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
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS