[video]//player.bilibili.com/player.html?aid=968846573&bvid=BV1bp4y1S74v&cid=210413019&page=1[video]
For this week’s episode of PODCAST-19, we interviewed Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and a leader in the United States’ COVID-19 response. As you’ll hear in the podcast and read in sexted excerpts below, we covered a lot of ground in the 30 minutes we had to talk, including how the U.S. is doing compared to other countries, how American partisanship has influenced our recovery efforts, and how a COVID-19 vaccine might influence the future of vaccine acceptance in our country.

在本周的播客-19节目中,我们采访了安东尼·福西博士,他是美国国家过敏与传染病研究所所长,同时也是美国新型冠状病毒对策的领导者。正如你将在播客中听到的以及在下面选择的节选中读到的,我们在30分钟的谈话中涉及了很多内容,包括美国与其他国家相比的表现如何,美国的党派偏见如何影响了我们的复苏工作,以及新型冠状病毒疫苗对我国未来疫苗接受的影响。

On why we’re seeing a surge in cases:
Anna Rothschild: So are you saying that in these states, are you saying that it’s a mix of politicians not following guidelines and people not following orders?

关于为什么我们的病例不断激增:
安娜 · 罗斯柴尔德:那么你是说在这些州,政客们不遵守指导方针,人们不服从命令?


AR: Do you think that Florida and Arizona opened up too quickly?

安娜:你认为佛罗里达州和亚利桑那州开放得太快了吗?



AF: You know, I think you’d have to admit that that’s the case. We live, I mean, you have to be having blindfolders on and covering your ears to think that we don’t live in a very divisive society now, from a political standpoint. I mean, it’s just unfortunate, but it is what it is. And you know, from experience historically, that when you don’t have unanimity in an approach to something, you’re not as effective in how you handle it. So I think you’d have to make the assumption that if there wasn’t such divisiveness, that we would have a more coordinated approach.

福西:我觉得你不得不承认这是事实。我们生活在,我的意思是,从政治角度来看,你必须蒙住眼睛,捂住耳朵,才能认为我们现在不是生活在非常分裂的社会里。我的意思是,这很不幸,但事实就是如此。你知道,从历史经验来看,当你在处理某件事情的方法上,没有达成一致意见时,你就不能有效地处理它。所以我认为你必须假设,如果没有这样的分歧,我们会有一个更加协调的方法。

On how the U.S. is doing:
AR: How do you think the U.S. is doing right now? If you’re looking across the world, what are your feelings about how we’re doing right now?

关于美国现在的情况:
安娜:你认为美国现在的情况如何?如果你环顾世界,你对我们现在的情况有什么感受?

AF: Well, let me say there are parts of the United States, like where you live right now [in New York], that are doing really well, that you’ve been through something really bad and you have things under control. And you have a governor and mayor in the city who understand what it means to go by the guidelines for the gateway, phase one, phase two, phase three. So you’re doing well. Other cities are doing well. But as a country, when you compare us to other countries, I don’t think you can say we’re doing great. I mean, we’re just not.

福西:好吧,让我说说美国的一些地方,比如你现在住的纽约,情况很好,你们经历了一些非常糟糕的事情,但一切都在你们的掌控之中。这个城市有一个政府官员和市长,他们知道按照指导方针,第一阶段,第二阶段,第三阶段意味着什么。所以你们做得很好。其他城市也做得不错。但是作为一个国家,当你把我们和其他国家相比时,我不认为你可以说我们做得很好。我的意思是,我们没有。

On travel restrictions:
AR: We’re at this weird place now where the EU and some other European countries are opening their borders, but they’re still banning travel from the United States. Do you think that’s a justified decision on their part?

关于旅行限制:
安娜:我们现在面临一个奇怪的处境,欧盟和其他一些欧洲国家正在开放他们的边界,但是他们仍然禁止从美国过来的旅行。你认为他们这样做是正当的决定吗?

AF: You know, I wouldn’t use the word justified. I would say it’s understandable. Because, you know, when we saw that there were many cases in Europe and in China, we banned travel from the European unx, from the U.K., to us. So right now, they have their infection rate very low, much lower than we do. So they’re looking at us and they’re saying the same thing that we said to them. I wish that that were not the case. I wouldn’t be recommending that. I think we need to get back to some sort of normality. Just the same as they’re saying to us, “Why are you still banning travel from Europe?” Which we are. I mean, so I’m all for America and I back what we do. But if I were a European, then I’d be looking at us. I’d say, “Why are you still banning Europeans from coming to the United States?”

福西:我不会用“正当”这个词。我认为这是可以理解的。因为,你知道,之前我们看到在欧洲和中国有很多病例时,我们禁止欧盟,英国到我们这里旅行。现在,他们的感染率非常低,比我们低得多。所以他们看着我们,说着我们对他们说过的话。我希望事实并非如此。我不会建议这样做。但我认为我们需要回到某种正常的状态。就像他们对我们说的那样“为什么你们仍然禁止来自欧洲的旅行? ”我们确实是这样做。我的意思是,我完全支持美国,我支持我们所做的决定。但如果我是欧洲人,我就会看着我们,然后说“为什么你们仍然禁止欧洲人来美国? ”

On whether we can get control of the virus without a vaccine:
AR: Without a vaccine, how hopeful are you that we’ll get this pandemic under control in the U.S.?

关于我们是否能在没有疫苗的情况下控制病毒:
安娜:如果没有疫苗,你认为我们美国有希望能控制住这场大流行吗?

AF: I think we can get it under control. But keeping it under control is going to be the real problem. Because this virus is not like other viruses that we’ve experienced, like the original SARS from 2002. That was a coronavirus. It caused an outbreak, a pandemic — there were 8,000 cases and 800 deaths. So in magnitude alone, you see how different it is from what we’re doing now. But it was not really very well and efficiently transmissible, whereas this virus, to our dismay, is spectacularly efficient in transmitting from person to person. So that makes me skeptical whether we would get permanent, sustained control of this without having a vaccine.

福西:我想我们能控制住局面的。但是,真正的问题是该如何控制它。因为这种病毒不同于我们经历过的其他病毒,比如2002年的SARS,那是一种冠状病毒,它引起了一场疫情的爆发,一场大流行——有8000个病例,造成800人死亡。所以单从数量级来说,你可以看到它与我们现在所做的有多么不同。但是SARS病毒的传播能力并不是很高,也不是很有效。
然而令我们沮丧的是,这次的新冠病毒在人与人之间传播的效率高得惊人。所以这让我怀疑我们是否能够在没有疫苗的情况下长久地控制这场疫情。

On how anti-vaxxers affect what will happen once a vaccine is discovered:
AR: One thing I’ve been thinking a lot about is that, you know, with any vaccine, even after it goes through extensive clinical trials, there is always some risk of adverse effects. And even if the side effects with the COVID vaccine, whatever it may be, are extremely small, it’s going to get more media attention than probably any other vaccine in history. At the same time, we also have a growing anti-vaccine movement in this country and around the world. So I’m wondering whether you and other other public health officials are concerned about kind of the long term impact of this moment on vaccine acceptance?

关于反疫苗运动如何影响发现疫苗后的情况:
安娜:我一直在思考的一件事是,你知道,任何疫苗,即使经过广泛的临床试验,总是有一些副作用的风险。而且即使新冠疫苗的副作用非常小,它也将比历史上任何其他疫苗得到更多的媒体关注。与此同时,在美国和世界各地,反疫苗运动也在愈演愈烈。所以,我想知道你和其他公共卫生官员是否担心这个时刻对疫苗接种的长期影响?

AF: That’s a great question, Anna. Because what it really tells us is that we got to get it right. We really do. Because if we don’t, it might have a real negative impact in the long range, in the long term, on how people approach and respond to the need for vaccination, which is the reason why we’re taking so seriously that even though we’re doing this quickly, we’re not compromising the safety and nor are we compromising the scientific integrity. So as we go into the phase three trials, not only are we going to be looking at efficacy, but we’re going to be really paying attention: Is there anything there that we’re seeing that’s even suggestive of a negative impact? That’s going to be really very important. So that’s a really important question you asked.

福西:这是一个很好的问题,安娜。因为它真正告诉我们的是,我们必须把事情做好。我们真的需要。因为如果我们不这样做,从长远来看,这可能会对关于人们如何应对疫苗接种的需要,产生真正的负面影响,这就是为什么我们这么认真对待的原因,即使我们做得很快,我们既不能在安全性上妥协,也不能在科学的完整性上妥协。所以,当我们进入第三阶段试验时,我们不仅要关注疗效,而且还要真正关注:有没有什么我们看到的,甚至暗示着负面影响的东西?这将是非常重要的。所以,你问的这个问题非常重要。