The epidemic situation in COVID-19 is over in rural areas. What's the point of making such an initiative?

Many places advocate "sharing the surplus medicine" and mutual aid during the Spring Festival, and call on the returning people to bring the surplus medicine back to the countryside. Originally, this was just an initiative. The original intention was to alleviate the "difficulty in buying medicine" in rural areas under the impact of Covid-19.

Paradoxically, in addition to the support, there are still many people who make strange sounds. For example, "what's the point of making such an initiative when the countryside is finished?" Another example is "rural people only deserve to eat the rest?" Another example is "it's a three-point poison, who is responsible for something?" . All this is nothing more than emphasizing that "many people are over the top", "rural people don't want to be looked down upon" and "unprofessional dispensing is risky".

to some extent, apart from "emotional questioning", these rhetorical questions also have their relatively reasonable side. The problem is that the initiative itself is a vague reference. Even if the text comes from the official administrative department, it still has a major premise, that is, it definitely conforms to the basic principle that "everything that is reasonable is realistic and everything that is realistic is reasonable". Take "the countryside is over, what's the point of making such an initiative?"

In this sentence, the questioner may want to express emotions more than to convey information. At the end of the day, even in cities, after the first wave of Covid-19's impact, I dare not say that it is all over, let alone in rural areas with sparse population. It can only be said that this is a judgment based on personal experience. You know, until now, there is still controversy about whether it is better to "let go" or "hold on".

But it's basically a dispute based on personal experience, that is, if you or your family suffer a big impact, you think it's not good to let go, and if you or your family suffer a small impact, you think it's good to let go. Few people can fairly evaluate "liberalization" based on social construction. As for "rural people only deserve to eat the rest?" This kind of words, but also a typical lever fine thinking. We know very well that the administrative department has made such an initiative in accordance with the situation, so it is natural to mention few details. But as far as common sense is concerned, the so-called "sharing medicine" and mutual aid * * * must also refer to relatives and friends, and mainly refers to the situation in which children bring medicine and prepare medicine for their parents.

In fact, even if the administrative department doesn't make such an initiative, a large number of people will consider "taking medicine back to the village" when they return home. After all, for rural areas, taking into account drug transportation and drug channels, it is generally slower than that in cities, which has been obvious since the early days of "liberalization". Of course, some people may say that from beginning to end, there was no "difficulty in buying medicine" in their hometown. On the contrary, their city just struggled out of the "difficulty in buying medicine" predicament. For this problem, I just want to say that it should be a very rare phenomenon, because generally speaking, in the later period of "liberalization", the dilemma of "difficulty in purchasing medicines" in many rural areas lasted for a long time, and some areas may not be completely solved so far.

as for "it's a three-point poison, who will be responsible if something goes wrong?" Generally speaking, it is obviously a little too official. To tell the truth, the proposal to "bring medicine back to the village" also refers to universal drugs, such as antipyretics and painkillers. And it should also refer to drugs with little risk at the empirical level. Under such circumstances, it is righteously emphasized that "it is a three-point poison, and who is responsible for the accident?" If it is not for the rigor of the official level, it is mostly emotional hysteria.

Admittedly, it is good to have such worries, but in most rural areas, the "difficulty in purchasing medicines" has not been completely solved, please look on the bright side. After all, in a sense, "All Yang is finished" is just the direct impression left by the first wave of Covid-19 shock. But in reality, the large-scale population movement brought by returning home can easily provoke the second wave of Covid-19 shock. And Covid-19 is still in the uncertainty of variation until now. Even though it is relatively stable, there is still the risk of cross-infection and rapid spread among different strains in the large-scale population flow across regions.

Based on this consideration, even if "bringing medicine back to the village" is not for the villagers, then considering the risk of re-infection during the Spring Festival, returnees should be prepared in advance. Of course, it should also be based on the actual situation. When you return home, you can ask your relatives in advance to confirm whether there is "difficulty in buying medicine" in the village, and then decide whether to "take medicine back to the village".

in fact, besides the initiative, life originally had an established operating order. It's just that under the appeal of the initiative, people may be more aware and have a clearer understanding. In other words, the initiative itself just wants to be better. If someone thinks that the initiative should be responsible for the "past" and "future" in the end, it can only be said that there is something wrong with this mentality itself.