“再不严控，到6月可能有10亿人感染”|《财富》专访世卫组织特使
上周四晚些时候，《财富》杂志记者与世界卫生组织的特使戴维·纳巴罗（David Nabarro）进行了谈话。这位传染病专家在SARS、埃博拉、霍乱和流感疫情期间都曾参与过相关工作，他对世界各国针对眼下疫情所实施的碎片式应对措施感到不安，但他依然认为，国际社会有望对迅速蔓延至世界各地的新型冠状病毒采取协调一致的应对措施。
出于清晰度和篇幅的考虑，采访内容已加以编辑。
上周三，世卫组织宣布将COVID-19定义为一种大流行病。你对此事有什么看法？
纳巴罗：只要我们愿意，只要能把所有人组织起来，这其实是一种能被人类迅速控制并克服的东西。问题是如今这一代的西方国家领导人是否有能力应对挑战。
我和世卫组织的工作人员已经着眼于这一点努力了6周左右的时间。我也曾在西非抗击埃博拉，在2009至2010年间应对H1N1流感大流行，在2005年至2006年间直面禽流感，并在2002年SARS爆发期间作为世卫组织的一员与疫情搏斗。但就潜在影响而言，新冠状病毒比所有这些都更加严重。
而且我认为，它很可能是可溶性的病毒，甚至比其它病毒的可溶性更高。所以只要大家能相对适度地改变自己的行为，只要全世界的公共卫生系统能发挥其应有的作用，只要各个医院妥善收治感染新冠状病毒的患者，只要商界和政府能协同一致、将其视为需共同应对的巨大挑战，那么疫情就是可以被控制住的。
到目前为止，情况怎么样？
虽然我们可以看到，有些国家已经取得了相当显著的成果，但有一群领导人，尤其是欧洲和北美的领导人，他们应对疫情所采取的措施并不恰当，可能会导致非常严重的后果。
而我们发现，在最初的一些失误后（和眼下正在发生的错误相比，可能就显得微不足道了），中国社会和政府的应对措施真的非常值得称道。不仅仅是在湖北省，他们能够从一场巨大悲剧中整理出头绪并将其控制住——虽然目前还没有完全做到，但已经近在眼前了。
但更重要的是，我们发现，疫情并没有蔓延开来、压垮中国的其它地区，并且通过重重纪律和组织，疫情在其它省份的传播已经得到了控制。在新加坡，我们发现，由于非常有效的公共卫生政策、良好的医护条件以及相当出色的集中收治措施，疫情已经得到了控制。在韩国，我们发现，在出现问题后，他们也设法控制住了局面，实现了真正的团队协作。在日本，仍然存在着一些挑战，但整体情况正在好转。东南亚地区已经向我们证明，疫情是可以被控制住的。世界上的其它地区有没有学习东南亚地区的经验？我不知道。
我们发现，意大利北部已经出现了非常严重的问题。我们收到了来自意大利北部某些地区的报道。真的很令人不安。我觉得他们最终能解决问题，但将会付出巨大的代价。而这代价不仅仅是死亡，还有社会结构和经济方面的巨大损失。
我们在欧洲的其它国家和地区看到了什么？某个国家的应对措施显得有些敷衍、漫不经心、不屑一顾，而另一个国家不希望疫情产生过多干扰，因为本周末该国要展开大选。欧盟拥有的那些绝妙的工具也没有被利用起来。所以我真的很担心欧洲的状况。虽然很不希望，但我预计在未来的两到三周内，欧洲将出现更多的爆炸性疫情。
看看北美的情况——这里的领导力就更特别了。需要优先处理的事项没有得到重视，各州政策互不相同，未来几周内至少有3个地区可能出现重大的爆炸性疫情。商界有人联系我和我的同事，询问说：“出了什么问题？我们能做些什么尽快解决问题？”
但领导人们却在说，“这是从其它地方传播来的，”他们不会说，要怎么解决自己国家内的问题。他们会说：“我们会等到时机成熟。我们不想让人们觉得无聊。”所以在未来的两个月内，欧洲不同地区可能会接连爆发严重的冠状病毒疫情，因为病毒仍在传播之中，但还没有被检测出来。
假设它像现在这样继续发展下去。就确诊病例而言，大流行病的总体规模每过5至6天就会增加1倍。到下个月初，确诊总数将达到100万，到6月份就可能达到10亿。
如果我们运气不好，等到北半球天气转暖后，病毒扩散速度还没有放缓的话，它就将继续蔓延到非洲和亚洲的不同地区。不会有病毒检测。在非常短的时间内，就会有大量的重症患者被送入设备简陋的医院，那里的死亡率将会比医疗条件较好的地方高得多。
现在，全世界都有一个选择。每个人、每个地方、每个国家，尤其是那些已出现疫情的国家，都应该集中注意力，以应对眼下这非同寻常的生存威胁。
此次疫情可能会导致许多人死亡、彻底摧毁经济、破坏我们在过去10至15年内所付出的艰苦努力，还可能造成我们一生中最惊人的一场大萧条。特德罗斯（Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus，世卫组织的总干事）在想——国际体系内的其他人也和他一样——领导力在哪里？在我的职业生涯中，我从来没有这么沮丧过。
意大利出了什么大问题？
病毒一直在传播，差不多过了三周才被发现——然后突然间就爆发了疫情。每隔几天，确诊病例数就翻一倍。从埃博拉疫情中，我们发现，我们的机构往往会以线性方式加大力度。
当遇到疫情传播这样的指数式问题时，人们就会觉得自己的步伐似乎停滞了，因为指数增长得太快：就好像自己从来都走不到曲线前面似的。
能超越指数曲线的唯一方法就是促成大的转变或重置。从某种程度上来说，特德罗斯之所以将其定义为一种大流行病，就是想使用这种方法。他试图让全世界的每一位领导人都意识到，自己做得还不够好。
我们应该做些什么?人们问我：”我们不该取消大型活动吗？我们应该这样做还是那样做？”
所有人都不该参加大型活动。所有人。我们不该举办足球比赛。大型公司不该只是把员工送回家；而是应该停止上班。我们应该把拥有的所有力量都集中起来，投入到控制疫情爆发所需的每个重大的举措中去。
这样一来，全体民众都能明白要做些什么来降低自己和他人感染的风险。和那些已见成效的国家所发生的一样，公共卫生服务措施就能很好地发挥出作用。就能追踪感染者、找到传播链、关注接触者。医护方面——建立新的医院。快，快，快，快，快，整理出收治区或空体育场。即使没有用到，也要确保准备充足。要预备足够的空间，这样就算确诊病例以指数增长，也能得到正确的处理。
眼下，美国和欧洲的医院承载力已经达到了顶点。我从伦巴第（在意大利）的麻醉医师和其他工作人员那里得知，缺乏通风设备的重症病房里人满为患，他们现在不得不选择让部分人活下来，然后让另外一部分人去死。对于这样一个现代化的国家、一个属于七国集团的国家而言，这简直太残酷了。所以每个人都应该关注疫情、协同一致。
我想对西方国家的领导人说，请学习中国先前的措施，学习韩国先前的措施，学习新加坡现下的措施。请了解一下伊朗所面临的困难。请了解一下意大利的现状，然后再作结论。
在疫情爆发初期，世卫组织建议不要限制旅行和贸易。但从那时开始，世卫组织就对采取封锁措施的中国持赞扬态度。旅行和贸易在这场大流行病中扮演着怎样的角色？封锁是正确的做法吗？应该尽早实施封锁吗？
这是个非常棘手的问题。如果能够保证屏障无懈可击，那么在自己和存在的问题之间创建屏障也是可行的。但我们无法保证屏障无懈可击。除非恰好是某种驻防良好的岛屿，否则都很难封锁整个国家的边界。首先，如果存在陆地边界，那么就会有人通过陆路过境。其次，可能有人感染病毒，却并没有出现症状。而且，如果从地理方面考虑，那么情况基本都是瞬息万变的，因为疫情正在很多不同的地方接连出现。所以封锁是种简陋的方法，但并不愚蠢。这么做的确可以延缓疫情扩散。
若是一个国家因为其国民在旅行而觉得受到了某种指责或惩罚，那么这就是不对的。我们最需要的是建立国际合作，随之而来的却是怨恨和伤害。如果没有国际合作，抗击疫情将非常艰难。
所以，在某些时候，限制国家内部和国际范围内的人员流动是一种合理的举措。我真的希望可以通过共同的努力实现封锁。限制伦巴第内的人员流动，这没错，但（伦巴第）也面临着外部的威胁，比如法国和瑞士等等。因此，我们需要划定曲线，不仅要围住某个国家，而是要围住好几个国家。抗击疫情不该只是各国内部的事。
现在国际合作的进展如何？
虽然全世界各地已经连结起来，形成了一个庞大的系统——联合国系统——但基于国家优先的策略，协调措施依然困难重重。怀疑、指责，比比皆是。或许现有的环境就是如此，我们不该再幻想能重新建立合作关系。
但我还在幻想，我还是认为只有通过同一种声音、同一种策略，去关注那些最需要帮助的对象，把宝贵的设备、试剂和医疗留给那些最需要的人，并摒除这一切的污蔑，才能控制住疫情。
我依然抱有希望。我依然认为各方最终能够协同一致。我认为商界的各个首席执行官早晚都会站出来发声，反对其国家和政府的举措，对他们说：“你要做得更好。”特德罗斯之所以将其定义为一种大流行病，就是因为他对政府不够严肃的态度感到沮丧。我觉得下一个会是商界，坦率地说，我觉得下一阶段会发展到个人。我觉得，会有越来越多的人说：“来吧。这非常重要。这关乎全世界的未来，我们必须要一起努力。”
当商界领导人向你咨询时，你会对他们说些什么？
商界之所以了不起，是因为各个首席执行官已经意识到，不仅仅是自己的商业模式面临着真正的困难；他们还明白，自己的品牌与数十亿人都存在着联系。他们拥有庞大的供应链；他们拥有庞大的股权网络。他们想要生存下去，他们不希望市场被完全破坏。因此，在他们看来，采取措施应对疫情是符合利益的事。
世界经济论坛（WEF）的创始人兼主席克劳斯·施瓦布（Klaus Schawb）说：“我愿意提供世界经济论坛的全部资产来应对此次疫情。这是我就任主席期间最重要的事件。我会暂停一切工作。”
他让每个人都在家工作。他让各个行业组织都完全专注于如何让所有部门都能在应对这场大流行病时发挥作用。他让首席执行官们每周都聚集在一个平台上，让这数百名领导者思考如何建立联系、传递信息、赋予权力，让人们感到强大，给予他们领导力。所以商界人士还在那里，活跃且充满光辉。他们说：“我们会做需要做的事。”所以，对我来说，真正的挑战在于政府。不知怎么的，他们不是说“你们这些公共卫生人员在夸大事实，”就是说这是某某某国家的错，是那些国家传播了病毒。但事实上，病毒早就存在了。
在美国，存在的一个问题是，很多人都没有带薪病假。尤其是在服务业内——他们承担不起不上班的代价。
我认为这是最关键一点。在家工作的时候，没有健康保险，雇主就不会好到继续给他们发放薪水，因为他们的工作就是要和人接触。
建筑行业、酒店行业、餐饮行业和公共事业部门的人——他们之中的一部分能够继续工作，但相当多的人将不得不停工。然后他们的孩子就会被学校送回家。
