歐盟和美國在處理新冠疫情方面的方式有著非常大的差異,然而,這兩個地區(qū)也存在著共同之處:在撤銷疫情防控工作之際,其民眾的分裂程度較疫情之前更加嚴重。
歐洲對外關(guān)系委員會 (ECFR) 的新研究發(fā)現(xiàn),在歐盟,不同國家的民眾在新冠疫情期間有著迥異的經(jīng)歷,而且連指責的對象都存在差異。
這種分歧與美國所經(jīng)歷的現(xiàn)象驚人的相似,在那里,貧困人數(shù)較多的州在疫情爆發(fā)時的新冠病例數(shù)要遠高于其他州,而且疫苗出現(xiàn)后其接種率也遠低于其他州。
在ECFR報告中,歐盟受調(diào)對象之間之所以會存在差異,一個重要因素在于:各國民眾將疫情看作是一場經(jīng)濟危機還是公共衛(wèi)生危機。北歐和西歐國家的居民更有可能感到自己沒有受到疫情的影響,而南歐和東歐國家的民眾則認為自己遭受了更大的經(jīng)濟和健康影響。
該調(diào)查在6月采訪了超過1.6萬名居民后發(fā)現(xiàn),在瑞典、丹麥、法國、荷蘭、奧地利和德國這類國家,很多居民將新冠疫情視為“一種令人厭惡的觀賞性體育節(jié)目,而不是令人震驚的生活經(jīng)歷。”這些國家參與調(diào)查的大多數(shù)居民表示,他們自己并未受到疾病、喪友或經(jīng)濟拮據(jù)的嚴重影響。丹麥在這一方面居于首位,其72%的受調(diào)對象稱絲毫沒有受到疫情的影響。
與此同時,南歐、東歐國家(例如保加利亞、波蘭、西班牙和葡萄牙)超過半數(shù)的民眾稱自己在經(jīng)濟或健康方面受到了新冠疫情的影響。在西班牙和匈牙利,幾乎三分之二的民眾稱受到了疫情的直接影響。
研究人員在報告中寫道:“歐洲的新冠疫情體驗可謂是水火兩重天?!?/p>
不同國家之間存在的這種差異在歐盟是屢見不鮮,基本上類似于歐元危機期間債權(quán)人和債務(wù)人之間的差異,亦與2015年接受難民和未接受難民的國家陣營相同。最近,在疫苗接種方面同樣出現(xiàn)了這樣的分界線,西歐國家的接種率要遠高于東歐國家。
歐盟還出現(xiàn)了美國曾經(jīng)經(jīng)歷過的另一個重大趨勢:因疫情而變得更加貧困的民眾對于實施封鎖舉措的政府更加憤怒。
越窮越憤怒
這種區(qū)域性的差異帶來了巨大的政治影響。
經(jīng)濟受疫情沖擊的民眾往往更加懷疑其政府實施封鎖令的動機,而且更有可能指控政府使用新冠疫情作為借口來控制公眾。他們還會抱怨限制過于嚴苛。在波蘭這個民眾懷疑度最高的國家,僅有38%的受調(diào)居民信任其政府的意圖。
民眾在“誰該背鍋”方面也存在分歧。北歐和西歐國家的民眾更有可能指責那些不遵守規(guī)定的個人,荷蘭在這一方面領(lǐng)先,比例達到了63%,而南歐和東歐的居民則會指責高層,他們將矛頭對準了國家政府、歐盟委員會、跨國公司、疫苗接種民族主義或中國采取的行動。波蘭在這一方面奪得頭籌,比例達到了58%,緊隨其后的是法國和西班牙。
該調(diào)查指出,這一特點可能也解釋了為什么諸多主流黨派開始重新?lián)碜o政府行動,而更多的民粹主義黨派卻在向自由意志主義靠近。
年齡差異
代際之間也存在著重大分歧。
盡管社會中的高齡人感染新冠病毒的概率最高,但調(diào)查顯示,年輕人覺得他們才是疫情的主要受害者。
同時,這兩個群體在指責對象方面也存在著差異。歐洲60歲以上的老年人批評個人的可能性更大,而30歲以下的年輕人往往會批評政府和其他機構(gòu)。
這一現(xiàn)象也導(dǎo)致年輕人對政府的意圖越發(fā)冷嘲熱諷。調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),盡管政府稱自己在疫情期間采取限制舉措的主要目的是為了防止病毒的傳播,但年輕人對這個理由并不買賬。
在30歲以下的受調(diào)對象中,43%的人對政府的動機表示懷疑;23%的人認為政府只是為了制造有能力控制疫情的假象;還有20%的人甚至稱政府使用疫情為幌子,來加強對公眾的控制。
這種新聞并不是什么新鮮事。即便在疫情爆發(fā)之前,劍橋大學(xué)民主未來中心(Centre for the Future of Democracy)的研究就發(fā)現(xiàn),如今的年輕人是對民主政府表現(xiàn)最不滿意的一代。
然而,隨著歐盟準備退出疫情防范工作,歐盟政府將不得不認真對待那些被迫接種疫苗、滿腹牢騷的年輕人。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
歐盟和美國在處理新冠疫情方面的方式有著非常大的差異,然而,這兩個地區(qū)也存在著共同之處:在撤銷疫情防控工作之際,其民眾的分裂程度較疫情之前更加嚴重。
