Thoughts on the Collapse of Quanzhou Hotel Building

Thoughts on the Collapse of Quanzhou Hotel Building

202003 1 1

It is sad that a hotel in Quanzhou collapsed and many people were killed. After the incident, a series of news broke out on the Internet. The hotel has been transformed, with many violations, and has been asked to rectify many times. It can be said that the voice of condemnation is mostly, but it seems to have overlooked one point.

Under the present circumstances, it can be said that the general business activities have stopped, and the situation of traveling is even less, or almost impossible, so this hotel is still open and there are things inside. It turned out that this place was requisitioned as a temporary quarantine place for the epidemic.

Do not consider other violations, rectification, etc. If we are only talking about collection, are there any problems to consider? There are similar problems online, but not many. It's more about the past life in the hotel. Of course, it's not that we can't talk about these things, but whether we should talk about other things besides them.

An article on Sina. According to the website, the hotel was requisitioned based on its unique geographical location, close to provincial roads and urban exits, not residential areas, close to related hospitals, and so on. However, it is not clear whether there are other factors.

I won't comment on the countermeasures in the epidemic, but there will definitely be costs. I don't know how to deal with these expenses. It is reported that the passive isolators during the epidemic were asked to pay fees after the isolation was lifted, and some of them were still very high and were questioned. Then, similarly, it is not known whether the expropriation of civil facilities has cost, whether the expropriation of this hotel has this factor, and whether there will be an answer.

After the accident, the basic procedure is accountability, which is necessary, but on the other hand, whether accountability should be carried out at the same time, these two responsibilities cannot be confused, that is to say, they are two different things.

Like a knife. Used well, it is a tool. Bad use is the murder weapon, which has nothing to do with the knife itself.

On the other hand, if the hotel is not requisitioned, the owner should be responsible for the result and bear corresponding responsibilities. After the collection, things have changed, and the subject of responsibility caused by this situation has also changed. I wonder if this idea is reasonable.

There is a question here, that is, do we know anything about the hotel and whether the requisition procedure is standardized. Now that we know that he violated the rules, he still wants to requisition it. Is there anything debatable in this?

Besides, the owner of the hotel, after getting the requisition, can he refuse, can he resist, maybe not, and the requisition may be unconditional.

Think again, it is the relationship between expropriation and collapse. There is no relationship between the two, that is to say, it is not the expropriation that led to the collapse of the hotel, but the hidden dangers of the building itself.

On second thought, it's the victim. If there is no requisition and the hotel does not open, then in the inevitable case of closure, only some specific people, waiters and construction workers will become victims, and there will be no others. After the hotel was requisitioned, on the basis of the appellant, some waiters were added, and then there were medical staff and isolation personnel. The latter three types of people were all related to the expropriation, which means that the victims in this part of the crowd were all caused by the expropriation.

Maybe this must be an unexplained thing. Thinking about it, I think of a difficult problem, that is, the switchman problem. The original life and death was due to the criminal's evil deeds, but it was passed on to the switchman who should have done God's work, which put him in a dilemma, and the only thing that can determine his behavior is interest. Of course, interest is not about him, but it is only this interest factor that can determine his behavior. There's a saying in China that the lesser of two evils is the lesser. The key here is that the switchman can't do nothing, he must do one thing and make a choice.

So who is the criminal, who is the switchman and who is the victim in the building collapse in Quanzhou should be worth thinking about. Obviously, the owner of the hotel must be a criminal, which is beyond doubt. What will be the role of the person who decides to requisition this hotel? They won't be victims or switchmen. Maybe they should be the same as criminals. They tied these medical staff and patients to the track of this disaster, making it possible for them to become a member of the disaster. If it weren't for their decision, these people would have nothing to do with it.

Things are so weird and unpredictable. There may be no switchman here, no one can intervene, and everything is doomed.

I don't know the meaning of this kind of thinking, but compared with those who just berate hotel operators, it should be thought from another angle, which will serve as a warning to similar things.