為什么現(xiàn)在呆在家里可以拯救生命

為什么現(xiàn)在呆在家里可以拯救生命

As the coronavirus continues to spread in the U.S., more and more businesses are sending employees off to work from home. Public schools are closing, universities are holding classes online, major events are getting canceled and cultural institutions are shutting their doors. Even Disney World and Disneyland are set to close. The disruption of daily life for many Americans is real and significant — but so are the potential life-saving benefits.

隨著冠狀病毒繼續(xù)在美國傳播在美國，越來越多的公司開始讓員工在家工作。公立學(xué)校停課，大學(xué)在線上課，重大活動被取消，文化機(jī)構(gòu)關(guān)門。甚至迪斯尼世界和迪斯尼樂園也將關(guān)閉。對許多美國人來說，日常生活的干擾是真實(shí)而重大的，但也有潛在的拯救生命的好處。

The idea is to increase social distancing in order to slow the spread of the virus, so that you don't get a huge spike in the number of people getting sick all at once. If that were to happen, there wouldn't be enough hospital beds or mechanical ventilators for everyone who needs them, and the U.S. hospital system would be overwhelmed. That's already happening in Italy.

這樣做的目的是增加社會距離，以減緩病毒的傳播，這樣你就不會一下子使生病的人數(shù)激增。如果真是這樣的話，就不會有足夠的病床或機(jī)械通風(fēng)機(jī)供所有需要它們的人使用，美國的醫(yī)院系統(tǒng)將不堪重負(fù)。這已經(jīng)在意大利發(fā)生了。

"If you think of our health care system as a subway car and it's rush hour, and everybody wants to get on the car once, they start piling up at the door," says Drew Harris, a population health researcher at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. "They pile up on the platform. There's just not enough room in the car to take care of everybody, to accommodate everybody. That's the system that is overwhelmed. IPeople wind up not getting services that they need."

費(fèi)城托馬斯杰佛遜大學(xué)的人口健康研究員德魯·哈里斯說:“如果你把我們的醫(yī)療保健系統(tǒng)想成是一輛地鐵，而現(xiàn)在是上下班高峰期，每個人都想上車一次，那么他們就開始在門口擠成一團(tuán)。”他們在站臺上簇?fù)砥饋怼＼嚴(yán)餂]有足夠的空間來照顧和容納每一個人。這是一個不堪重負(fù)的系統(tǒng)。人們最終得不到他們需要的服務(wù)。”

These two curves have already played out in the U.S. in an earlier age — during the 1918 flu pandemic. Research has shown that the faster authorities moved to implement the kinds of social distancing measures designed to slow the transmission of disease, the more lives were saved. And the history of two U.S. cities — Philadelphia and St. Louis — illustrates just how big a difference those measures can make.

這兩條曲線早在1918年流感大流行期間就已經(jīng)在美國上演了。研究表明，當(dāng)局越快采取旨在減緩疾病傳播的社會疏遠(yuǎn)措施，挽救的生命就越多。而美國費(fèi)城和圣路易斯兩個城市的歷史，恰恰說明了這些措施能帶來多大的不同。

In Philadelphia, Harris notes, city officials ignored warnings from infectious disease experts that the flu was already circulating in their community.

哈里斯指出，在費(fèi)城，市政官員無視傳染病專家關(guān)于流感已經(jīng)在他們社區(qū)傳播的警告。

Instead, they moved forward with a massive parade that brought hundreds of thousands of people together. "Within 48. 72 hours, thousands of people around the Philadelphia region started to die," Harris notes. Within 6 months, about16.000 people had died.

相反，他們舉行了一場大規(guī)模游行，成千上萬的人聚集在一起。“在48、72小時內(nèi)，費(fèi)城地區(qū)成千上萬的人開始死亡，”哈里斯說。在6個月內(nèi)，大約16.000人死亡。

Meanwhile, officials in St. Louis, Mo., had a vastly different public health response. Within two days of the first reported cases, the city quickly moved to social isolation strategies, according to a 2007 analysis.

與此同時，密蘇里州圣路易斯的官員們對公共衛(wèi)生的反應(yīng)大相徑庭。根據(jù)2007年的一份分析報告，在第一批報告病例出現(xiàn)的兩天內(nèi)，這座城市迅速轉(zhuǎn)向了社會隔離策略。

"They really tried to limit the travel of people and implement public health 101 — isolating and treating the sick, quarantining the people who have been exposed to disease, closing the schools, encouraging social distancing of people," Harris says.

“他們真的試圖限制人們的出行，實(shí)施公共衛(wèi)生101.隔離和治療病人，隔離接觸過疾病的人，關(guān)閉學(xué)校，鼓勵人們遠(yuǎn)離社交場所，”哈里斯說。

As a result, St. Louis suffered just one-eighth of the flu fatalities that Philadelphia saw, according to that 2007 research. But if St. Louis had waited another week or two to act, it might have suffered a similar fate as Philadelphia, the researchers concluded.

結(jié)果，根據(jù)2007年的研究，圣路易斯的流感死亡率僅為費(fèi)城的八分之一。但研究人員得出結(jié)論，如果圣路易斯再等一兩個星期才采取行動，它可能會遭遇與費(fèi)城類似的命運(yùn)。

At the time the 2007 research was released, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a leading adviser in the U.S. response to COVID-19. said the evidence was clear that early intervention was critical in the midst of the 1918 pandemic.

美國國家過敏和傳染病研究所所長、美國應(yīng)對Covid-19的主要顧問安東尼·福奇博士在2007年發(fā)表這項(xiàng)研究時表示，有明顯的證據(jù)表明，在1918年大流行期間，早期干預(yù)至關(guān)重要。

As for just how big the current coronavirus pandemic will be in America? "It is going to be totally dependent upon how we respond to it," Fauci told Congress earlier this week.

至于目前在美國流行的冠狀病毒有多大?“這將完全取決于我們?nèi)绾螒?yīng)對，”福奇本周早些時候告訴國會。

"I can't give you a number," he said. "I can't give you a realistic number until we put into [it] the factor of how we respond. If we're complacent and don't do really aggressive containment and mitigation, the number could go way up and be involved in many, many millions."

“我不能給你一個數(shù)字，”他說。“在我們把如何應(yīng)對的因素考慮進(jìn)去之前，我無法給你一個現(xiàn)實(shí)的數(shù)字。如果我們沾沾自喜，不采取真正積極的遏制和緩解措施，這個數(shù)字可能會大幅上升，涉及數(shù)百萬人。”