關於 172 days in years and months ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【人民日報：這10個追問，美國必須回答】

Ten questions the US needs to offer clear answers to the world

1.禽流感病毒改造去年突然重啟，之後無聲無息，為什麽？

1.Regarding the restarted avian influenza virus modification experiment last year, why does the US release no more updates?

去年2月，據美國《科學》雜誌網站披露，美國政府機構已“悄悄”批準曾引發巨大爭議的禽流感病毒改造實驗，這類被認為“危險”的實驗在被禁多年後將很快重啟。相關實驗可將H5N1禽流感病毒改造得易於在哺乳動物間傳播，被認為可能帶來人際傳播風險。美國為何在相關實驗被暫停4年多後重啟這類危險實驗？又為何不見披露進展？

The Science reported in February 2019 that US authorities had quietly approved the avian influenza virus modification experiment. The research, aiming to transform the H5N1 virus to be more capable of infecting mammals, was controversial and considered extremely dangerous. Some experts believe that the modification may increase the risk of human-to-human transmission of the virus.

The question is why the US government decided to unfreeze the experiment 4 years after it was halted, and why there are no more updates regarding the experiment.

2.美軍生物實驗室一度關閉停產，真相是什麽？

2.The United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) was previously closed.What is the truth behind ?

日前，據“全球生物防禦”（globalbiodefence）網站報道，位於馬裏蘭州德特裏克堡的美國陸軍傳染病醫學研究所（USAMRIID）已經全面恢復運行。去年7月，美國疾病控制與預防中心（CDC）正式向位於馬裏蘭州德特裏克堡的美國陸軍傳染病醫學研究所（USAMRIID）發出“停產令”，要求其停止進行“特定生物制劑與毒素”研究。今年3月，白宮請願網站出現一道特殊的請願帖，要求美國政府公布去年7月“關閉”德特裏克堡生物實驗室的真正原因。USAMRIID神秘“關閉”和迅速重啟引人關註。針對白宮請願網站請願帖上的要求，美國作何回應？

The Global Biodefence reported in April that the USAMRIID, US Army's primary institution and facility for biological research headquartered in Fort Detrick, Maryland, has resumed full operation. The institution was once ordered to halt the study of biological select agents and toxins (BSATs) last July. In March, there was a petition on the White House website demanding the clarification of the shutdown of USAMRIID. Given that these issues have become a primary public concern, what is the US government's response?

3.去年傳染病演習情景今年真實上演，真的只是巧合？

3.The US Department of Health and Human Services ran a scenario last year that was similar to the COVID-19 outbreak. Is this just a coincidence?

今年3月《紐約時報》披露的一份美國官方秘密文件顯示，2019年1月至8月16日舉行，美國衛生與公共服務部（HHS）發起組織了一場代號為“赤色傳染”（Crimson Contagion）的推演，演習以中國最早出現病毒為模擬情景。2019年10月，美國多個機構又組織了一次代號為“Event 201”的全球流行病演習。演練中的模型假設一種名為CAPS的冠狀病毒，比SARS致命，又如感冒輕易傳播，卻未開發出疫苗，能迅速傳播促成全球大流行。美國去年進行的傳染病演習的設定與現實的吻合度如此之高是否只是巧合？既然有演練在前，新冠疫情發生後美國為何沒有給予足夠的關註和重視、宣稱“尚在掌握之中”？

In March, the New York Times quoted a draft report obtained from the US government saying that from January to August 2019, the US Department of Health and Human Services ran a scenario called "Crimson Contagion" that simulated the fictional outbreak involving a group of tourists visiting China. They then became infected and flew to various countries, including the US.

Last October, a high-level pandemic exercise named Event 201 was hosted by a couple of US organizations. The drill simulated a scenario that a fictional virus called CAPS, which causes more severe symptoms than SARS and transmits via the respiratory route like the common flu, had caused a pandemic. Like COVID-19, there is no vaccine for CAPS.

Given the fact that the simulated virus is so much like COVID-19, is this just a coincidence? Another question is, why did it not take enough preventive measures at the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak since the US has predicted a similar pandemic?

4.提前預測疫情大流行又無視警告情報，為什麽？

4.US intelligence officials warned of coronavirus crisis as early as last November. Why the warning was ignored?

