The mass transmission of SARS in Taipei Municipal Hoping Hospital and Jen Chi Hospital have shown that the fight against this disease is no longer something that can be managed by public health agencies and medical personnel alone. It requires a consensus among the entire population and cooperation all around. Teaching the public how to protect themselves should be a matter of the utmost urgency.
It is gradually becoming clear how SARS is transmitted, but there is no consensus about methods of prevention. People still aren't acting in unison.
The primary method of transmission is believed to be via respiratory droplets or other bodily fluids. The wearing of surgical masks has become most people's primary prevention measure. In fact, the theory of transmission through the air is rather questionable. As a result, the issue of who should wear surgical masks has become a matter for debate.
Since the typical symptoms of SARS are a high fever, cough and diarrhea, coughing in a public place creates tension, especially on public transportation. It is almost as though the person coughing should be the one wearing a mask in order to avoid spraying the others.
Since respiratory droplets are considered an important path of transmission, there is a need for a consensus in favor of using designated spoons and chopsticks to serve food at banquets. It would also be appropriate for those under quarantine to eat their meals separate from others. According to the analysis in the April 25 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USCDC), the primary mode of transmission is to family mem-bers and other "close contacts."
It is rather difficult to determine the definition of a "close contact." Would it include an unsuspecting carrier of the disease with whom you shook hands? This was the question people pondered when AIDS first began to spread and SARS is no different. In interpersonal contacts, will the traditional Chinese greeting of saluting with folded hands replace the handshake? We will have to wait and see.
Speaking of transmission by airborne droplets, the SARS virus is rated by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) at biosafety level 3 (BSL-3), ie, on a par with tuberculosis. The morbidity and acute severity of the SARS virus in fact surpass tuberculosis but are less serious than Ebola hemorrhagic fever, which is rated BSL-4. Hence SARS' is listed as BSL-3 and the slightly easier to implement control mechanisms.
It is still appropriate, however, for items disposed of by SARS hospitals or patients to be sterilized prior to any further handling. How should items disposed of by quarantined individuals be handled? This will require consideration. The CDC currently regards quarantined individuals as BSL-2. Public health authorities must publicly provide further information about what this means. Items discarded by such individuals must be sealed in sturdy, government-provided plastic bags and handled like medical waste.
Only after the viral incubation period has passed and the quarantine has been lifted may these bags be disposed of as regular garbage. I would recommend that, if the quarantined individual becomes ill, authorities are notified and the waste is handled according to BSL-3 guidelines.
To prevent the spread of enterovirus, public health authorities have in the past often urged the public to wash their hands frequently. In the SARS epidemic, they are telling people both to avoid unnecessary group activities and to wash their hands frequently. That hand-washing can prevent the spread of SARS need no longer be debated.
Unfortunately, however, many public places do not provide liquid soap for hand washing or, needless to say, paper towels. Some even lack water. If the authorities believe hand-washing can reduce infection, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications must demand that all airport and bus-station restrooms maintain cleanliness and provide liquid soap for hand-washing -- not just the major stations in Taipei, Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung. The Ministry of Education must issue orders for schools at all levels to comply as well.
The habit of spitting should also be prohibited. The plaza in front of the Taichung Train Station is covered with red betel nut stains and is in particular need of improvement.
Lin Reuy-shiung (
The handling of feces, therefore, like that of other waste, must be listed among important prevention measures. It would appear that we should design special tools for eradicating the virus. At the very least, toilets should be disinfected with appropriate quantities of bleach, and not flushed until sufficient time has passed for it to kill the virus. Another headache will be the problem of septic tanks.
Lin has also specially considered the path of SARS infection in the cases of certain male patients. He reasoned that some men infected in China got the disease through sexual contact. This theory was first criticized, but it caught the attention of China's CDC. At an international conference on SARS on April 23 and 24 in Beijing, Chinese epidemiologists acknowledged Lin's conclusion that SARS could be spread by sexual contact. The conference chairman believed Lin made a point of thanking him for this contribution.
The underground sex industry could be one important source of transmission and it would be best to take preventative measures before the problem gets worse. Whether it is sex or respiratory droplets that is the most important transmission route remains to be seen.
The panic surrounding the outbreak of SARS is very similar to what happened 20 years ago when AIDS first broke out. In both cases, the origins of the disease are a mystery, and the transmission routes of the SARS virus are even more complex than those of AIDS.
Public awareness and restraint -- especially self-restraint on the part of suspected SARS cases and cooperation with measures developed by the public health authorities -- will help control the epidemic. Calming the public's fears will also be a great challenge that requires every sort of wisdom.
Sung Fung-chang is a professor in the College of Public Health at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS