The US is failing the test of the century | 美国未能通过世纪大考 - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT英语电台

The US is failing the test of the century
美国未能通过世纪大考

A new wave and second lockdown would be a bigger hit to wealth than a cautious return to work, but Donald Trump is refusing to listen
新一波疫情带来第二次封城将比谨慎的返工对财富的打击更大,但唐纳德·特朗普拒绝听取正确的意见。
00:00

Like an asteroid, coronavirus is the textbook example of an exogenous shock. The threat came from beyond. Yet the pathogen offers a unique stress test of each country’s resilience. Some nation states are holding up well. In spite of its unmatched scientific resources, the US is not. More worrying, it is showing little sign of lifting its performance. Six weeks after its first coronavirus death, America’s learning curve remains flatter than its infection rate. It should be the other way round. 

The biggest worry is that the US still lacks a road map. The federal government has only a weak grasp on how many Americans are infected with Covid-19, a clear measure of the mortality rate, and therefore the extent of immunity in the country. Without more tests, the US is travelling blind. Just 1 per cent of the country, 3.2m people, have been tested so far. In early March, Mike Pence, the vice-president, promised 4m tests within a week. The same day, President Donald Trump said anybody in the US who wanted a test could get one. That remains as untrue today as it was then. 

The stubborn fact is that the US is not churning out enough kits. The average number of daily tests has been stuck at 140,000 for the past two weeks. That is far below the level that scientists say is required to gauge the pandemic’s reach. Some say the US should be testing 10 times that number to understand the spread of the disease. Others want half-a-million a day. Either way, testing has hit a very low plateau, which is a metric of negligence. Without a grasp of the facts, the US will not find its way out. 

The deepest puzzle is the gap between wishes and action. Mr Trump was not alone in waking up very late to the coronavirus threat. Others, including Britain’s Boris Johnson, were equally laggard. Each country now has higher death rates than they would have had they acted sooner. Epidemiologists say that if the US shutdown had taken place two weeks earlier, 90 per cent of the deaths would have been prevented. More than 30,000 Americans have now died, according to the official tally. Had no social distancing occurred at all, the US would have lost many times that by now. There is no excuse for running the same experiment again. 

undefined

Yet that is what Mr Trump is pushing to do. On Thursday he will publish guidelines for the reopening of the US economy from May 1 — less than two weeks away. The worst-hit states on each coast will probably stick to their timetables. US politics abhors a federal vacuum. States are clubbing together to fill it. But they will be subjected to increasingly urgent pressure to follow Mr Trump’s dictates, which are driven by politics, rather than science. It was one thing to wake up late to the virus. It would be quite another to drift back into sleep too soon. 

There is no point in fantasising which US presidents would have done better. The answer is almost any. You go to war with the president you have. But it is easy to project Mr Trump’s direction. There will be no federal plan to marshal the US’s resources for testing, therapeutics or the search for a vaccine. The US will have to rely on its patchwork of labs, companies and philanthropists. They are unrivalled but highly fragmented. As the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, put it: states should not have to compete with each other during a war for tanks and guns. 

undefined

Nor will Mr Trump educate Americans about the reality ahead. In his view, the US is already past the peak. Failure to reopen the economy would cost more lives than keeping it closed, he says. In fact, a new wave that triggered a second lockdown would be a far bigger hit to US wealth than a cautious return to work over a period of months. One paper estimates the difference at $5.2tn over 30 years. Economists and scientists mostly agree on this. Mr Trump is deaf to the consensus. 

Which means the US is likely to flunk the test that matters most — national purpose. No matter how sinuous their civic institutions, nations without leadership lose wars. The US was galvanised into unity after the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and the launch of Sputnik. Covid-19, by contrast, is spurring a hunt for scapegoats. The virus is only worsening America’s divide.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

央行行长们的新年计划

决策者应承诺公布“中性”利率水平的估计值。

马斯克会成为英国民粹政党的政治捐赠人吗?

科技行业亿万富翁正在“认真考虑”向奈杰尔•法拉奇领导的英国改革党捐款。

Lex专栏:本田和日产要用越野思维来解决电动化挑战

传统汽车制造商与其试图建立电动汽车制造规模,不如另辟蹊径。

Lex专栏:投资者厌倦了“画饼式”能源转型公司

无论战略多么高瞻远瞩,股东的耐心都会被消磨殆尽。

在特朗普执政期间,加密货币监管需要经过深思熟虑的重新审视

期待已久的公共政策支持可以提升美国在区块链技术、人工智能和加密货币领域的领导地位。
1天前

特斯拉努力避免取消马斯克薪酬方案的高昂成本

如果这家电动汽车制造商和首席执行官被迫放弃2018年的交易,他们可能会面临超过1000亿美元的会计和税务费用。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×