Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) last week sketched a chart showing projected numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections in an attempt to explain his preferred pandemic-prevention strategy.
The chart was in fact straight from the pages of a public health textbook, first shown by the Central Epidemic Command Center two years ago at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has since formed the basis of the government’s pandemic prevention plans. It was also used by Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) to illustrate his city’s approach to the pandemic.
Whether to pursue a policy of “zero COVID-19” or live with the virus is a question that China is dealing with. It has become an ideological struggle between supporters of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and his rivals in the run-up to the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th National Party Congress later this year.
However, the pandemic prevention measures pursued in Taiwan over the past two years have never been about achieving zero cases at all costs. They have been largely aimed at keeping the virus under control and moving toward a form of herd immunity, which is essentially a scientific way of saying “living with the virus.”
At the start of the pandemic, Taiwan was faced with a virulent disease that produces severe symptoms. There was no vaccine, a lack of medical supplies, an insufficient supply of surgical masks and sanitizing products, and limited numbers of hospital beds. During this time, the country was still trying to figure out the virus’ transmission path.
The objective in the pandemic response back then was to prevent an explosion in the number of severe cases from collapsing the health system, which would make us lose control of the virus.
For this reason, it was thought proportionate to try to reduce the speed of virus transmission, even if this goal came at a relatively high social cost, so that the medical system would have the capacity to cope with severe cases. It would buy time until a vaccine was developed and distributed, and allow for hope that the virus might mutate into a weaker strain that would cause less severe symptoms.
With these conditions in place, the country could then hope to achieve some form of herd immunity.
Today, Taiwan has adequate vaccine coverage. The Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 is more easily transmitted, but it largely produces no or less severe symptoms. The medical system is fairly stable.
The question therefore becomes whether Taiwan needs to maintain the social costs of pandemic restrictions to control the virus. The country has reached the point where people can once more discuss how best to further refine our allocation of resources and our control measures. In public administration, policy support measures are the goals and means of coordination in key areas to achieve the overall strategy and objectives.
Therefore, in the process of fighting the pandemic, these measures have to take into account the circumstances at any given point in time, including the capacity of the medical system, the corresponding social costs and the policy tools at hand to meet objectives and prioritize resource allocation.
As part of the policy discussion, the government needs to explain the entire policy framework and connections in a structured way, and to provide key data in a timely manner, such as the number of hospitalized patients that fully recover. The public needs to understand what the government is trying to achieve in its overall strategy, and how the results demonstrate success.
In this way, it can fend off critics who clamor for attention, and guide the nation out of the pandemic in the final stretch.
Shih Chia-liang is an adjunct assistant professor at National Chengchi University’s Department of Public Administration.
Translated by Paul Cooper
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS