{"title":"COVID - 19口罩佩戴:身份和重要性","authors":"S. Knowles, Sharrona Pearl, Rashawn Ray","doi":"10.1080/18752160.2021.2015134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Slick data visualizations and authoritative daily tallies of infection and death statistics allow us to know the COVID-19 pandemic as a global phenomenon, but the local variabilities remain confounding. In the United States and Europe one of the fundamental questions asked throughout the COVID-19 pandemic—immediately after the question “How did things get so bad?”—is the question “How did countries in Asia manage it so well?” Some generalizations seem obvious. While Americans waited anxiously for guidance from the federal government in mid-March of 2020, news reports from abroad showed the empty Wuhan highways, South Koreans lined up for nasal swab tests, and Singaporeans downloading contact tracing apps on their phones (Goggin 2020; Lee and Lee 2020; Taylor 2020). The most universal image was that of people wearing face masks to slow the spread of infection. East Asian countries were taking aggressive countermeasures while Donald Trump was promising that the “China Plague” would simply go away, “like a miracle.” By 31 December 2020, a year after the first case of COVID-19 was reported by the World Health Organization, the United States reported 352,998 COVID deaths and Italy counted 74,159 dead, while South Korea reported 900 deaths, 29 in Singapore, and 7 deaths were reported in Taiwan. To what do we owe these differences? Are these variabilities tied to the competency of elected officials, or to investments in national health systems? Perhaps the differences have more to do with hard-to-measure historical trajectories, qualitative data points that evade crisp delineation on a COVID-tracking digital dashboard. Grasping for explanations, some Western journalists and politicians dug up and","PeriodicalId":45255,"journal":{"name":"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal","volume":"1210 1","pages":"117 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COVID Mask Wearing: Identity and Materiality\",\"authors\":\"S. Knowles, Sharrona Pearl, Rashawn Ray\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/18752160.2021.2015134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Slick data visualizations and authoritative daily tallies of infection and death statistics allow us to know the COVID-19 pandemic as a global phenomenon, but the local variabilities remain confounding. In the United States and Europe one of the fundamental questions asked throughout the COVID-19 pandemic—immediately after the question “How did things get so bad?”—is the question “How did countries in Asia manage it so well?” Some generalizations seem obvious. While Americans waited anxiously for guidance from the federal government in mid-March of 2020, news reports from abroad showed the empty Wuhan highways, South Koreans lined up for nasal swab tests, and Singaporeans downloading contact tracing apps on their phones (Goggin 2020; Lee and Lee 2020; Taylor 2020). The most universal image was that of people wearing face masks to slow the spread of infection. East Asian countries were taking aggressive countermeasures while Donald Trump was promising that the “China Plague” would simply go away, “like a miracle.” By 31 December 2020, a year after the first case of COVID-19 was reported by the World Health Organization, the United States reported 352,998 COVID deaths and Italy counted 74,159 dead, while South Korea reported 900 deaths, 29 in Singapore, and 7 deaths were reported in Taiwan. To what do we owe these differences? Are these variabilities tied to the competency of elected officials, or to investments in national health systems? Perhaps the differences have more to do with hard-to-measure historical trajectories, qualitative data points that evade crisp delineation on a COVID-tracking digital dashboard. Grasping for explanations, some Western journalists and politicians dug up and\",\"PeriodicalId\":45255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal\",\"volume\":\"1210 1\",\"pages\":\"117 - 123\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/18752160.2021.2015134\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18752160.2021.2015134","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
流畅的数据可视化和权威的每日感染和死亡统计数据使我们能够了解COVID-19大流行是一种全球现象,但当地的差异仍然令人困惑。在美国和欧洲,在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间被问到的一个基本问题——紧接在“事情怎么会变得如此糟糕?”——问题是“亚洲国家是如何管理得如此之好?”有些概括似乎是显而易见的。2020年3月中旬,当美国人焦急地等待联邦政府的指导时,来自国外的新闻报道显示,武汉的高速公路空无一人,韩国人排队进行鼻拭子测试,新加坡人在手机上下载接触者追踪应用程序(Goggin 2020;Lee and Lee 2020;2020年泰勒)。最普遍的形象是人们戴着口罩来减缓感染的传播。东亚国家采取了积极的应对措施,而特朗普承诺“中国瘟疫”会像奇迹一样消失。截至2020年12月31日,即世界卫生组织报告首例COVID-19病例一年后,美国报告了352998例COVID-19死亡,意大利报告了74159例死亡,韩国报告了900例死亡,新加坡报告了29例死亡,台湾报告了7例死亡。我们将这些差异归因于什么?这些差异与民选官员的能力有关,还是与国家卫生系统的投资有关?也许这些差异更多地与难以衡量的历史轨迹、定性数据点有关,这些数据点无法在新冠病毒追踪数字仪表板上清晰地描绘出来。为了寻找解释,一些西方记者和政治家挖出了答案
Slick data visualizations and authoritative daily tallies of infection and death statistics allow us to know the COVID-19 pandemic as a global phenomenon, but the local variabilities remain confounding. In the United States and Europe one of the fundamental questions asked throughout the COVID-19 pandemic—immediately after the question “How did things get so bad?”—is the question “How did countries in Asia manage it so well?” Some generalizations seem obvious. While Americans waited anxiously for guidance from the federal government in mid-March of 2020, news reports from abroad showed the empty Wuhan highways, South Koreans lined up for nasal swab tests, and Singaporeans downloading contact tracing apps on their phones (Goggin 2020; Lee and Lee 2020; Taylor 2020). The most universal image was that of people wearing face masks to slow the spread of infection. East Asian countries were taking aggressive countermeasures while Donald Trump was promising that the “China Plague” would simply go away, “like a miracle.” By 31 December 2020, a year after the first case of COVID-19 was reported by the World Health Organization, the United States reported 352,998 COVID deaths and Italy counted 74,159 dead, while South Korea reported 900 deaths, 29 in Singapore, and 7 deaths were reported in Taiwan. To what do we owe these differences? Are these variabilities tied to the competency of elected officials, or to investments in national health systems? Perhaps the differences have more to do with hard-to-measure historical trajectories, qualitative data points that evade crisp delineation on a COVID-tracking digital dashboard. Grasping for explanations, some Western journalists and politicians dug up and