谁来照看孩子们？这一系列事情会对穷人阶层造成冲击，这是在发达经济体中前所未有的局面。我们对此非常担心。眼下，在意大利，有一大群穷苦的底层都非常困惑，自己究竟怎样才能生存下去？
商界已经准备好应对这个问题了吗？
我不知道。我们刚开始与商界人士合作，共同探索。或许等到我们确定这是个商业上的问题时，会与他们展开积极的合作。
这是一个不断发现的过程。在过去的两周里，随着人们逐渐意识到这一局面的真正含义，私营部门内许多人的思维方式都发生了巨大的转变。有些事是世卫组织无法承担的。因此，我认为，这需要商界领导人主动地采取措施。
你还有什么要补充的吗？
美国有一点做得不错，就是给服役的军人提供特殊待遇。他们可以插队到机场安检线的前排、在车站有专门的休息室等等。他们能得到真正的尊重，人们会对他们的付出表示感谢。
我们也该给医疗工作者提供这样的待遇——不仅仅是医生和教授，还有护士和辅助人员：那些维持着医院运转的人，那些要裹着防护服的人（因为天气正在转暖，所以会很热、大汗淋漓），那些将带着我们渡过难关的人。
只要真的能帮助医护人员赢得社会的更多尊重——因为在疫情期间，我们比以往任何时候都更依赖他们——我们能做到的所有事情就都是伟大的。在欧洲，医护人员的实际收入多年以来一直在不停地下降、再下降。一般来说，（女性）医护人员就是能够拯救许多生命的人，他们也是面临最大危险的人。如果我们能够为他们提供真正的支持，那就再好不过了。（财富中文网）
译者：殷圆圆
上周四晚些时候，《财富》杂志记者与世界卫生组织的特使戴维·纳巴罗（David Nabarro）进行了谈话。这位传染病专家在SARS、埃博拉、霍乱和流感疫情期间都曾参与过相关工作，他对世界各国针对眼下疫情所实施的碎片式应对措施感到不安，但他依然认为，国际社会有望对迅速蔓延至世界各地的新型冠状病毒采取协调一致的应对措施。
出于清晰度和篇幅的考虑，采访内容已加以编辑。
上周三，世卫组织宣布将COVID-19定义为一种大流行病。你对此事有什么看法？
纳巴罗：只要我们愿意，只要能把所有人组织起来，这其实是一种能被人类迅速控制并克服的东西。问题是如今这一代的西方国家领导人是否有能力应对挑战。
我和世卫组织的工作人员已经着眼于这一点努力了6周左右的时间。我也曾在西非抗击埃博拉，在2009至2010年间应对H1N1流感大流行，在2005年至2006年间直面禽流感，并在2002年SARS爆发期间作为世卫组织的一员与疫情搏斗。但就潜在影响而言，新冠状病毒比所有这些都更加严重。
而且我认为，它很可能是可溶性的病毒，甚至比其它病毒的可溶性更高。所以只要大家能相对适度地改变自己的行为，只要全世界的公共卫生系统能发挥其应有的作用，只要各个医院妥善收治感染新冠状病毒的患者，只要商界和政府能协同一致、将其视为需共同应对的巨大挑战，那么疫情就是可以被控制住的。
到目前为止，情况怎么样？
虽然我们可以看到，有些国家已经取得了相当显著的成果，但有一群领导人，尤其是欧洲和北美的领导人，他们应对疫情所采取的措施并不恰当，可能会导致非常严重的后果。
而我们发现，在最初的一些失误后（和眼下正在发生的错误相比，可能就显得微不足道了），中国社会和政府的应对措施真的非常值得称道。不仅仅是在湖北省，他们能够从一场巨大悲剧中整理出头绪并将其控制住——虽然目前还没有完全做到，但已经近在眼前了。
但更重要的是，我们发现，疫情并没有蔓延开来、压垮中国的其它地区，并且通过重重纪律和组织，疫情在其它省份的传播已经得到了控制。在新加坡，我们发现，由于非常有效的公共卫生政策、良好的医护条件以及相当出色的集中收治措施，疫情已经得到了控制。在韩国，我们发现，在出现问题后，他们也设法控制住了局面，实现了真正的团队协作。在日本，仍然存在着一些挑战，但整体情况正在好转。东南亚地区已经向我们证明，疫情是可以被控制住的。世界上的其它地区有没有学习东南亚地区的经验？我不知道。
我们发现，意大利北部已经出现了非常严重的问题。我们收到了来自意大利北部某些地区的报道。真的很令人不安。我觉得他们最终能解决问题，但将会付出巨大的代价。而这代价不仅仅是死亡，还有社会结构和经济方面的巨大损失。
我们在欧洲的其它国家和地区看到了什么？某个国家的应对措施显得有些敷衍、漫不经心、不屑一顾，而另一个国家不希望疫情产生过多干扰，因为本周末该国要展开大选。欧盟拥有的那些绝妙的工具也没有被利用起来。所以我真的很担心欧洲的状况。虽然很不希望，但我预计在未来的两到三周内，欧洲将出现更多的爆炸性疫情。
看看北美的情况——这里的领导力就更特别了。需要优先处理的事项没有得到重视，各州政策互不相同，未来几周内至少有3个地区可能出现重大的爆炸性疫情。商界有人联系我和我的同事，询问说：“出了什么问题？我们能做些什么尽快解决问题？”
但领导人们却在说，“这是从其它地方传播来的，”他们不会说，要怎么解决自己国家内的问题。他们会说：“我们会等到时机成熟。我们不想让人们觉得无聊。”所以在未来的两个月内，欧洲不同地区可能会接连爆发严重的冠状病毒疫情，因为病毒仍在传播之中，但还没有被检测出来。
假设它像现在这样继续发展下去。就确诊病例而言，大流行病的总体规模每过5至6天就会增加1倍。到下个月初，确诊总数将达到100万，到6月份就可能达到10亿。
如果我们运气不好，等到北半球天气转暖后，病毒扩散速度还没有放缓的话，它就将继续蔓延到非洲和亚洲的不同地区。不会有病毒检测。在非常短的时间内，就会有大量的重症患者被送入设备简陋的医院，那里的死亡率将会比医疗条件较好的地方高得多。
现在，全世界都有一个选择。每个人、每个地方、每个国家，尤其是那些已出现疫情的国家，都应该集中注意力，以应对眼下这非同寻常的生存威胁。
此次疫情可能会导致许多人死亡、彻底摧毁经济、破坏我们在过去10至15年内所付出的艰苦努力，还可能造成我们一生中最惊人的一场大萧条。特德罗斯（Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus，世卫组织的总干事）在想——国际体系内的其他人也和他一样——领导力在哪里？在我的职业生涯中，我从来没有这么沮丧过。
意大利出了什么大问题？
病毒一直在传播，差不多过了三周才被发现——然后突然间就爆发了疫情。每隔几天，确诊病例数就翻一倍。从埃博拉疫情中，我们发现，我们的机构往往会以线性方式加大力度。
当遇到疫情传播这样的指数式问题时，人们就会觉得自己的步伐似乎停滞了，因为指数增长得太快：就好像自己从来都走不到曲线前面似的。
能超越指数曲线的唯一方法就是促成大的转变或重置。从某种程度上来说，特德罗斯之所以将其定义为一种大流行病，就是想使用这种方法。他试图让全世界的每一位领导人都意识到，自己做得还不够好。
我们应该做些什么?人们问我：”我们不该取消大型活动吗？我们应该这样做还是那样做？”
所有人都不该参加大型活动。所有人。我们不该举办足球比赛。大型公司不该只是把员工送回家；而是应该停止上班。我们应该把拥有的所有力量都集中起来，投入到控制疫情爆发所需的每个重大的举措中去。
这样一来，全体民众都能明白要做些什么来降低自己和他人感染的风险。和那些已见成效的国家所发生的一样，公共卫生服务措施就能很好地发挥出作用。就能追踪感染者、找到传播链、关注接触者。医护方面——建立新的医院。快，快，快，快，快，整理出收治区或空体育场。即使没有用到，也要确保准备充足。要预备足够的空间，这样就算确诊病例以指数增长，也能得到正确的处理。
眼下，美国和欧洲的医院承载力已经达到了顶点。我从伦巴第（在意大利）的麻醉医师和其他工作人员那里得知，缺乏通风设备的重症病房里人满为患，他们现在不得不选择让部分人活下来，然后让另外一部分人去死。对于这样一个现代化的国家、一个属于七国集团的国家而言，这简直太残酷了。所以每个人都应该关注疫情、协同一致。
我想对西方国家的领导人说，请学习中国先前的措施，学习韩国先前的措施，学习新加坡现下的措施。请了解一下伊朗所面临的困难。请了解一下意大利的现状，然后再作结论。
在疫情爆发初期，世卫组织建议不要限制旅行和贸易。但从那时开始，世卫组织就对采取封锁措施的中国持赞扬态度。旅行和贸易在这场大流行病中扮演着怎样的角色？封锁是正确的做法吗？应该尽早实施封锁吗？
这是个非常棘手的问题。如果能够保证屏障无懈可击，那么在自己和存在的问题之间创建屏障也是可行的。但我们无法保证屏障无懈可击。除非恰好是某种驻防良好的岛屿，否则都很难封锁整个国家的边界。首先，如果存在陆地边界，那么就会有人通过陆路过境。其次，可能有人感染病毒，却并没有出现症状。而且，如果从地理方面考虑，那么情况基本都是瞬息万变的，因为疫情正在很多不同的地方接连出现。所以封锁是种简陋的方法，但并不愚蠢。这么做的确可以延缓疫情扩散。
若是一个国家因为其国民在旅行而觉得受到了某种指责或惩罚，那么这就是不对的。我们最需要的是建立国际合作，随之而来的却是怨恨和伤害。如果没有国际合作，抗击疫情将非常艰难。
所以，在某些时候，限制国家内部和国际范围内的人员流动是一种合理的举措。我真的希望可以通过共同的努力实现封锁。限制伦巴第内的人员流动，这没错，但（伦巴第）也面临着外部的威胁，比如法国和瑞士等等。因此，我们需要划定曲线，不仅要围住某个国家，而是要围住好几个国家。抗击疫情不该只是各国内部的事。
现在国际合作的进展如何？
虽然全世界各地已经连结起来，形成了一个庞大的系统——联合国系统——但基于国家优先的策略，协调措施依然困难重重。怀疑、指责，比比皆是。或许现有的环境就是如此，我们不该再幻想能重新建立合作关系。
但我还在幻想，我还是认为只有通过同一种声音、同一种策略，去关注那些最需要帮助的对象，把宝贵的设备、试剂和医疗留给那些最需要的人，并摒除这一切的污蔑，才能控制住疫情。
我依然抱有希望。我依然认为各方最终能够协同一致。我认为商界的各个首席执行官早晚都会站出来发声，反对其国家和政府的举措，对他们说：“你要做得更好。”特德罗斯之所以将其定义为一种大流行病，就是因为他对政府不够严肃的态度感到沮丧。我觉得下一个会是商界，坦率地说，我觉得下一阶段会发展到个人。我觉得，会有越来越多的人说：“来吧。这非常重要。这关乎全世界的未来，我们必须要一起努力。”
当商界领导人向你咨询时，你会对他们说些什么？
商界之所以了不起，是因为各个首席执行官已经意识到，不仅仅是自己的商业模式面临着真正的困难；他们还明白，自己的品牌与数十亿人都存在着联系。他们拥有庞大的供应链；他们拥有庞大的股权网络。他们想要生存下去，他们不希望市场被完全破坏。因此，在他们看来，采取措施应对疫情是符合利益的事。
世界经济论坛（WEF）的创始人兼主席克劳斯·施瓦布（Klaus Schawb）说：“我愿意提供世界经济论坛的全部资产来应对此次疫情。这是我就任主席期间最重要的事件。我会暂停一切工作。”
他让每个人都在家工作。他让各个行业组织都完全专注于如何让所有部门都能在应对这场大流行病时发挥作用。他让首席执行官们每周都聚集在一个平台上，让这数百名领导者思考如何建立联系、传递信息、赋予权力，让人们感到强大，给予他们领导力。所以商界人士还在那里，活跃且充满光辉。他们说：“我们会做需要做的事。”所以，对我来说，真正的挑战在于政府。不知怎么的，他们不是说“你们这些公共卫生人员在夸大事实，”就是说这是某某某国家的错，是那些国家传播了病毒。但事实上，病毒早就存在了。
在美国，存在的一个问题是，很多人都没有带薪病假。尤其是在服务业内——他们承担不起不上班的代价。
我认为这是最关键一点。在家工作的时候，没有健康保险，雇主就不会好到继续给他们发放薪水，因为他们的工作就是要和人接触。
建筑行业、酒店行业、餐饮行业和公共事业部门的人——他们之中的一部分能够继续工作，但相当多的人将不得不停工。然后他们的孩子就会被学校送回家。
谁来照看孩子们？这一系列事情会对穷人阶层造成冲击，这是在发达经济体中前所未有的局面。我们对此非常担心。眼下，在意大利，有一大群穷苦的底层都非常困惑，自己究竟怎样才能生存下去？
商界已经准备好应对这个问题了吗？
我不知道。我们刚开始与商界人士合作，共同探索。或许等到我们确定这是个商业上的问题时，会与他们展开积极的合作。
这是一个不断发现的过程。在过去的两周里，随着人们逐渐意识到这一局面的真正含义，私营部门内许多人的思维方式都发生了巨大的转变。有些事是世卫组织无法承担的。因此，我认为，这需要商界领导人主动地采取措施。
你还有什么要补充的吗？
美国有一点做得不错，就是给服役的军人提供特殊待遇。他们可以插队到机场安检线的前排、在车站有专门的休息室等等。他们能得到真正的尊重，人们会对他们的付出表示感谢。
我们也该给医疗工作者提供这样的待遇——不仅仅是医生和教授，还有护士和辅助人员：那些维持着医院运转的人，那些要裹着防护服的人（因为天气正在转暖，所以会很热、大汗淋漓），那些将带着我们渡过难关的人。
只要真的能帮助医护人员赢得社会的更多尊重——因为在疫情期间，我们比以往任何时候都更依赖他们——我们能做到的所有事情就都是伟大的。在欧洲，医护人员的实际收入多年以来一直在不停地下降、再下降。一般来说，（女性）医护人员就是能够拯救许多生命的人，他们也是面临最大危险的人。如果我们能够为他们提供真正的支持，那就再好不过了。（财富中文网）
译者：殷圆圆
Fortune spoke with David Nabarro, a special envoy to the World Health Organization (WHO) on COVID-19, late into his day on Thursday. The infectious disease expert, who previously worked on SARS, Ebola, cholera, and influenza outbreaks, was troubled by the world’s fragmented response to the recently declared pandemic, but hopeful that a coordinated international response to the novel coronavirus quickly spreading around the world could prevail.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
The WHO declared COVID-19 has become a pandemic on Wednesday. How do you see this playing out?
Nabarro: This is something that is actually capable of being tamed and overcome by humanity quite quickly if we want and if we can organize ourselves to do it. The question is whether it’s beyond the capacity of the current generation of Western leaders to rise to the challenge.