今年4月，據美國廣播公司（ABC）報道，有內部消息稱，早在2019年11月下旬，美國情報官員就曾多次向國防情報局、五角大樓和白宮警告，一場傳染病正在席卷中國武漢地區。美國國家醫學情報中心（NCMI）去年11月出具了一份詳細闡述病毒大流行情況的報告，也就是後來被確認的新型冠狀病毒肺炎“COVID-19”。有分析人士認為武漢疫情爆發可能會演變成一場災難性事件。據美國《華盛頓郵報》網站報道稱在年初的2個多月時間裏，特朗普獲得了美國情報機構發出的關於新冠病毒的密集警告。美國政府為何一直拖到3月13日才宣布進入“國家緊急狀態”？

In April, according to the American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), it was said that, as early as late November 2019, US intelligence officials had warned the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, and the White House that an infectious disease was sweeping through Wuhan, China.

Last November, the US National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) issued a report detailing the coronavirus pandemic, which was later identified as "COVID-19". Some analysts believed that the outbreak in Wuhan might have evolved into a catastrophic event. According to the Washington Post, in more than two months from January to February, Trump had received intensive warnings from the US intelligence agencies about the coronavirus. Why did the US government not declare a "National Emergency" until March 13?

5.有多少流感患者感染的其實是新冠肺炎，能不能說清楚？

5.Among the reported influenza deaths in the US, can the US clarify how many cases are actually infected with COVID-19?

今年2月21日，日本朝日電視臺報道的“美國1.4萬名因流感致死的人中部分可能死於新冠肺炎”掀起熱議。美疾控中心2月底發布的報告顯示，今冬流感季美國估計已有至少3200萬流感。3月11日在美國眾議院，美國疾控中心主任羅伯特·雷德菲爾德（Robert Redfield）親口承認，在美國，確實有一些“流感”死者實際感染的可能是新冠肺炎。美國流感感染者中，到底有多少新冠病例？美國有沒有借流感來掩蓋新冠肺炎的情況？美國何時才能公開美國流感病毒樣本及基因序列信息，或者允許世衛組織或聯合國派遣專家采樣分析？

Japanese Asahi Television reported on February 21 that some of the 14,000 people reportedly killed by influenza in the US might have died from coronavirus, which became a hot topic soon after.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report at the end of February, showing that there have been at least 32 million flu illnesses in the US that winter.

On March 11, at the House of Representatives, Robert Redfield, the director of the US CDC, admitted that some in the US who were previously thought to have been killed from the flu may have been infected with coronavirus.

Among the reported influenza deaths in the US, how many cases were infected with COVID-19? Did the US government cover up the spread of coronavirus with the flu? When will the US government make public the samples of the US influenza virus and its genetic sequence, or allow experts from the WHO or the United Nations to sample and analyze?

6.新冠病毒到底什麽時候在美國出現？社區傳播是否早已開始？

6.When did the novel coronavirus first appear in the US? Did community transmission of the coronavirus start sooner than it was reported?

今年4月下旬，美國加利福尼亞州聖克拉拉縣政府公共衛生部門公布的最新檢測報告顯示，早在2月6日當地就有人死於新冠肺炎，這比美國此前公布的首例新冠死亡病例出現時間提前了20多天。據《洛杉磯時報》報道，聖克拉拉縣的衛生官員薩拉·科迪表示，這些新發現的死亡病例說明，當時“已經有相當程度的社區傳播”。聖克拉拉縣行政長官傑弗裏·史密斯表示，這表明新冠病毒早在1月、甚至更早就已經開始在加州傳播。加州州長紐瑟姆已宣布將對去年12月以來疑似新冠死亡病例進行屍檢。新冠病毒到底什麽時候在美國出現？美國新冠疫情在社區的傳播是否早已開始？

A report released in late April by local health authorities suggests that a 57-year-old woman from Santa Clara County of California died from COVID-19 on February 6, some 20 days earlier than the date the US announced its first death caused by the virus.

The Los Angeles Times quoted Santa Clara County health officer Sara Cody in a piece saying, "we presume that each of them represents community transmission and that there was some significant level of virus circulating in our community in early February."

County Executive Officer Jeffrey V. Smith said this is evidence that the coronavirus was circulating in California as early as January or even earlier.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has ordered all counties in the state to review autopsies of suspected coronavirus deaths dating back to December.

When did the novel coronavirus first appear in the US? Did community transmission of the coronavirus start sooner than it was reported?

