《失信：公共卫生体系的崩溃》公共卫生的崩溃：信用缺失

After finishing the book "Lost Trust," my overall impression can be summarized into three points. Firstly, the extended narrative of the Cold War; secondly, the extreme indulgence in conservatism; and thirdly, the astonishingly accurate predictions.

Firstly, the extended narrative of the Cold War - the blacklisting of the Soviet Union and of collective socialism is the top priority. The first two chapters of the book mainly serve as an introduction and briefly narrate the plague outbreak in India and the Ebola epidemic in Africa. Both diseases instilled fear in people, and doctors were like lone heroes guarding the places affected by the outbreak, even if it meant sacrificing their own lives and the lives of their families. However, the real story starts from the third chapter, where the narrative returns to the Cold War era, attacking the public health failures of the post-Soviet Union era due to financial issues and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and drug-resistant tuberculosis in post-Soviet Russia. It does not focus on the achievements in public health during the early Soviet Union to criticize the Soviet revisionism. Instead, it is more suitable to raise the key issue of the contradiction between public health and clinical medicine, where public health has significantly increased the groups life expectancy, while innovative clinical medicine can effectively prolong an individuals life expectancy. How will the balance be maintained? Of course, the narrative of the Cold War has its issues, such as still discussing Lysenkoism and the propaganda of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction and biological terrorism in the 1980s, which seems like blackening unnecessarily. The lesson left by the former Soviet Union and India in the 1990s was self-sufficiency. We must never collapse.

Secondly, the extreme indulgence in conservatism - the second favorite thing for the author is to criticize himself. Reviewing the public health system in the United States since the 20th century, it can be said that it constantly seesawed with the rise of biology and epidemiology. In summary, after World War II, there was nationalism and prosperity - "everyone for everyone, and everyone is for everyone"; followed by the Vietnam War and stagnation in science with self-doubt and conspiracy theories, and the new madness of neo-liberalism since the 1990s. The United States most significant role on this damaged globe may be to continuously perform the fighting between community or nationalism and individual or neo-liberalism in public health. Of course, regarding public health, we have discovered that once spread between people (including not just direct disease transmission, but also indirect transmission such as lifestyles for chronic diseases), an epidemic becomes a kind of tax. Why did the healthcare welfare for the poor increase for a while? Because the Soviet Union existed, and the wealthy class realized that they would also suffer indiscriminate attacks. But after the "Brave New World," when the walls formed between different classes or communities, the bottom was dispensable. Inadequate access to healthcare for the lower class, even if available, makes it hard to have stable sources of medicine, further cultivating more drug-resistant strains, and resulting in worse epidemic trends. Unfortunately, most elite field studies do not understand these matters.

Thirdly, the astonishingly accurate predictions. Following the second point, everything the United States has done in the last twenty years has become predictable. The most classic discourse on epidemic control in this book is enclosed in a figure. Different people have different perceptions of whether the calculation is correct, and I will not evaluate it further. The book was published in 2001, considering that the last twenty years have been a period of neo-liberal madness; it is effortless for the results to have naturally occurred.

After reading this book, one question remains a classic, "Public health significantly raises the groups life expectancy, while innovative clinical medicine can effectively prolong an individuals life expectancy. How will the balance be maintained?" Public health is a special subject — it could meet Voltaires various definitions of the Holy Roman Empire, where it is neither holy nor Roman, nor an empire — it is neither public, nor health, nor a discipline. The 2003 SARS epidemic teaches us that public health needs a robust monitoring system, which was established well before the end of last year; the experience of the last twenty years is that under efficient mobilization, public health can complete prevention and elimination before technical treatment; the story of the twenty-second year is that even this organized approach requires a long-term update of means and constant strategy adjustments, especially to complete technical transfer from economically developed regions to underdeveloped regions. The only question left to humanity is, what does the COV-reverse transcription bring that will affect the evolution of humanity?