Editor's note: Jonathan Arnott is a former member of the European Parliament. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN. 编者按：乔纳森·阿诺特（Jonathan Arnott）是前欧洲议会议员。本文仅代表作者的观点，不代表本台观点。 Five years ago, I was debating an Ebola outbreak in the European Parliament and its budgetary control committee. Western governments made huge mistakes when it came to responding to the Ebola virus, failing to understand the clinical challenges faced by an outbreak of that type. Meanwhile, media sensationalism was rampant. The coverage engendered tangible fear in many communities which were never in any serious risk. 五年前，我在欧洲议会及其预算控制委员会中就埃博拉疫情参加辩论。西方政府在应对埃博拉疫情时犯了巨大的错误，根本未能把握此类疫情会造成的临床挑战。同时，各路媒体的过分渲染引发了不少恐慌。 在许多社区，这些报道催生了人们心中的恐惧，但其实这些社区压根没有遭遇任何重大风险。 The response by Chinese authorities to the novel coronavirus outbreak has, as you would expect of an economic powerhouse, been far superior to that in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia to the Ebola outbreak of 2014. One of the few things correctly being reported in the Western media is that the Chinese government intended to have two dedicated hospitals for the novel coronavirus in ten days.想必大家也都意料到，中国作为一个实力雄厚的经济体，其政府对新型冠状病毒感染的肺炎疫情之响应远远好于几内亚、塞拉利昂和利比里亚对2014年埃博拉疫情的响应。尽管西方媒体曲解了许多事实，但有一点是正确的，即中国政府打算在十天内建成两家专门的医院，集中收治新型冠状病毒感染的肺炎患者。 When Western governments tried to create such new hospitals in response to Ebola, it took months: they should have used faster options for a virus which was at the time doubling the number of cases each week. The mindset was more keen on getting everything done right, rather than getting it done quickly. 当初西方政府也计划建设专门收治埃博拉病毒感染者的新医院，但整个过程却耗费了数月时间。面对每周病例数翻一番的严重疫情，他们本应该果断采取更快的应对措施。当时决策者们更多考虑的是方案的质量而非效率。 It's certainly appropriate for there to be concerns over the novel coronavirus, just as it was appropriate to have concerns over Ebola. The Chinese government's decision to quarantine Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, shows that it is being taken seriously. 既然埃博拉病毒能够引发铺天盖地的担忧，新型冠状病毒也自然会引起人们的高度警惕。中国政府决定对1100万人口的武汉市进行全市检疫隔离，这一举动表明政府非常重视疫情问题。 The construction site of a special hospital in the Caidian District of Wuhan, central China's Hubei Province, January 24, 2020. /Xinhua Photo Yet within the Western media, I am seeing many of the same mistakes repeated once more. Scaremongering headlines, taking the most extreme potential scenarios and assuming a completely ineffective clinical response, are unhelpful. Newspaper headlines scream about how "50 million" or "65 million" people could be killed by the novel coronavirus outbreak, claiming that this coronavirus is "as deadly as the Spanish flu" of 1918. 但是在西方媒体中，我看到许多同样的错误一犯再犯。它们依旧在描绘最为极端的疫情后果，认为所有的临床应对措施都将无济于事，这些耸人听闻的新闻头条实属帮倒忙。许多头条文章声称新型冠状病毒疫情将杀死5000万~6500万人，会像1918年的西班牙大流感一样致命。 Look at the data though, and you'll see a fundamentally different story. I've read academic papers on the subject before writing this piece; I wonder how many Western journalists have done likewise before submitting their articles. 但如果你看看数据，就会看到一个截然不同的画面。在落笔之前，我阅读了不少关于该主题的学术论文。我想知道有多少西方记者在提交文章之前做了同样的研究。 Disease control researchers often talk about R0 – the number of new people infected, on average, by each person with a virus. If it's below one, the number of cases will reduce. Above one, and it will increase. The Guangdong Provincial Center for Disease Control currently estimates R0 for the coronavirus at 2.9. Professor Neil Ferguson at Imperial College London estimated it at 2.6. 疾病控制研究人员经常谈论R0(基本增生速率)，即一位病毒感染者在患病期内平均传染的人数。如果小于1，则病例数量将减少。如果大于1，则病例数量将增加。广东省疾控中心目前估计新型冠状病毒的R0为2.9。伦敦帝国理工学院的尼尔·弗格森教授估计为2.6。 The lower that number is, the slower the disease will spread. If it's possible to prevent 60-65 percent of transmission, then the "average" patient will infect less than one person and the outbreak will be under complete control. R0值越低，疾病传播速度越慢。如果能够阻止60-65％的传播，那么“普通”患者的感染人数将少于一个人，疫情将得到完全控制。 