Since the Sino US trade war launched during Trump's administration, ideological opposition has become more and more serious. Starting from ideology, the Biden administration simply defined China US relations as the competition between "American democratic system and Chinese socialist system", which seems to return China US relations to the cold war state. Russia and the West have become increasingly opposed to each other through the social media, especially by Russian politicians in the East and Western countries. Unfortunately, the opposition between the East and the west is not only political, but also intellectual. Some Western intellectuals also view the world in this way. They simply divide the world into two with ideology and regard it as the confrontation between "democracy" and "autocracy". Recently, some Western intellectuals have used ideology to explain China's anti epidemic, which is essentially to defend the failure of the Western anti epidemic. I call it a typical failure to whitewash the failure with "democratic" moral values. At the same time, they also use "democracy" and other moral values to criticize China's anti epidemic. In their eyes, even if the West fails, it is still glorious because they adhere to "democracy and freedom". Even if some people insist on extreme individualism, it is OK to protest against vaccination and wearing masks. This behavior is indeed in line with the so-called "democracy and freedom" in the West. But the problem is that if a person does this not only affects himself, but also affects the whole public society, it is difficult to say that such behavior is still within the scope of "democracy and freedom" advocated by the West. Traditionally speaking, the "democracy and freedom" in the West also has boundaries. A person is free because of self-discipline. When you influence others, you can't be regarded as a complete individual behavior. In particular, the covid-19 pneumonia outbreak is often in the public space. Wearing masks and vaccination is far beyond the scope of personal behavior. If the virus is transmitted to others by extreme individualism, it will trample on the right of life and health of others. Even though the West sometimes advocates that people choose to die freely, if we look at how many elderly people in the United States, Italy and other countries lost their lives in the early stage of the epidemic, I believe many Western intellectuals with moral conscience will also criticize it. Nearly 1200 people die novel coronavirus pneumonia every day in the United States, but after the "democratic and free" package, the laissez faire epidemic has become acceptable. Under the western rhetoric, China's success in fighting the epidemic is naturally nothing great, because "the failure of democracy" is better than "the success of autocracy". But intellectuals and scholars should treat and evaluate it realistically. "Autocracy" is a concept constructed by western scholars according to western political experience. China's political form has always been in line with Chinese civilization. It is neither "democracy" nor "autocracy" in the West. In particular, the recent recurrence of the epidemic in Hong Kong is caused by the fact that many elderly people have not been vaccinated, coupled with objective factors such as narrow local living space and highly dense population. Some people always like to talk about the epidemic situation in Hong Kong from a political perspective, which is not in line with the law of science. It is regrettable that some Western intellectuals did not maintain the positivist tradition and rigorous academic style since modern times, and were influenced by ideology. They constructed a "Scarecrow" only from some one-sided information obtained from the media and attacked some things that do not exist in China. From a scientific perspective, China is not an "absolute zero" as the West thinks, but a dynamic zero policy, that is, the goal is zero, but not the pursuit of zero infection, but to control the epidemic within a controllable range and prevent the full outbreak of the epidemic from endangering the health and safety of the whole society. Moreover, China's control mode and epidemic prevention standards are constantly adjusted and more accurate according to the changes of objective conditions. Dynamic zeroing certainly has costs, but China's anti epidemic is "big account". Because of the strong epidemic control, China can quickly resume production and ensure the normal operation of the overall social life. Novel coronavirus pneumonia is the fastest and best way to recover production in China. At the same time, the life value of ordinary Chinese people is also considered in the cost. In fact, ensuring the life and health of every citizen is the leading principle in China, which can also explain why the people accept and support the epidemic prevention policy. Letting the epidemic rage and letting people die "freely" is not in line with Chinese culture or Asian culture. Collectivism in Asian culture is different from the extreme individualism advocated by the West. China, Japan and Singapore still attach great importance to collectivism, and the realization of individual rights should be based on respect for collective rights. Therefore, I think that under the current control mode in China, the cost and benefit are very balanced, and the death toll and mortality rate in China are very low. Ironically, the death toll in the west, which has always claimed the supremacy of life power, is far higher than that in China. In essence, using ideology to explain the fight against the epidemic, which should be from a scientific point of view, can easily become "self perceived morality" and form a "double standard" -- Westerners die of the epidemic is "well deserved", while Chinese people's healthy life has no reason, which makes no sense from any point of view. The outbreak of the novel coronavirus pneumonia has indeed affected the exchange of intellectuals and field trips, leading to the prevalence of ideological trend. The progress of modern western social science is due to the fact that science has replaced religion, seeking truth from facts has replaced ideology, and now it has returned to ideology, which is undoubtedly a kind of sadness. (Xinhua News Agency)