The “Wuhan pneumonia” outbreak has become a pandemic, but many countries have yet to come to grips with the worsening severity of this medical crisis.
Historian Robert Peckham has studied how the ecology of deadly diseases has changed from the late 19th century until today and, in his 2016 book titled Epidemics in Modern Asia highlights the intrinsic link between global connectivity and emerging infections.
The frequency of outbreaks — from SARS in 2003 to swine flu in 2009 and today’s COVID-19 — and their rapid rate of transmission owe much to globalization. Better and cheaper transportation and communications technology have empowered international aviation, shipping and railroad networks, contributing to mobility — both people and commodities — and popularizing tourism.
Yet, the institutional drivers and mechanisms propelling globalization have made the world “flat” — to borrow from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman — and spread the pandemic in a short period.
In reaping the material benefits of globalization, people often overlook the invisible risk of emerging infections, which can spread across continents, affecting people in vulnerable conditions and destabilizing economies worldwide.
Many nations have invoked the vocabulary of war to characterize their struggle against the coronavirus, the archenemy of humankind. As the first epicenter of the pandemic, China mobilized all of its medical and bureaucratic resources to confront what President Xi Jinping (習近平) called a “people’s war” against COVID-19, echoing mass health movements and social programs of the Mao Zedong (毛澤東) era.
The mighty Chinese Communist Party state relied on its longstanding system of urban and rural neighborhood surveillance to restrict mobility. Local party cadres and police officers set up roadblocks on major roads and at public squares, guarding the entrances to government offices, medical facilities, schools and apartment buildings.
These officials continually checked temperatures, disinfected residences and stopped outsiders from entering their territory. This combination of top-down rigorous surveillance and community cooperation is thought by Beijing to have slowed down the spread of the coronavirus outside of Wuhan.
The rhetoric of combatting the coronavirus is not unique to China. Once a localized outbreak, this pandemic has invaded the rest of the world, with consequences that boggle the imagination.
The surge in confirmed infections and deaths has prompted countries in the Global North to implement similar tactics: suspending public gatherings, closing national borders and imposing lockdowns on billions of people.
With global connectivity and viral transmission reinforcing each other, the overlapping social, economic and political risks posed by the pandemic demand radical intervention by government officials, medical personnel and businesspeople at all levels.
Taiwan deserves credit for its bold, decisive and systematic efforts to handle the crisis. Even without being a WHO member, the nation, led by highly educated and competent policymakers who have faith in medical science and reason, has implemented aggressive crisis management. Vice President Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) is a respected epidemiologist, while his successor, vice president-elect William Lai (賴清德), specializes in public health and rehabilitative medicine.
The nation has employed communications networks driven by artificial intelligence to identify, isolate and monitor infected people and trace their contacts — a use of technology that serves the common good.
By adopting a case-by-case tracking system to test elderly people and those with chronic medical conditions, officials have carefully identified locals and visitors thought to have come into contact with COVID-19, and contained high-risk groups to slow down the virus’ spread.
The government has canceled public gatherings, implemented mandatory quarantines, and promoted the importance of personal hygiene through the media and public health education. Since early February, it has also enforced effective border controls, keeping travelers from China, Hong Kong, Macau and other hard-hit areas out of Taiwan.
Hong Kong and Macau might not have seen as many cases as Wuhan, but their international ports can serve as major conduits of viral infection. Since January, their borders have been open to countless high-risk travelers, including daily commuters who reside in China’s Shenzhen and Zhuhai, but cross into the territories for work.
Infected travelers who early on passed through the territories’ ports and airports allegedly increased the rate of transmission to the rest of the world.
At a time when many countries are still developing measures to cope with the pandemic, Taiwan has much to offer to the outside world. Its logical, comprehensive and balanced measures not only benefit its own population, but also serve as a model of disease prevention and control.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is a history professor at Pace University in New York City.
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS