Today there are 58,036 confirmed cases (an increase of 31 from yesterday) and 11,741 severe cases (an increase of 1,097 from yesterday). The cumulative number of deaths is 1,870 (+98 compared to yesterday), and both the total number and the increase in the number of critically ill patients are large. Moreover, it is also very difficult to treat seriously ill patients.
There is also exciting news today, that is, except for Hubei, the number of confirmed cases in other parts of the country is declining. Some friends shared the conclusions of the modeling analysis, saying that the first batch of regions, including Shanghai, could lift restrictions as soon as March 10th. Universities, primary and secondary schools in Shanghai have begun to require online classes.
Areas other than Hubei have been able to achieve such results through effective prevention and isolation. One question has to be asked: If Hubei had taken measures earlier, would the current situation have been prevented in a timely and effective manner? The article on the intellectual public account reviewed some of the situations on and after December 31. What lessons can be learned from this?
If the problem is found later, it should of course be dealt with in accordance with the law. More importantly, what kind of mechanism should be established to prevent similar situations from happening again? After SARS in 2003, Mr. Wu Jinglian wrote a very good reflection article. It seems that the problem is still unresolved. What exactly is the reason?
（ http://www.aisixiang.com/data/914.html ）
Regarding the inheritance and development of traditional Chinese medicine, how to effectively combine it with contemporary medical theories. Barefoot doctors in the 1960s and 1970s helped solve basic medical problems in rural areas through their own efforts under such difficult conditions. Can our traditional Chinese medicine, which has been passed down from generation to generation, continue to be maintained and carried forward? Can it be better integrated with contemporary scientific theories?
Regarding how to publish and share scientific and technological achievements, as well as the incentives for scientific and technological practitioners, we also need to emancipate our minds and seek truth from facts to form a better virtuous cycle mechanism that promotes scientific progress and promotes economic and social development.Wang Wang LimingThe analysis of Weibo is very good, here is an excerpt for reference.
Technology companies can work remotely from home, but because many domestic companies have suspended operations, domestic demand will decline. Can they contact foreign business in the near future? Can companies that are experiencing cash flow difficulties replace employee incentives with options or equity?
I skipped nearly 1,000 times today, and there never seemed to be enough time.
The following is selected from Wang Wang Liming’s Weibo: with deletions
https://weibo.com/u/6516627615?refer_flag=1005055013_
Should scientists publish papers?Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic?
While saying that the working language of scientists is papers, it is their own job to summarize the results and publish papers for reference by colleagues around the world;The other side said that the epidemic is as urgent as a spark, and having the leisure to publish a paper at this time is simply not doing your job and causing harm to the country and the people.
I am a scientist and I also publish papers (I also wrote two for students this holiday), but I feel that this issue is not so black and white. I think the above two views are wrong.
In one sentence:Publishing papers is right and should be done, but not every way of publishing papers is right and should be done.
The reasons are as follows:
1. Academic papers are the universal scientific language in the world. Scientists around the world share their results in this way, which has been going on for hundreds of years and is likely to continue for a long time to come. ....
2. However, please note that the current academic publishing model is actually not suitable for the speed of knowledge accumulation and information dissemination in today's world. ...
3. In addition to the issue of timeliness, there is another big problem in academic publishing, which is the issue of business model.Most academic journals rely on subscription fees from academic institutions around the world, and increasingly high subscription fees have overwhelmed scientists around the world.
4. It takes too long and cannot be shared for free. These are two chronic diseases (can even be said to be cancer) in the current academic publishing industry.
5. Are there any issues with similar open access platforms?Of course, there is no threshold for putting papers on open access platforms, and anyone can complete it at any time.This, of course, may lead to a mixed bag of good and bad papers on the platform.
6. Based on this discussion, I think we can break down and discuss the publishing behavior of scientists during the COVID-19 epidemic:
6a. Conducting research and publishing papers on the new coronavirus and the new coronavirus epidemic is the bounden duty of scientists, which is understandable and needs encouragement;
6b. However, at this moment, slowly submitting papers to traditional academic journals for publication is not the most ideal way to share academic results, both in terms of time and openness. It can even be said to be contrary to our expectations for scientists to respond quickly to the epidemic, share and cooperate sincerely;
Machine-translated from the Chinese original 战疫日记0218 ：1，抗疫期间是否应该发论文？如何发？ 2，中医如何继承发扬？3，从痛苦中，汲取力量 4，是否拓展国外业务？ (published 2020-02-19). WeChat original ↗