Currently, epidemic prevention and control work in China still faces severe challenges. Shanghai and Jilin have become areas hard hit by the outbreaks of COVID cases in clusters. The Omicron mutant that triggered the current round of a resurge in COVID-19 spreads faster and is more “stealthier”, posing an enormous challenge to epidemic prevention and control. Because of this, some people have raised doubt about China's epidemic prevention policy: is it still necessary for us to adhere to the "\\;dynamic zero-COVID"\\; policy? Do we still have the ability to adhere to this policy? Quick and accurate "\\;dynamic COVID clearance"\\; has been the "\\;magic weapon"\\; for China to keep the COVID-19 pandemic under effective control so far. “Dynamic” means that the policy does not pursue absolute zero infection, while "\\;clearance"\\; is to eliminate COVID infections once they are found, thus holding the bottom line of preventing any large-scale rebound of the pandemic. From the perspectives of both epidemic prevention and control and economic development, it is imperative for China to adhere to the "\\;dynamic zero-COVID"\\; policy.Those who argue that there is no need to adhere to the "\\;dynamic zero-COVID"\\; policy have two reasons for it: 1. the Omicron only causes mild symptoms and a low mortality rate\\; and 2. taking strict lockdown measures is not good for economic development. Neither of the two reasons is actually tenable. China has a large population. Even if the death rate is low, the absolute number of likely deaths caused by COVID-19 could get very big when it is multiplied by a population base of 1.4 billion. Given the strong contagious power of the Omicron, if we give up the "\\;dynamic zero-COVID"\\; policy, it will pose a huge risk to China’s healthcare system. Lessons from other countries in the world show that the Omicron, which seemingly causes "\\;minor symptoms and a low mortality rate"\\;, has in fact caused more deaths than the Delta virus which carries a higher mortality rate, simply because the former is more contagious and infects more people. For example, the death toll in the first three months after New Zealand gave up its previous “zero COVID” policy to go for “co-existence” with the Omicron was five times that in the previous two years. The New Zealand Herald&\\;nbsp\\;reported on March 30, 2022 that New Zealand was going through the "\\;darkest period"\\; since the outbreak of the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has raged across the world for more than two years now, wreaking havoc on the global economy. In response, some countries have opted for a “zero COVID” policy, while some have chosen to "\\;live with COVID"\\;. As far as the practical effects are concerned, the laissez-faire "\\;coexistence"\\; camp often suffers more severe damage to their economic development as a result of the rampant pandemic. China, which pursues a "\\;dynamic zero-COVID"\\; policy, has been able to coordinate epidemic prevention and control with economic and social development. Strict lockdowns are temporary and only confined to individual places, and society can quickly return to normal life after the infection cases are eliminated. If the country is planned as a whole and when the livelihood, economic and social aspects are all taken into account, no one will reach the absurd conclusion that epidemic prevention and control hinders economic development. Instead, people will become more determined to adhere to the "\\;dynamic zero-COVID"\\; policy.In terms of both experience and strength, China has the ability to achieve "\\;dynamic zero-COVID"\\;.In the past two years, the novel coronavirus has evolved through four generations of strains, going from wild strains to the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron. The virus has been in constant mutation. China has persistently put the people and their lives first, adhered to the centralized and unified leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, and leveraged its institutional advantages of concentrating forces to do big things, successfully withstanding the impacts of round after round of COVID-19 outbreaks. Despite its ever-faster transmission speed, the Omicron is nevertheless a novel coronavirus without fundamental changes. To avoid the spread of the pandemic, we must fight it with “speed” and "\\;early response"\\;. Early response involves the following four aspects: early detection, early isolation, early treatment, and early prevention. "\\;Early detection"\\; depends on testing capacity. China currently has an overall nucleic acid testing capacity of 40 million persons per day, with several coronavirus antigen test reagents already being approved for marketing. "\\;Early isolation"\\; requires sufficient isolation resources. In the fight against the current round of a resurge in COVID-19 cases, 82 shelter hospitals have been built or are under construction across China. Distributed in 46 prefectures and cities in 19 provinces, these shelter hospitals have a total of 115,500 beds. “Early treatment” is related to medical resources. Medical materials and teams from the rest of the country have gone to help Jilin Province and Shanghai, and China has accumulated rich experience in treating COVID-19 cases by combining Traditional Chinese Medicine and Western medicine. "\\;Early prevention"\\; is related to vaccination, which can effectively reduce severe infections and lower the mortality rate.&\\;nbsp\\;As of April 1, 3,274 million COVID vaccinations had been reported in China. By rationally judging the situation and making scientific study and judgment, it is both possible and necessary for China to adhere to the "\\;dynamic zero-COVID"\\; policy. &\\;nbsp\\;Author: She Huimin, Economic Daily