knows best

它强化了我们的信念 ,即美国最懂

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?

我们极力捍卫我们的自由。我们敢于挑战恐惧,不喜欢别人告诉我们该做什么。我们是美国人,我们在经历过的每一次危机中都取得了胜利,对吧?

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.

所以很难想象美国会和香港一样采取同样的方法,乘客会在到达机场时被拘留,必须佩戴跟踪手镯,并在抵达后被强制隔离两周。但我们的方法也不像瑞典那样松懈,自从大流行开始,那里的居民就在没有封锁的情况下自由生活。

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

我们没有跟随任何国家的领导。这是美国人的方式——我们的个人主义身份也是全球性的。

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

坎贝尔说:“美国人有一种非常强烈的美国例外论意识,即美国与其他国家不同,在许多方面更为优越。”。

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.

美国和韩国在同一时间首次发现确诊病例。但到了4月中旬,韩国每天只有30起新病例,而美国有2万起。这是因为这个东亚国家在1月初迅速开放了数百个检测设施,对来自中国武汉的旅客实施了检疫措施,并从一开始就招募了接触追踪人员。

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

韩国的模式奏效了。美国落后于它。

"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."

坎贝尔说:“你可以想象,人们会把(其他国家的反应)作为证据,证明继续隔离和社会距离是对病毒的有效反应。但我们所看到的是,对其他国家的做法感到不满,认为我们自己最了解。”

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

它引领着我们用高成本效益手段解决病毒

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

美国的个人主义是另一个国家价值观背后的驱动力——资本主义,它要求人们为自己的利益而行动。

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,当权衡社会距离的权衡时,许多美国人会用一些资本主义的成本效益分析来做出决定。我们知道,代价就是生活——去餐馆、购物、拜访朋友、在办公室工作。好处是我们的健康,亲人和陌生人的健康。

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

对某些人来说,为帮助一个陌生人而做出牺牲可能是很难的。

"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."

凯勒说:“冠状病毒的问题是它不太明显。你不知道你在保护谁,谁避免了你的行为得病。这对人们来说是一个很难的要求,尤其是当似乎不是每个人都在做这件事,或者在全国不同地区的标准似乎不同时。”

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.

冠状病毒并不像龙卷风那样席卷全国。但好处也是看不见的。如果冠状病毒指南起作用的话,它们看起来可能就是从来都没有必要的,因为只有较少的人得病。

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

但是人们会记住他们为此牺牲了什么。

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.

对于政策制定者来说,用功利主义的方法衡量他们对冠状病毒的反应更为容易,根据这一理念,少数人将受苦受难,以便多数人受益。

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.

超过89000名美国人死于冠状病毒。但超过3600万人申请失业。如果立法者仅仅依靠这一比例来决定是否重新开放,那么决定毫无悬念。

But we can still fight this together

但我们仍然可以一起战斗

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

凯勒说,如果病毒在我们身边多呆几个月,我们可能会采取一致的应对措施。

"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.

她说:“我们可能会看到一些看起来更像是美国人团结在一起的东西,一种更普遍的观点,即什么样的牺牲是必要的。”。

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.

罗斯纳说,美国人有“伟大的传统”,当危机威胁到我们时,他们会团结起来。从大萧条到911,我们经受住了考验我们国家勇气的冲突。

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.

冠状病毒的情况比那些危机更令人担忧,但凯勒认为,我们越是忍受这种情况,联合起来战胜它的压力就越大。

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.

并不是每个美国人都赞同个人主义的历史定义,即把自己的价值凌驾于公共利益之上。一些人根据公共卫生建议,正在基于他们的个人意愿尽可能呆在家里。我们中那些不能呆在家里的人在很大程度上遵循着最安全的工作方式。

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.

美国人不想生活在对一个看不见的敌人的恐惧中,我们也不希望我们的国家崩溃。但要战胜这场危机,我们可能需要平衡个人自由和集体牺牲。这对我们来说不是自然而然的,但我们可以做到。我们以前做过。