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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS