The public anxiety fueled by the COVID-19 outbreak has sent shoppers in search of masks across different retail channels as soon as they are restocked.
The main reason for the panic buying is the worry of having no mask to wear when community transmission of the disease breaks out, prompting people to stockpile masks in advance. As long as this mindset continues unrectified, the mask shortage will never be resolved.
People should be using their masks within a given period of time, say within a week or a month after purchase, and making another purchase only when needed. This principle would allow masks to be available for purchase at any time and, by helping others in need, protect public health across the nation.
The shortage in the market is not because all the masks produced thus far have been used: It is due to people stockpiling them.
Even after the government implemented a real-name purchasing system on Thursday last week, many buyers are still buying masks to have as spares.
If this situation is allowed to continue, masks would always run out of stock no matter how many more supplies are manufactured.
To solve the issue and end the stockpiling, the government should require mask manufacturers to print numerals on the inner sleeve of the mask. For instance, masks produced in February should be printed with the number “2,” and those produced in March should bear the number “3.”
One month later, the government should penalize people wearing unnumbered masks, suggesting that they have stockpiled masks manufactured more than a month ago.
If the government issues such a directive, people who have been stockpiling masks would give away or use up their spare masks in no time rather than going through the trouble of tearing up masks and printing falsified numbers.
Following this method, the mask shortage would probably be resolved within a week.
The government needs to come up with more creative measures to administer in troubled times and to guide the public in a bid to safeguard health at this crucial moment.
Phillipe Hsu is a public health center physician.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS