For all(尽管，虽然) the zeal(热情，狂热) Congress has shown in investigating America’s response to the covid-19 pandemic, it has been strangely uninterested in exploring a basic question: why did so many Americans die relative to the numbers who succumbed(死亡，屈服) to the virus in other rich countries? Understanding the answer would seem relevant to guarding against the next, inevitable pandemic.
尽管国会在调查美国对covid-19大流行的应对方面表现出极大热情，但它却奇怪地无意探究一个基本问题：为什么与其他富裕国家相比，有这么多美国人死于该病毒？理解这个答案似乎与防范下一次不可避免的大流行息息相关。
Many countries were slow to react, but as they learned about the transmissibility(传播性，传染性) of the virus, and as vaccines became available, they rapidly cut their death rates. Not so America(美国并非如此). “The death rate is now about eight times higher in America than in the rest of the rich world,” The Economist reported in September 2021. In all, America lost more than 1.1m people to covid, or roughly 3,500 lives out of every million. This should haunt(萦绕，使困扰) every official who was in a position to combat the pandemic. Germany’s death rate was about 2,000 per million people and Canada’s fewer than 1,400, notes Donald McNeil in his book “The Wisdom of Plagues”. Had America managed to split that difference, at about 1,700 per million, “We would have lost about 540,000 fewer dead,” he writes.(如果美国能取中间值，每百万人约1700人，就会少失去约54万人。) “Who speaks for them?”
许多国家反应迟缓，但随着他们了解病毒的传播性，随着疫苗问世，他们迅速降低了死亡率。美国却并非如此。“美国的死亡率现在比其他富裕国家高出约八倍，”《经济学人》在2021年9月报道。总体而言，美国有超过110万人死于covid，即每百万人中约有3500人死亡。这应该困扰每一位有能力抗击疫情的公职人员。德国的死亡率约为每百万人2000人，加拿大则不到1400人，唐纳德·麦克尼尔在他的著作《瘟疫的智慧》中指出。如果美国能够取其中间值，即每百万人约1700人，“我们就会少失去约54万人，”他写道。“谁为他们说话？”
Not Congress. America’s lethal(致命的) underperformance(表现不佳，低绩效) once again went ignored(被忽视) when the Senate Homeland Security Committee recently questioned Dr Anthony Fauci, a crucial adviser on covid to Donald Trump and then to Joe Biden. (Mr Trump later turned on him.) The hearing focused instead on the usual obsessions for which Dr Fauci has become the Republican scapegoat(替罪羊)—some absurd and others valid but distantly related, at best, to protecting potential victims of a future plague. While Democrats mostly gave speeches rather than ask questions, Republicans pursued theories that the virus leaked from a Chinese lab, that Bill Gates had some nefarious role, that Dr Fauci had been out to enrich himself through awards for his service—an odd complaint when they do not object to the president campaigning for a $1m Nobel prize.(民主党人大多演讲而非提问，共和党人则追查实验室泄漏、比尔·盖茨阴谋等理论，并指责福奇中饱私囊——这种抱怨很奇怪，因为他们不反对总统为诺贝尔奖竞选。)
国会并非如此。美国致命的糟糕表现再次被忽视，最近参议院国土安全委员会质询了安东尼·福奇博士，他曾是唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登的covid关键顾问。（特朗普后来与他反目。）听证会反而聚焦于那些让福奇成为共和党替罪羊的常见执念——有些荒谬，有些虽合理但充其量与保护未来瘟疫的潜在受害者关系甚远。民主党人大多发表演讲而非提问，而共和党人则追查病毒从中国实验室泄漏的理论、比尔·盖茨扮演某种邪恶角色的说法，以及福奇试图通过服务奖项中饱私囊的指控——这是一种奇怪的抱怨，因为他们并不反对总统为100万美元的诺贝尔奖竞选。
Dr Hooey
胡伊博士