7.全球首個啟動新冠疫苗人體試驗，這麽快是怎麽拿到毒株的？

7.How did the US get the virus strains so soon to start the first human testing of a vaccine against COVID-19?

據《華爾街日報》報道，美國國立衛生研究院(National Institutes of Health)3月16日稱，生物科技公司Moderna Inc. (MRNA)針對新型冠狀病毒的試驗性疫苗已開始首次人體測試。對於全球首次針對新型冠狀病毒的疫苗人體試驗在美國啟動一事，專家表示，美國這一針實在太快了，除非很早就開始進行試驗，更早的拿到了病毒株。美國疫苗人體試驗為何進行得如此之快？美國是什麽時候通過什麽方式獲得的毒株？

The Wall Street Journal on March 16 reported that the first human testing of Moderna Inc.'s experimental vaccine against the COVID-19 had already begun. Experts immediately raised questions about the speed of the vaccine development, saying that it would not be possible unless the US had obtained the virus strains from very early on. So how did the US start the first human testing of the vaccine so soon? When and how did they get the virus strains?

8.政府說疫情不嚴重，官員卻在狂拋股票，為什麽？

8.Why did the US government keep downplaying the pandemic while its officials privately dumped stocks?

據《華盛頓郵報》報道，大約在新冠肺炎疫情引發美股暴跌之前一周，美國國會參議院情報委員會主席理查德·伯爾密集出售了自己和夫人持有的33只股票，估價在62.8萬美元到172萬美元之間。為什麽2月中旬美國政府對本國新冠肺炎疫情輕描淡寫，而參議院情報委員會的多位官員卻在那時拋售價值上百萬的股票？難道政客們竟然一邊利用內幕交易售賣股票，一邊對公眾隱瞞疫情？

According to the Washington Post, US Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and his wife sold up to 1.7 million in 33 different stocks just one week before the market plunged. Why did these officials at the Committee act so quickly while the government was continually understating the pandemic?

Why is the vital information kept confidential to the public while the government officials were taking advantage to practice insider-trading?

9.不許美國專家學者隨意公開談論新冠病毒，是想幹什麽？

9.Why are US experts not allowed to discuss COVID-19 in public?

據美國《紐約時報》報道，在由副總統邁克·彭斯領導美國防疫工作之後，白宮於當地時間2月27日開始，加強了對新冠病毒信息“發聲”的控制。包括美國國立衛生研究院（NIH）過敏和傳染病研究所(NIAID)主任、美國疾控中心（CDC）頂級傳染病專家安東尼·福西（Anthony S. Fauci）在內的眾多科學家和政府衛生官員被要求：只有與美國副總統辦公室協調商議後，才能發聲明或公開露面談論新冠病毒的相關話題。為什麽號稱言論自由的美國不允許專家學者自由公開討論新冠病毒？是想隱瞞什麽還是在害怕什麽？

The New York Times reported that the White House began tightening controls for all coronavirus messaging from health officials on February 27 after Vice President Mike Pence led the nation's epidemic prevention and control efforts.

Several scientists and government health officials, including the nation's leading infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, have been asked to make statements or make public appearances about the COVID-19 only after consultation with the US vice president's office.

Why does the United States, which claims free speech, not allow experts and scholars to discuss the novel coronavirus in public? Does the US want to hide something or fear of something?

10.海外生物實驗室到底在做什麽研究，為什麽從不向外界透露？

10.What research is being done in the US overseas biological laboratories? Why does the US keep tight-lipped about it?

據俄羅斯衛星通訊社日前報道，俄羅斯國家杜馬國際事務委員會副主席波克隆斯卡婭提議核查世界各地美國生物實驗室的合法性。前不久，俄羅斯外交部發言人就美國在前蘇聯國家建立生物實驗室表達關切。俄羅斯內政、外交和國防領域專家格裏高利·特羅菲姆丘克表示，美國這些生物實驗室所從事的工作從不向外界透露，並且這些實驗室引發了大量的問題，在實驗室所在地就曾爆發過大範圍的麻疹等危險的傳染類疾病。美國建立的這些生物實驗室到底在進行什麽研究？美國為何對這些生物實驗室的功能、用途、安全系數等三緘其口？

Natalia Poklonskaya, deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Foreign Affairs, has proposed verifying the legitimacy of US biological laboratories around the world, according to Sputnik news agency.

Not long ago, a spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed concern about the establishment of a biological laboratory in countries from the former Soviet Union.

Grigory Trofimchuk, a Russian expert in the field of internal affairs, foreign affairs, and national defense, said the work of these biological laboratories was never disclosed to the outside world, and that they had caused several problems, with widespread outbreaks of dangerous infectious diseases such as measles at the laboratory site.

What research is being done in these biological laboratories? Why does the US keep tight-lipped about the function, use, the safety of these biological laboratories?

(來源:人民日報客戶端)

【傑哥給香港人寫的《香港家書》】
Alan Leong Kah-Kit 梁家傑：

//梁家傑最後一次以公民黨黨魁身份給香港人寫的《香港家書》，點出香港走到當下分崩離析的主因，並指出當面對專制強權時香港人的兩種基本取態，分別是犬儒認命和赤子初衷。他寄望下一屆特首能處理好香港人哪被出賣和挫折感覺。傑哥望中共明白，要香港人能同心同德，要香港能政通人和，不是靠強權鎮壓；根據回歸時承諾香港人的「一國兩制，高度自治，港人治港」調整對港政策，貫徹落實香港人對回歸的想像和初衷，把張曉明和梁振英亂港之局撥亂反正，才是大道正途。//

《香港家書》連結：https://goo.gl/YqNnE6

傑哥最後一次以公民黨黨魁身份給香港人寫的《香港家書》，點出香港走到當下分崩離析的主因，並指出當面對專制強權時香港人的兩種基本取態，分別是犬儒認命和赤子初衷。他寄望下一屆特首能處理好香港人哪被出賣和挫折感覺。傑哥望中共明白，要香港人能同心同德，要香港能政通人和，不是靠強權鎮壓；根據回歸時承諾香港人的「一國兩制，高度自治，港人治港」調整對港政策，貫徹落實香港人對回歸的想像和初衷，把張曉明和梁振英亂港之局撥亂反正，才是大道正途。
要收聽梁家傑親自讀出《給香港的信》，請點擊以下連結：http://programme.rthk.hk/channel/radio/programme.php…

LETTER TO HONG KONG
Hon Alan Kah-kit LEONG SC
Leader, Civic Party
September 18, 2016

Dear Fellow Hongkongers,

This will be the last Letter to Hong Kong I wrote as Leader of the Civic Party. My term as a Legislative Councillor will end in just less than a fortnight’s time, on September 30. Looking back at my twelve years as a legislator, I am thankful for the trust you have reposed in me. I sought public office in 2004 so that I could do my utmost to uphold the Hong Kong System according to what Hongkongers had been promised by the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. And, in particular, I had wanted to see implemented in Hong Kong universal suffrage for election of the Chief Executive and all members of the Legislative Council. 1997 saw Hong Kong revert to a Sovereign that practises People’s Democratic Dictatorship, and autocracy is the order of the day in Mainland China. Without a local government that is fully accountable to Hongkongers, our long cherished freedoms and institutions like the Rule of Law, apolitical Civic Service and Independent Commission Against Corruption are bound to wither and cannot stay.

It is regrettable that the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”), thus the Central People’s Government, has not honoured the One Country Two Systems constitutional order as promised by and enshrined in the Basic Law. One only has to remind oneself of the black and white letters of Article 22 to tell how flagrantly the Basic Law has been breached. The Article provides that
“No department of the Central People’s Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central People’s Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.”

Only as recently as the Legislative Council Elections on September 4, interventions from Zhang Xiao-Ming, the Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong, were rampant. The Liaison Office bent over backwards to make sure that people like Tse Wai Chun Paul, Yung Hoi Yan, Ho Kwan Yiu, Leung Mei Fun and Chow Ho Ding Holden were elected. Such manoeuvres had gone so far that cost the seats of Anti-Democracy incumbents Wong Kwok Hing and Tang Ka Piu from The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, the most ancient supporters of the CCP in Hong Kong. And, those blessed by the Liaison Office are not slow to show their gratitude by thanking Zhang Xiao-Ming for his support, as if these were normal business, and conveniently forgetting all about the non-intervention guaranteed by Article 22.