I've been working with the WHO on this for about six weeks, and I've also worked previously on Ebola in West Africa, on the influenza pandemic, H1N1 in 2009-2010, and on bird flu in 2005-2006, and I was in the WHO when we had the SARS outbreak in 2002. This is infinitely more serious than all of those in terms of its potential impact.
It's also potentially soluble, I think, even more soluble than some of the others. If people make relatively modest changes to their behavior, if public health systems throughout the world can function as they're designed to function, if hospitals can be organized to deal properly with the workload of people with coronavirus, and if business and governments can come together and approach this as a massive challenge that we’re going to respond to collectively, then it can be done.
How are things going so far?
Although we've seen success in some countries that is quite remarkable, there is a group of leaders, particularly in Europe and North America who are just not getting with the issue properly and the consequences of that could be very serious.
We saw in China—after some initial missteps that probably pile into insignificance compared with some of the missteps being made now—a really extraordinary response of society and government. Not just in Hubei province, where they were able to bring a massive tragedy into some kind of order and under control—it's not there yet, but it's coming.
But more importantly, we saw that the whole thing did not spread out and overwhelm the rest of China, and that through quite a deal of discipline and organization, the spread of the disease into other provinces has been contained. We saw in Singapore, as the result of really effective public health work, good hospital work, and a really fantastic collection of people, the virus being contained. We've seen in South Korea after problems at the beginning, they've also managed to get it under control, and it's been a real team effort. And in Japan, there are still a few challenges but it's getting better. Southeast Asia has shown us that it can be done. Are the lessons of Southeast Asia being followed elsewhere? I don't know.
We see in Northern Italy something went very badly wrong. We've got reports from what's happening in some parts of Northern Italy. They're really disturbing. I think they'll get it sorted, but it will be at a huge cost, not just in terms of death, but at huge costs to the fabric of society and to the economy.
What are we seeing in the rest of Europe? Half-hearted, slightly lackadaisical, dismissive responses in one country and the effort to try to handle things and not get too much disturbance because there are elections coming up in another country this weekend. Real uncertainty in another country as to the best way to handle things. Altogether fragmented leadership. The wonderful instruments that exist in the European Union are not being used. So I'm really concerned about what's happening in Europe. I hope it won't happen, but I anticipate that during the next two or three weeks we will see more explosive outbreaks in Europe.
Look at North America—really peculiar leadership. The wrong things being prioritized, inconsistency across the states, and the likelihood of major, explosive outbreaks in at least three locations in the coming weeks. Businesses are contacting me and my colleagues, saying, “What's going wrong? What can we do to make this as time-limited as possible?”
But leaders are making remarks like, “This is being imported from somewhere else,” and they don't talk about sorting out their own countries. They make remarks like, “We'll wait til the time is right. We don't want people to get bored.” So. the prospect is that there will be intense outbreaks of coronavirus coming up in the next two months in different parts of Europe because there is transmission going on but it’s not being detected.
Let’s say it goes on as it is at the moment. The collective of the pandemic is doubling in size in terms of cases every five to six days. We currently have a cumulative number of 115,000 cases. If we go along at the present rate, the collective total will be a million by the beginning of next month and a billion sometime in June.
And if we're unlucky and it doesn't calm down in the hot weather in the North, it will go on spreading into Africa and different parts of Asia. It won’t be detected through testing. Suddenly there will be large numbers of people, very sick, turning up at ill-equipped hospitals and there will be a much higher death rate than in parts of the world that have reasonably good healthcare.
The world collectively has a choice right now. Everybody, everywhere, in every nation, especially those with transmission underway, should be focusing entirely on what they're going to do to deal with this extraordinary existential threat.
It has the potential to kill many people and completely destroy economies, undermine the painstaking gains that we’ve made over the last 10-15 years and create possibly the most extraordinary recession we’ll have known in our lifetimes. Tedros [Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the WHO], is thinking—as are others in the international system—where's the leadership? I’ve never felt so profoundly depressed in my professional life.
What went so wrong in Italy?
The virus was circulating and not noticed for three weeks probably— and then suddenly explosive transmission. It doubles every few days. What we learned with Ebola is our institutions tend to be designed to increase efforts in a linear way.
When you’ve got an exponential problem going like that it actually feels as though you're standing still because the exponential is so fast. It feels like you're never in front of the curve.
The only way you can get ahead of an exponential curve is through big shifts or resets, and in a way that was what Tedros was trying to do by calling this a pandemic. He was to trying to get every leader in the world to realize that the way in which they were doing it was just not good enough.
What should we be doing? People say to me, “Shouldn't we cancel big events? Should we be doing this or that?”
Nobody should be doing big events. None. We shouldn't be having football games. Major companies should be not just sending people home; they should be stopping. We should be putting every single bit of human energy that we can into this giant jump we need to make in capacity to get on top of these outbreaks.
So the whole of the population knows what they've got to do to reduce risk to themselves and to others. And so the public health services work beautifully like they've done in these countries that have succeeded. So you track people, you find the chains of transmission, you follow up the contacts. Hospital services—you build new hospitals. Quick, quick, quick, quick, quick, out of containers or empty sports stadiums. Even if they’re not being used, you have them there ready. You need the capacity so if the thing goes on exponentially increasing, you can get it right.
At the moment, hospital capacity in the U.S. and Europe is full. I’ve got reports from anesthesiologists and others in Lombardy [in Italy] saying the kind of decisions they're having to make about who can survive and who can't survive right now in overfull intensive care units with a shortage of ventilators are absolutely barbaric in a modern country, a G7 country. So everyone should be focused on this, and it should be organized.
What I would say to leaders in the West is please study what China had to do and please study what Korea had to do and study what Singapore is doing. Please study the difficulties that Iran has faced. Please study what has happened in Italy, and form your own conclusions.
The WHO advised against restricting travel and trade early in the outbreak. It has since praised China’s success, which came from a lock down approach. What is the role for travel and trade in this pandemic? Is locking things down the right approach? Should it have been done earlier?
This is a really tricky one. Creating a barrier between myself and the problem would work if the barriers are going to be watertight. But you can't create watertight barriers. It's very hard to block borders of any nation unless they happen to be a sort of island that's pretty well-fortified. If you've got land borders people will come through. Second, people can have disease but not show it. And if you're saying geography, in most cases you’ll be out of date fast because this thing is popping up in so many different places. So it’s crude but not stupid. You can slow things down.
Where everything goes wrong is when one country feels that they’re is somehow being blamed or punished for the fact that people of their country are traveling. And then you get resentment and damage to what we need most of all, which is international cooperation. Without international cooperation, these kinds of things are so hard to deal with.
So there's times when restricting movement inside countries and restricting movement between countries is a logical thing to do. But I'm really wishing that it can be done through collective effort. Helping Lombardy to have a restriction on movement, yes, but [Lombardy] also comes up and abuts against a France here and Switzerland there, so we need to draw the curves not so much that it's designed around one particular country but around a number of countries. It shouldn’t be some national game.
How’s international cooperation going right now?
Despite the fact that they've got this sort of huge wiring system right across the world—the UN system—national priorities are making harmonious behavior super difficult. Suspicions, blaming, and all that. Perhaps it's just the environment in which we have to work, and we should stop being starry-eyed in thinking that collaboration will come back.
But I am starry-eyed, and I remain of the opinion that getting on top of or ahead of this outbreak is only going to be possible through a common narrative, a shared strategy, a willingness to look at those who need the most help and to reserve this precious equipment and reagents and treatments for those most in need and avoiding all this stigmatizing and stuff.
I'm still hopeful. I still think that in the end we'll come around. I think businesses will sooner or later through their CEOs come up against the state and government and say, “You've going to do better.” Tedros declared a pandemic because he was frustrated by the failure of governments to take this seriously. And I think businesses will come next, and, frankly, I think the people will be the next phase. I think there will be a growing number of people who say, “Come on. This is so important. It's the future of our world, and we just have to work on it together.”
What do you tell business leaders when they turn to you?
Businesses are amazing because their CEOs have realized that not only are their business models in real difficulty, they also realize that they connect with billions of people through their brands. They've got huge supply chains; they got big shareholding networks. They want to survive. They don't want the markets to be completely damaged. So they see it in their interest as being part of the response.
Klaus Schawb, founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) said, “I want to give all the assets the WEF has to deal with this outbreak. It's the most important thing going on that has happened in my time as chairman. I'll stop everything.”
He’s got everybody working from home. He's got all these industry groups completely focused on how each sector group can be helpful in relation to the pandemic. He's got CEOs coming together each week on a platform, several hundreds of them thinking how they can connect, carry messages, empower people, make them feel strong, give them leadership. So businesses are just there and engaged and brilliant. They say, “We’ll do what’s needed.” And so the real challenge for me is governments somehow either saying “You public health people are exaggerating,” or saying this is the fault of x, y, or z country for bringing the virus into countries when in fact the virus is already there.
In the U.S., we have an issue with many people not having paid sick leave. Especially in the service industry—they can’t afford not to go to work.
I think this is the most important point of all. No health insurance, no nice employer is going to continue paying them when they're working from home because their work involves contact with people.
People in the construction industry, people in the hospitality sector, people who work in restaurant kitchens, people who work in utilities—some of them will be able to work, but an awful lot of them won't. And then their kids are going to be sent home from school.
Who’s going to look after the kids? The whole thing is going to hit poor people like nothing we've ever known before in advanced economies. And that really worries us. In Italy at the moment, there's a huge underclass of poor people who are wondering, how in the hell are we going to survive?
Is this something businesses are ready to address?
I don't know. This is a point we're starting to explore with them. Perhaps we’ll get alacrity with them when we point out that this will be a bit of a dollars and cents issue.
This has been a process of continuous discovery, and as people start to come to terms with what this really means, there’s been a huge mindset shift among many people in the private sector over the last two weeks. The WHO can’t be responsible for some of this. So I expect this will be something that really would need to be an initiative from business leaders.
Anything else you would add?
In the U.S., you have a lovely thing where you give special attention to serving members of the military, where they get to go to the front of security lines at airports and have special lounges at stations and so on. They're treated with real respect and people say thank you for your service.
We need to do that with health workers—not just the doctors and professors but also the nurses, the auxiliaries, the people who are going to be keeping the hospitals going, who are going to be gowned up in PPE—hot, sweaty, because it's going to get hot—people who we're going to depend on carry us through this.
Anything we can do to really help increase the respect that society gives to health professionals—because we depend on them more than ever for this—is great. In Europe, the real value of their income has been dropping, dropping, dropping, dropping over the years. Typically, the [female] health workers, they'll be the ones who save a bunch of lives, and they’ll be the ones who face the greatest dangers. It’d be really nice if we can get real authentic support for them.