歐洲對外關(guān)系委員會 (ECFR) 的新研究發(fā)現(xiàn),在歐盟,不同國家的民眾在新冠疫情期間有著迥異的經(jīng)歷,而且連指責的對象都存在差異。
這種分歧與美國所經(jīng)歷的現(xiàn)象驚人的相似,在那里,貧困人數(shù)較多的州在疫情爆發(fā)時的新冠病例數(shù)要遠高于其他州,而且疫苗出現(xiàn)后其接種率也遠低于其他州。
在ECFR報告中,歐盟受調(diào)對象之間之所以會存在差異,一個重要因素在于:各國民眾將疫情看作是一場經(jīng)濟危機還是公共衛(wèi)生危機。北歐和西歐國家的居民更有可能感到自己沒有受到疫情的影響,而南歐和東歐國家的民眾則認為自己遭受了更大的經(jīng)濟和健康影響。
該調(diào)查在6月采訪了超過1.6萬名居民后發(fā)現(xiàn),在瑞典、丹麥、法國、荷蘭、奧地利和德國這類國家,很多居民將新冠疫情視為“一種令人厭惡的觀賞性體育節(jié)目,而不是令人震驚的生活經(jīng)歷?!边@些國家參與調(diào)查的大多數(shù)居民表示,他們自己并未受到疾病、喪友或經(jīng)濟拮據(jù)的嚴重影響。丹麥在這一方面居于首位,其72%的受調(diào)對象稱絲毫沒有受到疫情的影響。
與此同時,南歐、東歐國家(例如保加利亞、波蘭、西班牙和葡萄牙)超過半數(shù)的民眾稱自己在經(jīng)濟或健康方面受到了新冠疫情的影響。在西班牙和匈牙利,幾乎三分之二的民眾稱受到了疫情的直接影響。
研究人員在報告中寫道:“歐洲的新冠疫情體驗可謂是水火兩重天?!?/p>
不同國家之間存在的這種差異在歐盟是屢見不鮮,基本上類似于歐元危機期間債權(quán)人和債務(wù)人之間的差異,亦與2015年接受難民和未接受難民的國家陣營相同。最近,在疫苗接種方面同樣出現(xiàn)了這樣的分界線,西歐國家的接種率要遠高于東歐國家。
歐盟還出現(xiàn)了美國曾經(jīng)經(jīng)歷過的另一個重大趨勢:因疫情而變得更加貧困的民眾對于實施封鎖舉措的政府更加憤怒。
越窮越憤怒
這種區(qū)域性的差異帶來了巨大的政治影響。
經(jīng)濟受疫情沖擊的民眾往往更加懷疑其政府實施封鎖令的動機,而且更有可能指控政府使用新冠疫情作為借口來控制公眾。他們還會抱怨限制過于嚴苛。在波蘭這個民眾懷疑度最高的國家,僅有38%的受調(diào)居民信任其政府的意圖。
民眾在“誰該背鍋”方面也存在分歧。北歐和西歐國家的民眾更有可能指責那些不遵守規(guī)定的個人,荷蘭在這一方面領(lǐng)先,比例達到了63%,而南歐和東歐的居民則會指責高層,他們將矛頭對準了國家政府、歐盟委員會、跨國公司、疫苗接種民族主義或中國采取的行動。波蘭在這一方面奪得頭籌,比例達到了58%,緊隨其后的是法國和西班牙。
該調(diào)查指出,這一特點可能也解釋了為什么諸多主流黨派開始重新?lián)碜o政府行動,而更多的民粹主義黨派卻在向自由意志主義靠近。
年齡差異
代際之間也存在著重大分歧。
盡管社會中的高齡人感染新冠病毒的概率最高,但調(diào)查顯示,年輕人覺得他們才是疫情的主要受害者。
同時,這兩個群體在指責對象方面也存在著差異。歐洲60歲以上的老年人批評個人的可能性更大,而30歲以下的年輕人往往會批評政府和其他機構(gòu)。
這一現(xiàn)象也導(dǎo)致年輕人對政府的意圖越發(fā)冷嘲熱諷。調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),盡管政府稱自己在疫情期間采取限制舉措的主要目的是為了防止病毒的傳播,但年輕人對這個理由并不買賬。
在30歲以下的受調(diào)對象中,43%的人對政府的動機表示懷疑;23%的人認為政府只是為了制造有能力控制疫情的假象;還有20%的人甚至稱政府使用疫情為幌子,來加強對公眾的控制。
這種新聞并不是什么新鮮事。即便在疫情爆發(fā)之前,劍橋大學(xué)民主未來中心(Centre for the Future of Democracy)的研究就發(fā)現(xiàn),如今的年輕人是對民主政府表現(xiàn)最不滿意的一代。
然而,隨著歐盟準備退出疫情防范工作,歐盟政府將不得不認真對待那些被迫接種疫苗、滿腹牢騷的年輕人。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
The European Union and the United States have handled the COVID-19 pandemic very differently, but the two have something in common: They’re both leaving the pandemic more divided than they were before it.