On the subject of the treachery of the CCP, how can Hongkongers forget about the White Paper published by the State Council on June 10, 2014 and the Resolutions of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (“NPCSC”) on August 31? By the former, the CCP emphasized its total control over Hong Kong and the self-restraints this omnipotent sovereign had enticed Hongkongers into expecting was shattered by the stroke of a pen. By the latter, the CCP unequivocally denied to Hongkongers our right to elect the Chief Executive, with anyone allowed to stand.
Public outrage over the White Paper and the NPCSC Resolutions prompted the Umbrella Movement later in 2014. Thoroughfares in the heart of the city were occupied for 79 days. The Umbrella Movement has moved the world by showcasing how David can stand up against Goliath using peaceful means and by engaging in rational debates. Hongkongers have shown the world that giving in and foregoing principles is not the only option when facing up to the CCP. While it draws the world’s appreciation, the Umbrella Movement has to date failed to move the Beijing Leadership an iota towards fulfilling its promises made in the 1980s to Hongkongers in its bid to entice us to accepting reversion to Chinese Sovereignty.

During the past four years with C Y Leung as the Chief Executive, Hong Kong saw our society being torn apart and polarized. Such a divide is getting wider by the day and one doubts if it can ever be mended, at least so long as C Y Leung stays.

At one pole are cynics or pragmatists who have long resigned to succumbing to the CCP and reaping whatever benefits they can by dancing to its tunes or even second guessing what the Beijing masters would like to see them do. Many of them, now occupying key positions in government and the civil society, contribute to the daily deterioration of Hong Kong’s core values and corruption of Hong Kong’s key institutions.

At the other pole are childish and naïve souls who, following our more elemental instincts, refuse to forget our original intentions and wanting to see implemented the vision we have been promised, namely, One Country Two Systems, High Degree of Autonomy and Hong Kong People Ruling Hong Kong. We want our long-cherished freedoms and well-respected institutions to continue to flourish for the benefit of many more generations to come.

Personalities dictate our destinies. When coming face to face with the adversity of suppression and overwhelmed by an apparently unmatchable power, individuals do react differently. I certainly would love to see more of the naïve souls and less of the cynics. It is not just our personal destinies that are at stake; Hong Kong’s fate is in the balance.

Elections of the Sixth Legislative Council, which completed on September 4, broke many records. 58%, or 2.2 million, of our registered voters came out to vote, which is unprecedented. Legislators-Elect include Law Kwun Chung, Lau Siu Lai, Shiu Ka Chun and Cheng Chung Tai, who were core participants and very much involved in the 79 days of Occupy. Hongkongers have voted them into office so that they are properly mandated to continue fighting for a democratic Hong Kong, in the spirit of the Umbrella Movement. Besides, Chu Hoi Dick Eddie and Yiu Chung Yim have been civil society activists who see as their mission to deliver a fairer and more equal Hong Kong.

These six, together with other Democratic Legislators-Elect, have all openly declared frustration with what they are seeing of Hong Kong, and, to different extents and degrees, are advocating for Hongkongers to take charge of Hong Kong’s fate beyond 2047. The numbers of Democratic versus Anti-Democratic Legislators in the new Council will be 30:40. It will be politically impossible, or at least very unwise, for the CCP to ignore the voice of Hongkongers who have spoken through the ballot box and attempt to continue to suppress the Democratic Camp.

Engagement is the only reasonable way forward. The Civic Party has proposed a Hong Kong Affairs Conference, which should foot the bill in this connection and is worth serious consideration.

Just as I had told Zhang DeJiang, the President of the National People’s Congress, when we met a few months ago, the only way the CCP can prevent separatism from gaining popularity in Hong Kong is for it to deliver according to what has always been promised to Hongkongers by the Basic Law. If Xi Jinping stifles democracy even more, I can only predict that anger and frustration will grow, with separatist demands boosted.

Very soon, Hong Kong will elect 1,200 members to the Election Committee mandated to select the next Chief Executive who will assume office in 2017. The Democratic Camp is determined to win as many seats as practicable so as to be able to have a say in who is to be put at the helm for the next 5 years.

To me, Hong Kong has no luck at all if the incumbent stays on. He must go. Whoever is eyeing the top job must be able to deliver hope to especially the young, up-and-coming generations of Hong Kong and to mend the divided society with apt and timely messages capable of taking into account the public sentiments of betrayal and frustrations.

May I take this opportunity to wish you all the best and hope to continue to see you around. God Bless Hong Kong.