Commander Chen Shih-chung Should Disclose the Activity Range of the 24th COVID-19 Confirmed Case | A Demand for Information Transparency

After the 24th case with an unknown source of infection of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19, commonly known as the Wuhan virus) appeared in the country, Chen Shih-chung only announced that a middle-aged or older woman in northern Taiwan was the COVID-19 confirmed case, while her name (I have no interest in knowing), home address (still no interest), district, and activity range were all firmly and uniformly withheld.

If it were truly based entirely on professional considerations, it would not be entirely unacceptable, as long as the official standard could remain consistent (I will not even mention the matter of Chen Shih-chung himself accidentally leaking Linkou Chang Gung without anyone pursuing penalties).

Yet not long ago, when a foreign cruise ship docked at Keelung Port in Taiwan and domestic and foreign tourists played all over northern Taiwan, the government generously took mobile phone location data directly from telecom base stations, precisely mapped everyone’s activity routes, and widely publicized them.

So who can tell me what exactly the difference is between the 24th COVID-19 confirmed patient and the cruise ship passengers? Or are we now supposed to conduct witch hunts selectively?

In particular, when the 32nd confirmed case appeared during this period, the epidemic command center immediately announced the detailed bus, train, and MRT routes taken by that illegal foreign migrant worker, precise to the minute and second, and afterward even the activity footage recorded by surveillance cameras could be openly and safely released.

The whereabouts of a northern woman cannot be disclosed, and the words “causing panic and not helping the epidemic” still ring in our ears, yet the whereabouts and footage of an illegal foreign caregiver migrant worker were disclosed in detail. So who can tell me where the standard has gone now?

Well, I personally quite like the quantification approach, and I once specially trained my own way of walking (also to train my tennis footwork), able to distinguish walking speed into ten speed levels, and my grasp of one centimeter and one second in real space is fairly accurate. As for whether epidemic information disclosure is necessary, it actually depends on whether I can achieve level-seven safety protection with just a little effort in daily life, or need to expend great effort to achieve level-ten protection.

Once the choice is between level-seven and level-ten protection, the biggest impact is the practical issue of endurance.

For example, my level-ten walking speed would leave my upper body still in place while my legs have already shot forward (a perfect match with the super-grippy rubber soles of Agassi tennis shoes), but this kind of stride basically cannot last a few seconds before cramping, whereas a level-seven walking speed can basically be sustained for a full kilometer without issue.

Today the government stubbornly refuses to disclose the activity range of the 24th case. Honestly, it has not the slightest meaning of reassuring protection. On the surface it is said to be to avoid panic, but in reality the impact it causes only makes more people doubt.

We have no intention whatsoever of knowing who the patient is — even if it were the premier’s mother it would be none of my business — nor do we want to know the patient’s address and phone number. We simply want to know the possible activity range, yet the authorities only vaguely said “northern Taiwan,” which as soon as it is said includes areas from Hsinchu and Taoyuan to Keelung and Yilan.

Knowing the historical activity range, though of no help to those already infected with the virus, at least allows those in nearby activity areas to have a better grasp of suspicious symptoms appearing in themselves.

Rather than knowing nothing at all, I would rather obtain more complete information, and how to judge it is our own business — is this not the essence of the netizens’ demand for open data in recent years?

Otherwise, your Central Epidemic Command Center might as well not even say the keywords “northern Taiwan,” “age,” and “female.” As I said earlier, the best way for the authorities to avoid panic is to maintain a consistent standard.

Information transparency is also an important method in epidemic prevention, reminding potential contacts to raise their attention and vigilance, and also avoiding various rumors and speculation among the public. This is a normal epidemic prevention action abroad, yet domestically it has been strictly suppressed by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the NCC to the point of almost speech control (where is the promised freedom of the press?).