Across the EU, people in various countries have had very different experiences of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and are pointing fingers in different directions on whom to blame, new research from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) has found.
It is a split that bears a striking similarity to one seen in the U.S., where states that began the pandemic with higher levels of poverty experienced far higher COVID-19 case numbers—and had far lower levels of vaccine uptake once the jabs became available.
A key point of divergence among EU respondents in the ECFR report was whether they saw the pandemic as an economic or a public health crisis. Residents of Northern and Western EU countries were far more likely to not have been affected by the pandemic at all, while those in countries in the South and East reported greater economic and health impacts.
For residents of countries like Sweden, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany, the virus for many has been “more of a gruesome spectator sport than a shattering lived experience,” according to the survey, which interviewed more than 16,000 respondents in June. The majority of the people who replied from these countries noted they had not been personally impacted by serious disease, bereavement, or economic hardship. Leading this group is Denmark, where 72% of respondents said they had not been affected at all.
Meanwhile, more than half of the people from countries in the South and East—like Bulgaria, Poland, Spain, and Portugal—said they had been personally affected by COVID-19 economically or in terms of health. In Spain and Hungary, almost two-thirds of the population reported direct impacts.
“Europe’s COVID-19 experience has been a tale of two pandemics,” the researchers noted in the report.
This split of countries has been seen repeatedly in the EU. It is largely the same difference as the one between the creditors and the debtors during the euro crisis, and it is the same divide between countries that saw an influx of refugees in 2015 and those that did not. More recently, the split can be seen in the uptake of vaccines, with inoculation much higher in Western European countries over Eastern European countries.
And as has been seen in the U.S., another major trend is clear in the EU: People left poorer by the pandemic are more angry at the government that locked them down.
Poorer and pointing fingers
This regional skew has had great political consequences.
The economic victims of the pandemic tended to be more skeptical about their governments’ intentions behind lockdowns and were more likely to accuse them of using COVID-19 as an excuse to control the public. Economically impacted people also tended to say that the restrictions were too strict. In Poland, the most distrustful country, only 38% of respondents trusted their government's intentions.
People were also divided on whom to blame. People from Northern and Western countries were more likely to blame individuals who didn’t follow the rules—the Netherlands led this group, at 63%—while residents in Southern and Eastern countries blamed those up top, focusing on the actions of their national government, the European Commission, multinational companies, vaccine nationalism, or China. Poland, at 58%, led this group, followed by France and Spain.
The study suggests this may be why many mainstream parties are re-embracing government action, while more populist parties have become more libertarian.
The age gap
There is also a major generational divide.
While the oldest members of society were most in harm’s way of catching COVID-19, the study found that young people felt they were the major victims of the pandemic.
And the two groups placed blame in different places. Europeans age 60 and over were more likely to blame individuals, while Europeans under 30 tended to blame governments and other institutions.
This adds to the growing cynicism among young people about government intention. The poll found that young people didn’t accept the claim that government's main reasons for introducing pandemic-related restrictions was to limit the spread of the virus.
Of the respondents under 30, 43% were skeptical of government motives; 23% thought that the government just tried to create the appearance of control; while 20% went as far as to say government used the pandemic to increase the control of the public.
The news isn’t new. Even before the pandemic, research by the Centre for the Future of Democracy at Cambridge University found that today’s young people are the generation most dissatisfied with the performance of democratic governments.
But as the EU prepares to exit the pandemic, disgruntled youth whom the EU has pressured into vaccinating will have to be reckoned with.