備考是一種經(jīng)歷，也是一種體驗。每天進步一點點，基礎(chǔ)扎實一點點，通過考試就會更容易一點點。為您提供2021考研英語雙語材料，一起看看吧。
he(Trump) was raising an issue that economists have long grappled with: How can a society assess the trade-off between economic well-being and health?
他(特朗普)提出了經(jīng)濟學(xué)家長久以來努力解決的問題：一個社會如何評估經(jīng)濟福祉和健康之間的取舍?
President Trump and leading business figures are increasingly questioning the wisdom of a prolonged shutdown of the American economy — already putting millions out of work — to curb the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.
特朗普總統(tǒng)和商界領(lǐng)袖們越來越多地質(zhì)疑，為遏制新型冠狀病毒的蔓延而讓美國經(jīng)濟長期停擺是否明智——這種停滯已經(jīng)讓數(shù)百萬人失去了工作。
however, a widespread consensus among economists and public health experts that lifting the restrictions would impose huge costs in additional lives lost to the virus — and deliver little lasting benefit to the economy.
經(jīng)濟學(xué)家和公共衛(wèi)生專家倒是普遍認為，取消這些限制將使更多的人死于這種病毒，付出巨大的代價，而且?guī)缀醪粫o經(jīng)濟帶來什么長期的好處。
Weighing economic costs against human lives will inevitably seem crass. But societies also value things like jobs, food and money to pay the bills — as well as the ability to deal with other needs and prevent unrelated misfortunes.
權(quán)衡人類生命的經(jīng)濟成本似乎不可避免地顯得愚蠢。但是，社會也重視工作、食物和支付賬單的錢等事物，以及滿足其他需求和防止不相關(guān)的不幸的能力。
Government agencies calculate these trade-offs regularly. The Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, has established a cost of about $9.5 million per life saved as a benchmark for determining whether to clean up a toxic waste site.
政府機構(gòu)定期計算這樣的取舍。例如，美國環(huán)護署(Environmental Protection Agency)設(shè)定了一個標準，每拯救一個生命的成本約為950萬美元，將其作為是否清理有毒廢物場地的決定基準。
Other agencies use similar values to assess whether to invest in reducing accidents at an intersection or to tighten safety standards in a workplace. The Department of Agriculture has a calculator to estimate the economic costs — medical care, premature deaths, productivity loss from nonfatal cases — of food-borne disease.
其他機構(gòu)使用類似的方法進行量化評估，以決定是投資減少十字路口的事故，還是加強工作場所的安全標準。農(nóng)業(yè)部有一個計算標準，用來估計食源性疾病的經(jīng)濟成本——醫(yī)療保健、過早死亡、非致命病例造成的生產(chǎn)力損失。
Now, some economists have decided to stick their necks out and apply this thinking to the coronavirus pandemic.
現(xiàn)在，一些經(jīng)濟學(xué)家決定冒險把這種想法應(yīng)用到冠狀病毒大流行上。
Based on epidemiological projections, as the virus ran unchecked, it would quickly expand to infect somewhat over half the population before herd immunity would slow its course.
根據(jù)流行病學(xué)預(yù)測，當病毒不受控制地傳播時會迅速擴大，感染半數(shù)以上的人口，然后群體免疫才會減緩其進程。
A policy to contain the virus by reducing economic activity would slow the progression of the virus and reduce the death rate, but it would also impose a greater economic cost.
通過減少經(jīng)濟活動來遏制病毒的政策，可以減緩病毒發(fā)展并降低死亡率，但它也將帶來更大的經(jīng)濟代價。
It comes down to what a life is worth.
歸根結(jié)底，這是在衡量生命的價值。
he(Trump) was raising an issue that economists have long grappled with: How can a society assess the trade-off between economic well-being and health?
他(特朗普)提出了經(jīng)濟學(xué)家長久以來努力解決的問題：一個社會如何評估經(jīng)濟福祉和健康之間的取舍?
President Trump and leading business figures are increasingly questioning the wisdom of a prolonged shutdown of the American economy — already putting millions out of work — to curb the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.
特朗普總統(tǒng)和商界領(lǐng)袖們越來越多地質(zhì)疑，為遏制新型冠狀病毒的蔓延而讓美國經(jīng)濟長期停擺是否明智——這種停滯已經(jīng)讓數(shù)百萬人失去了工作。
however, a widespread consensus among economists and public health experts that lifting the restrictions would impose huge costs in additional lives lost to the virus — and deliver little lasting benefit to the economy.
經(jīng)濟學(xué)家和公共衛(wèi)生專家倒是普遍認為，取消這些限制將使更多的人死于這種病毒，付出巨大的代價，而且?guī)缀醪粫o經(jīng)濟帶來什么長期的好處。
Weighing economic costs against human lives will inevitably seem crass. But societies also value things like jobs, food and money to pay the bills — as well as the ability to deal with other needs and prevent unrelated misfortunes.
權(quán)衡人類生命的經(jīng)濟成本似乎不可避免地顯得愚蠢。但是，社會也重視工作、食物和支付賬單的錢等事物，以及滿足其他需求和防止不相關(guān)的不幸的能力。
Government agencies calculate these trade-offs regularly. The Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, has established a cost of about $9.5 million per life saved as a benchmark for determining whether to clean up a toxic waste site.
政府機構(gòu)定期計算這樣的取舍。例如，美國環(huán)護署(Environmental Protection Agency)設(shè)定了一個標準，每拯救一個生命的成本約為950萬美元，將其作為是否清理有毒廢物場地的決定基準。
Other agencies use similar values to assess whether to invest in reducing accidents at an intersection or to tighten safety standards in a workplace. The Department of Agriculture has a calculator to estimate the economic costs — medical care, premature deaths, productivity loss from nonfatal cases — of food-borne disease.
其他機構(gòu)使用類似的方法進行量化評估，以決定是投資減少十字路口的事故，還是加強工作場所的安全標準。農(nóng)業(yè)部有一個計算標準，用來估計食源性疾病的經(jīng)濟成本——醫(yī)療保健、過早死亡、非致命病例造成的生產(chǎn)力損失。
Now, some economists have decided to stick their necks out and apply this thinking to the coronavirus pandemic.
現(xiàn)在，一些經(jīng)濟學(xué)家決定冒險把這種想法應(yīng)用到冠狀病毒大流行上。
Based on epidemiological projections, as the virus ran unchecked, it would quickly expand to infect somewhat over half the population before herd immunity would slow its course.
根據(jù)流行病學(xué)預(yù)測，當病毒不受控制地傳播時會迅速擴大，感染半數(shù)以上的人口，然后群體免疫才會減緩其進程。
A policy to contain the virus by reducing economic activity would slow the progression of the virus and reduce the death rate, but it would also impose a greater economic cost.
通過減少經(jīng)濟活動來遏制病毒的政策，可以減緩病毒發(fā)展并降低死亡率，但它也將帶來更大的經(jīng)濟代價。
It comes down to what a life is worth.
歸根結(jié)底，這是在衡量生命的價值。