While the Western media uses Professor Ferguson's research to create doomsday scenarios, the research itself says it's "highly likely" that sustained human transmission will occur "unless effective control measures are implemented." 西方媒体利用弗格森教授的研究结果来大肆散播末日言论，但研究本身仅仅表示，除非采取有效的控制措施，否则很有可能会发生持续的人传人感染。 For the Western media, accuracy in reporting doesn't sell newspapers or persuade people to spend more time watching television. In America, the television company NBC showed a graphic with a map of China. The locations of Beijing and Shanghai had been put on the map the wrong way around. Likewise, a newspaper report saying that "with good disease control, the coronavirus can almost certainly be beaten" would not function as clickbait, persuading more people to read it. A headline threatening an apocalypse of 50-65 million deaths does so. 在西方媒体眼中，准确的报道无助于报纸的销量，也无法说服人们花更多时间看电视。美国全国广播公司(NBC)展示了一张中国疫情分布地图，图中北京和上海的位置都画错了。此外，如果一篇报道的标题为“只要控制好疾病，冠状病毒几乎可以被击败”，那便根本起不到“标题党”的作用，无法吸引人们点击阅读。但如果头条新闻威胁说将会有5000万~6500万人死于疫情，那么便能博人眼球。 Even the word "Coronavirus" itself, used without explanation and together with worst-case-scenario headlines, is enough to create more fear in readers' minds. Certainly, it's possible that a coronavirus can be lethal – but others (such as coronaviruses 229E and OC43) are merely responsible for the common cold. 即便不做任何解释，仅仅将“冠状病毒”一词与最糟糕的情况拼凑在一起，便足以在读者的脑海中激发恐惧。但其实只有部分冠状病毒具有致命性，而其他病毒（例如人冠状病毒229E和OC43）仅会导致普通感冒。 Meanwhile, some of the newspaper reports do show that lessons have been learned from previous outbreaks. My recent memory is of Ebola, but a more direct comparison would be with the SARS virus (which is also of the same type). Combating the novel coronavirus and preventing its spread could be more challenging, because it's harder to detect. 与此同时，一些报纸文章确实显示人们从先前的疫情中吸取了教训。我最先想到的是埃博拉疫情，但此次疫情最直接的对标对象是非典疫情，因为二者同属冠状病毒感染的肺炎疫情。然而，与新型冠状病毒作斗争并阻止其传播可能更具挑战性，因为它很难被察觉。 SARS was more severe and few if any carried the virus but only had mild symptoms. If someone with the virus only has mild symptoms and doesn't go to the doctor, they may well infect many others without ever being traced. 非典疫情烈度高, 只有小部分携带这种病毒的患者表现出轻度症状。如果感染病毒的人只有轻微症状且不去就医，那么他们很可能感染更多的人，且难以被追踪。 Rather than the various conspiracy theories floating around the internet, this is likely to be one of the biggest reasons for the Chinese government's decision to quarantine Wuhan.互联网上各种阴谋论都不足为据，无症状者能够传播病毒才是中国政府决定进行武汉全市检疫隔离的首要原因之一。 Li Lanjuan, a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, said that it will take at least a month to develop a vaccine for the novel coronavirus and half of a month to test it. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggests that it is likely to be "under three months." The academic research, in China and in the West, is generally in agreement. 中国工程院院士李兰娟表示，要找到一种有效的疫苗来预防新型冠状病毒的传播，至少需要一个月的时间研发和半个月的时间测试。美国国家卫生研究院国家过敏和传染病研究所所长安东尼·福西（Anthony Fauci）表示，疫苗可能在三个月内上市。中国和西方对此的学术研究结论基本一致。 Is there a serious threat posed by this novel coronavirus? Of course there is. The fact that we are seeing such a fast response from the medical community across the world shows that. Could this new coronavirus kill 50 million people if governments and the medical profession did not take any action at all? Quite possibly so. That's not what is happening though. 这种新型冠状病毒是否构成严重威胁？当然是。这也是为何我们看到全世界医疗机构如此迅速地做出反应。如果政府和医疗机构根本不采取任何行动，这种新型冠状病毒会杀死5000万人吗？很有可能。但真实情况并非如此。 Strong action is being taken to prevent further spreading. It's clear that lessons have been learned from the SARS and Ebola outbreaks in the past. Western cultures hold a particular fear of death; morbid headlines induce disproportionate panic. There is no need to terrify citizens, merely to report the facts fairly and accurately. 目前中国政府正在采取强有力的措施以防止疫情进一步扩散。显然人们已从过去的非典和埃博拉疫情中吸取了教训。西方文化中人们特别畏惧死亡，由此生发出的病态头条新闻只会引起过度恐慌。其实它们根本不应该吓唬民众，只需中肯准确地报道事实即可。