我好無聊之COVID-19 Journal。
＊＿＊＿＊＿＊＿＊＿＊＿＊＿＊
20200124
WOW!!! Kai-Yuan好神速——還提到了防疫多重等級方案 （#LawrenceGostin）和傳染病的黑洞效應（#DeviSridhar）。
很多人在 23 日 WHO 宣布決定之後，言論間頗有質疑世衛組織特別怠慢了這個發生於中國的疾病。
從歷史來看，國際公共衛生緊急事件（#PHEIC ）的宣布向來是非常棘手的事情，WHO 因此遭受非議已非第一次。上一次這個世界遭遇 PHEIC，是不過半年前，在剛果東部爆發的伊波拉疫情。當時 WHO 在疫情爆發後一年、第四次的緊急會議上，才總算宣布 PHEIC，事後遭到許多公衛學者檢討。
一篇美國公衛期刊的文章比較了 2009 #H1N1、2014 #伊波拉、2016 #茲卡病毒這三次 PHEIC 的發布，發現從偵測到疾病發生到 WHO 發布 PHEIC，H1N1 只花了 38 天最快，茲卡病毒花了 65 天，而伊波拉花了整整 138 天。
作者分析，新興疾病、對美國人影響較大的疾病似乎獲得較快速的處理（三個疾病都在直接影響美國後 10 天內被定調為 PHEIC）；而國際社群動員的效率（若以 PHEIC 發布的速度為準）其實似乎不見得真的跟疾病嚴重度或影響人口數有關係。
一些內部文件更指出，2014 年 WHO 之所以遲遲不肯宣布 PHEIC，是因為擔心激怒非洲諸國、影響他們的經濟、並干擾當時正在發生的麥加朝聖。這在在顯示種種「政治考量」可以說是世衛組織決策中的從不缺席的一部分。
20200125
最近很多各種現象擺在一起診斷的文章，比如 Soros 在 #WorldEconomicForum 的好幾篇致詞（這篇我印象最深刻：https://www.georgesoros.com/…/remarks-delivered-at-the-wor…/）。
de Sousa Santos這篇也很有趣，而且回到人權的範疇來談「恐懼」與「希望」全球分配不平等的狀況：
The global social division of fear and hope is so unequal that a number of phenomena that used to be unthinkable less than thirty years ago now strike us as being the ordinary features of a new normal. Workers “accept” being more and more exploited through labor, with no rights whatsoever; young entrepreneurs “confuse” autonomy with self-enslavement; racialized populations are confronted with racist prejudices, often on the part of supposed non-racists; women and LGBTQ people continue to be the victims of gender-based violence, notwithstanding all the achievements of feminist and anti-homophobic movements; and non-believers as well as believers of the “wrong” religions are the victims of the worst forms of fundamentalism.
20200130
受到Kyle啟發，上週在過年期間心不甘情不願回英國途中，又把 #國際衛生條例 #IHR2005 看了一遍，整理出這篇短文。
其實當年也是為了回應SARS這根壓倒駱駝的稻草，才讓WHO痛定思痛要改革，包括新成立了一系列的通報、監控機制（當年也不是真的那麼順利，各國之間的談判、政府和專家們之間也是吵吵鬧鬧）。但說到底，國際規範就是這樣，還是得仰賴各國自願合作。
20200209
#TheGoodPlace One of my favorite shows ever, without a doubt. Finally finished the last episode today, by which I was totally surprised when Prof Todd May appeared. So funny and really cool! Learned a lot through thinking with them dealing with some messy dilemmas.
20200213
#JudithButler 又出新書了！
“The significance of nonviolence is not to be found in our most pacific moments but precisely when revenge makes perfect sense.”
「現實」太殘酷、「情勢」太險峻，所以別嘗試，別癡人說夢。說這些話的時候，其實也強加了對生命的某種特定理解，在別人身上。
To stay within the framework of Realpolitik is, I think, to accept a closing down of horizons, a way to seem “cool” and skeptical at the expense of radical hope and aspiration.
I find that the dismissive form of realism is guarding those borders and shutting down those horizons of possibility.
看完以下這段，你一定會跟我一樣翻白眼，想說「然後勒？」「說得簡單」，然後也會突然發現上面那記預防針很奸詐。
Many social psychologists will tell us that certain social bonds are consolidated through violence, and those tend to be group bonds, including nationalism and racism. If you’re part of a group that engages in violence and feels that the bonds of your connection to one another are fortified through that violence, that presumes that the group you’re targeting is destroyable and dispensable, and who you are is only negatively related to who they are.
That’s also a way of saying that certain lives are more valuable than others. But what would it mean to live in a world of radical equality? My argument is that then we cannot kill one another, we cannot do violence to one another, we cannot abandon each other’s lives.
關於「自衛」（self-defense）與「自保」：
I’ve always wondered what that self is that we’re defending. Many people have pointed out that only certain people, in courts of law, are permitted to argue self-defense, and others very rarely are. We know that white men can protect themselves and their property and wield force in self-defense much more easily than black and brown people can. Who has the kind of self that is recognized by the law and the public as worthy of self-defense?
If I think of myself not just as this bounded individual but as fundamentally related to others, then I locate this self in those relations. In that case, the self I am trying to defend is not just me but all those relations that define and sustain me, and those relations can, and should be, extended indefinitely beyond local units like family and community.
If the self I’m trying to defend is also in some sense related to the person I’m tempted to kill, I have to make sure not to do violence to that relation, because that’s also me. One could go further: I’m also attacking myself by attacking that person, since I am breaking a social bond that we have between us.
重點不在建立一個能普遍適用的原則，而是提供一個「我從來都不只是我自己」的觀點——活著或死去都是眾多社會關係的交集和支撐。
Once social equality becomes the framework, I’m not sure we are deliberating as individuals trying to come up with a fully rational position, consistent and complete and comprehensive for all circumstances. We might then approach the world in a way that would make violence less likely, that would allow us to think about how to live together given our anger and our aggression, our murderous wishes—how to live together and to make a commitment to that, outside of the boundaries of community or the boundaries of the nation.
I think that that’s a way of thinking, an ethos—I guess I would use that word, “ethos,” as something that would be more important to me than a fully rational system that is constantly confounded by exceptions.
但最後，我覺得他還是迴避了「共同體」的問題；不過我想，一旦問「共同體」，又會掉進individualism的陷阱裡了……
留言列表
