US president-elect Joe Biden has pledged to push for scientific measures against the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, hoping that all Americans develop a habit of wearing masks. His push has become a hot topic in the US.
However, the Republican governors of 16 states threaten to boycott a mandatory mask policy, saying that whether to wear a mask is a personal choice, and people should not be forced to do so even during a pandemic.
Some of the governors emphasized that whether to wear a mask is a matter of personal freedom and cannot be a legal obligation. As some Americans stretch the understanding of “freedom” infinitely, no wonder the pandemic situation in the US continues to worsen.
What is freedom? English sociologist Herbert Spencer in the 19th century defined it, saying: “Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.”
Our schools also teach us that freedom is based on the premise of not infringing upon that of others.
However, the definition of freedom is not the point. What should be denounced is when people, in the name of upholding freedom, pose risks to others.
You do not need to be very knowledgeable or have studied the US constitution to know this simple “code of conduct,” which is comprehensible with a little empathy that was learned in elementary school: While the pandemic is out of control in the US, those who are unwilling to wear masks are obviously misjudging the nature of freedom.
As Asians, it might be difficult for us to comprehend the thoughts of some Europeans and Americans.
However, in our globalized world, perhaps Europeans and Americans can take a look at the preventive measures Asian countries have taken.
Studies have shown that COVID-19 is different from other coronaviruses, as its genetic code allows it to deceive our immune system, tricking our bodies into lowering its virus protection.
Also, as the viral load in a person who has contracted COVID-19 is typically highest two days before symptoms occur; many people spread the virus before knowing they are infected.
Yoshihiro Kawaoka, a professor at the University of Tokyo’s Institute of Medical Science, conducted experimental research on the level of protection that masks grant. The results showed that masks might reduce the amount of droplets emitted by a person by 70 percent.
It further showed that masks might reduce the amount of droplets inhaled by a person by 47 percent in case of a surgical mask or 17 percent in case of a non-surgical mask made of cotton.
A N95 mask might reduce the amount of droplets by 79 percent.
However, the study showed that even if two people engaged in a conversation wear masks, it does not completely eliminate the risk of contracting COVID-19.
Even though the experiments were conducted in a confined space of a laboratory and the protection that mask grant might not be as high as the numbers suggest, wearing a mask effectively slows the spread of COVID-19.
Still, people must not solely rely on masks, as they do not provide full protection.
Americans can access information freely and easily, so one would hope that when some people sing the praises of freedom, they can also learn how to approach COVID-19 and their compatriots with empathy.
Wu Yueh-hua is an associate professor at National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism’s applied Japanese department.
Translated by Eddy Chang
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS