Efforts by the government and medical establishment to control the spread of SARS deserve encouragement. Hopefully their work will soon bear fruit. As the epidemic has entered a new phase, the urgent task is to study the disease's direction.
From the very beginning our prevention measures have followed WHO guidelines of trying to completely block the spread of the virus and then wipe it out. If the future does not turn out as expected, should the disease-prevention measures be increased in scope? Should the epidemic-prevention measures be raised to a higher level continuously? We should have a more thorough and macroscopic view.
Intense fear will only create more public pressure. More government measures will not only create more expectations but also carry more risks of disappointment. Epidemic control involves many "human activities." Is complete, flawless isolation aimed at wiping out the virus a practical and realistic measure?
As prevention measures increase in scope, is the benefit proportional to the increase in social costs? Can we really wipe out SARS while understanding little about it? Were there any endemic cases in the past? Does the SARS virus take different forms in different countries?
If we are not sure of the answers to the above questions, should we consider how to coexist with SARS?
The world is by nature a place in which humans and microorganisms live together. Even if we exterminate one kind of microorganism, other new strains will continue to emerge. Although some past epidemics such as measles, smallpox and polio were eventually defeated, new viruses continue to come into being.
Because of close relations with China and Hong Kong, Taiwan is different from Singapore and Vietnam. Social and economic entanglements make it impossible for Taiwan to be free from the threat of SARS so long as the virus is not wiped out in China. While reduced cross-strait tensions provide an opportunity for Taiwan to recreate its political and economic miracles, they are by no means beneficial to long-term epidemic prevention.
When we consider adjusting our policy direction, the view of Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US, published in New York Times last week, can perhaps give us a clue. Medical workers and the public should not panic but should face the epidemic with an open mind and pay attention to health care, epidemic prevention and proper isolation. Proper treatment should be made available once there is infection.
The above views are not aimed to denying our efforts, but to seek a better course of action and allow experts to draw on useful ideas for the future. Hopefully people will join hands and work together in epidemic prevention to create a brighter future.
Steve Chan is the president of Chi Mei Medical Center and the former director-general of the Department of Health.
Translated by Grace Shaw
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under