The official said that under the guidance of relevant state departments, the province and the city are conducting in-depth investigations into major traffic accidents on Sanli Expressway, and the relevant responsible persons will be held accountable in accordance with the law and

According to media reports, three cadres in Guiyang City were organized for a major traffic accident on Sanli Expressway. Zhu Gang, secretary of the Yunyan District Party Committee of Guiyang City, Song Chengqiang, member of the Standing Committee of the Yunyan District Party Committee, director of the United Front Work Department of the District Party Committee, and head of the district isolation and transfer work team, and Xiao Lingyun, deputy secretary of the Party Committee and political commissar of the Yunyan Branch of Guiyang Public Security Bureau, were suspended for inspection. The official said that under the guidance of relevant state departments, the province and the city are conducting in-depth investigations into major traffic accidents on Sanli Expressway, and the relevant responsible persons will be held accountable in accordance with the law and regulations, and will never tolerate them. The relevant investigation and handling results will be announced to the public in a timely manner.

In fact, this reflects the main orientation of Chinese politics, with result justice as the main orientation and procedural justice as the supplement, and thus forming a responsible government. Behind the standardization of organizational discipline, what is more important is the result - if there is a big problem in the result, then someone will inevitably need to take responsibility. If no major accidents occurred, in fact, similar transportation has been carried out in many cities. During the epidemic in Shanghai, the scale of transportation was larger, but there were no accidents, so it was widely accepted.

Responsible government benefits are fast response and can concentrate efforts to implement long-term strategies. The relative disadvantage is that it is often difficult to complete pre-authorization procedures, lack of rights boundaries with society, and lack of sufficient communication skills with society. Therefore, the threshold for building an effective responsible government is actually far higher than that of an ordinary elected government, which is a great test of the strategic thinking and political ability of the leadership collective, because if there is a problem with the decision-making, the consequences will not only be serious but the society will often not buy it. But if it is a successful responsible government, it can withstand risks and develop against the trend. The most typical example of

is epidemic prevention. When COVID-19 appeared in Wuhan, the decision to lock down the city was very large, but the central government was able to quickly make up its mind to lock down the city. Judging from the results, it was very difficult during the lockdown in Wuhan, but the lockdown stopped a larger number of deaths and in fact ended the local epidemic in China. China's total economic output quickly exceeded the fourth quarter of 2019 in the second quarter of 2020. But in Western countries, the decision to lock down has been delayed due to parliamentary discussions, and the government's power is greatly restricted, resulting in the loose implementation. In the end, it can only "lower the infection curve" to slow down the epidemic's violent impact on the medical system. As for the UK and Sweden , it was also directly proposed that " herd immunity " is not a strategy that is taught by the virus to be a human being. In the end, a large number of countries have not yet recovered to the total economic output in the fourth quarter of 2019, and a lot of people have died. This political model is also deeply engraved in their respective societies. For example, few people really think about the decision to lock down the city, what procedures are required for such a resolute decision, whether it requires legislative authorization from the representative agency, etc. The Chinese people's reaction is to look at the results, and the result is that the Chinese people have seen the country mobilize as much force as possible to prevent the epidemic. The epidemic has extinguished the society and recovered, so they have widely accepted such decisions. Westerners and even in most countries in the world rarely think about the outcome of the epidemic. They are more concerned about whether the government has overreached its authority, whether it has the right to force a lockdown, and whether individuals have the right to not wear masks or get vaccinated. However, for the consequences of the epidemic, Western people are actually "willing to accept the loss" of the consequences of the epidemic. They recognize such a result and classify it as personal responsibility, and will not really overthrow the government because of a large number of deaths.

From the root, China has a complete and long history of unified nationality. The state does not come from the partners who signed contracts with society, but a pre-existing and historical authority. Its legitimacy comes from whether the country's performance meets specific standards. If it does not meet, the people have the right to overturn it. After , the Roman Empire , the West had no experience in unifying the rule of the great empire. Under the dual rule of scattered feudalism and Christianity, a state view of equality with society was finally formed, and it was determined in the form of social contract theory in modern times.

So the Chinese do not understand why a million Americans died and why they did not rebel, while the Americans do not understand why the Chinese government is so tough and obeys. In fact, these are two different sets of political cultures, but China's political culture has been self-deprecating. Now, China's political culture does have its own important value, and the continuous development and the minimization of losses in the face of the epidemic are all manifestations of this value.

Therefore, in turn, we understand dynamic zeroing . Dynamic zeroing is essentially a way of resource allocation. The political basis for choosing dynamic zeroing is precisely because this policy can still use existing resources to resist the risks and losses brought by the epidemic with existing resources to avoid runs of medical resources. China's country has an obligation to lead the people to overcome difficulties and achieve a better life, and the Chinese people will not consider it a purely personal matter. Therefore, if large-scale medical runs cannot be avoided when coexistence is relaxed, and the decline in labor capacity and heavy family medical burden cannot be avoided due to large-scale repeated infections, then the anger of the Chinese people cannot be targeted at the country but just feel that they are unlucky.

So, if dynamic zeroing will end under what circumstances, the biggest and most reliable choice is to not have a medical run. This basically depends on when the teacher of new crown plans to let humans go. Many people who advocate opening still have a significant underestimation of the severity of this virus. The current data of severe illness and mortality rate of 3.35‰ under controlled conditions cannot support the judgment that "relaxation will be better".

If we look closely, China's government system is actually controlled according to the results, and the process control of procedural justice is relatively weak. Process control is not very feasible in China because there is a lack of clear indicators and clear boundaries of rights and responsibilities, relying on process control is basically equivalent to losing control. What is needed to relax coexist is not that the government does nothing, but that it is a very rigorous and scientifically continuous and balanced allocation of medical resources. This is first of all, it is very difficult to operate, and secondly, it will lead to a de facto out of control at multiple levels. Once the government system loses control, it basically means that the government itself is lying flat, and the resulting situation is likely to be a very bad situation.

There are many things to ensure supply during the epidemic in Shanghai. If coexistence is relaxed, this group of people will also use the environment of shortage of medical resources to resell hospital beds, medical equipment and materials, hospital registration, etc., and because of the extreme shortage of resources, this group of people basically don’t have to worry about being punished. Can this be considered justice? If life is traded in this case, then there is no need to say how angry the society will be. The voices of accusing the government of inaction must be like a tsunami.

Actually, looking at what foreign countries look like, the stadium is basically crowded, the hospital is crowded with people and medical care is still lacking, and there are also a lot of people who are unhealthy after repeated infections at work. Western society will not collapse because Westerners still regard this situation as the price of personal choice. But if you are in China, I believe that at least the "broadcom destruction" has been "at least countless times.

This article is very "Chinese exceptionalism", but if you look at the performance of epidemic prevention, I personally think that this "Chinese exceptionalism" is actually closer to the situation we are facing. According to this logic, dynamic zeroing will eventually exit the stage of history only if there is no large-scale run of medical resources. But I don’t know when this day will come, the only thing we can say is that the epidemic will eventually pass.