# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
[경향신문]
민간 역학조사관인 김종헌 성균관대 의대 사회의학교실 연구교수는 지난 24일 경향신문과 인터뷰하면서 "백신이 개발되더라도 코로나19의 종식은 오지 않을 것"이라며 "장기적으로 코로나19에 대응하기 위해 사회구조를 바꿔야 하는 난제가 주어졌다"고 말했다. 권호욱 선임기자 biggun@kyunghyang.com

지난 1월20일 국내에서 첫 코로나19 확진자가 나온 후 5개월여 흘렀다. 그간 국내에서는 1만2000여명, 전 세계적으로는 무려 1000만명 넘는 확진자가 발생했다. 누적 사망자는 50만명을 넘었다.

처음에 우리는 코로나19가 중동호흡기증후군(MERS·메르스)과 유사하지 않을까 막연하게 짐작했다. 이제는 전 사회가 온몸으로 이 병을 겪으면서 많은 것을 알게 됐다. 무증상 감염, 재양성 등은 이전 다른 호흡기 감염병에서는 볼 수 없었던 신종 감염병의 속성이다. 하지만 아직도 우리는 모르는 것이 더 많다. 백신·치료제 개발은 윤곽도 잡히지 않았고, 방역당국은 이 병과의 싸움이 우리의 예상보다 '장기전'이 될 것이라고 연일 경고한다.

경기도감염병관리지원단에 소속된 민간 역학조사관인 성균관대 의대 김종헌 연구교수는 "우울하게 들리겠지만 백신과 치료제가 개발되더라도 코로나19 확진자 0이 되는 종식은 오지 않을 것"이라고 했다. 그는 최근 대한의학회지(JKMS)에 게재된 국내 연구에서 대구지역 거주자의 건강보험공단 데이터를 분석한 결과 소득이 낮아 건강보험료를 적게 낼수록 코로나19에 감염될 위험이 증가한 것으로 나타났다면서 "장기적으로 코로나19에 대응하기 위해 (불평등한) 사회구조를 바꿔야 하는 난제가 주어졌다"고 강조했다. 지난 24일 김 교수와 나눈 이야기를 일문일답 형식으로 정리했다.
■ 무증상, 방역의 가장 어려운 점
- 코로나19 사태 초기만 하더라도 무증상 감염, 재양성 등을 놓고 시각차가 컸는데 이제는 모두 인정하는 이 병의 특성이 된 것 같다.

"무증상 감염 비율은 전 세계 공통적으로 약 20~30%씩 나오고 있다. 서울·경기·부산 등 지자체 역학조사 자료를 보면 부산은 전체 확진자의 21.4%, 인천은 31.1%가 무증상 감염이었다. 특히 초반부터 대규모 진단검사를 실시한 한국의 확진자 데이터는 증상이 나타나지 않은 초기 환자까지 다 긁어낸 것이라서, 세계보건기구(WHO)가 '코로나라는 빙산의 수면 아래 있는 부분을 가장 잘 그려낸 곳이 한국'이라고 평가하기도 했다. 무증상 감염 비율이 이렇게 높은 것은 다른 호흡기 감염병보다 유독 코로나19 대응을 어렵게 만드는 점이다."

- 코로나19는 감염자 한 명이 몇 명을 감염시키는지 보여주는 기초재생산지수(R0)가 홍역(R0 12~18)이나 사스(R0 3.5~4.0)보다 낮은 2.5인데도 왜 피해가 더 큰가.

"치명률 때문이다. 전파가 잘되는 호흡기 질환들은 치명률이 매우 낮다. 독감은 치명률이 0.001~0.1%다. 그런데 코로나는 전파가 잘되는 데다 치명률이 높다(28일 현재 국내 치명률은 2.28%, 세계 평균은 5.1%이다). 이런 질환이 이전에는 없었다. 메르스는 치명률이 30%가 넘지만, R0는 1이 안 된다. 그런데 사실 방역 대책을 세우는 데 있어 중요한 것은 시간에 따른 재생산지수인 Rt(time-dependent Reproduction rate) 값이다. 실시간으로 전파력이 얼마나 되는지를 볼 수가 있다. 인천감염병관리지원단 자료를 보면 이태원클럽 관련 집단감염 후인 5월13일 Rt가 2.81까지 치솟았다가 6월18일 시점에는 0.71까지 떨어졌다. 최근 상황을 보면 수도권에서 Rt가 1을 넘었다가 안 넘었다가 하는 날이 반복된다. 1 이하로 계속 유지돼야 엔데믹(주기적으로 발생하거나 풍토병으로 고착화된 감염병)으로 가지 않고 줄어들게 되는 것이다."
■ 백신·치료제로 종식 안 돼
- 반년 정도 유행이 계속되면서 다들 지쳐가고 있다. 백신과 치료제가 개발돼 '종식'이라고 할 만한 때는 언제 올까.

"우울하게 들릴 수도 있지만 백신이나 치료제가 나온다고 해서 코로나 확진자 0이 되는 '종식'은 있을 수 없다는 것을 알아야 한다. 항체형성률 100%인 백신은 존재하지 않는다. 그렇게 개발된 백신도 코로나19로부터 우리를 완벽히 보호해줄 것이라 말하기는 어렵다. 계절성 인플루엔자(독감)를 예로 들어보자. 독감의 경우 남반구에서 먼저 유행하는 종류(Strain)를 토대로 북반구에서 유행할 종류를 예측해 백신을 만든다. 하지만 유행 예측이 틀리면 백신을 맞아도 독감에 걸릴 수 있다. 코로나 바이러스의 경우 변이가 굉장히 잘돼서, 몇 개로 예측해 백신을 만든다 하더라도 변이가 된 것에 감염이 될 수 있다. 현재 개발하고 있는 백신의 목표는 완벽한 감염 차단이 아니라 변이된 코로나 바이러스에 감염되더라도 병이 중증으로 진행되지 않게끔 하는 것이다."

- 코로나19에 걸린 사람이 늘면서 한 사회가 집단면역을 갖추게 되면 어떨까.

"항체를 가지고 있다고 해서 방어력을 갖췄다고 볼 수도 없다. 연구 결과들을 보면 코로나19에 걸렸다가 자연적으로 나은 사람들에게서 항체가 유지된 기간이 3개월 정도라고 한다. 걸렸다 나아도 또 걸릴 수 있다. 학자들끼리는 이미 코로나와 함께 사는 인류 사회가 펼쳐졌다고 말한다. AC(코로나 이후·After covid19), BC(코로나 이전·Before covid19)라는 말이 생겼던데 정말 그렇다고 생각한다."
■ 인플루엔자·코로나 동시 유행 땐
- 그렇다면 학교는 어떻게 해야 할까. 거리 두기를 할 때마다 학교 이야기가 가장 먼저 나온다.

"최근 네덜란드, 호주 등 몇몇 국가를 대상으로 연구한 논문 중에 '어린이와 청소년은 코로나19의 주요 전파원(main source)이 아니다'라는 결과들이 나왔다. 코로나19 유행 후에도 학교 문을 연 네덜란드 같은 나라들을 살펴보니 코로나19에 감염된 청소년이 부모나 다른 친구를 감염시킨 사례는 별로 없었다. 연구의 결론은 학교 문을 열어두되, 성인인 교직원들은 마스크를 쓰고 철저하게 물리적(사회적) 거리 두기를 하면 된다는 것이었다."

- 그럼 학교 문을 열어두고, 다른 부분만 방역을 철저히 하면 될까.

"그런데 당장 가을 새 학기가 되면 방역이 어려워질 것이다. 계절성 독감과 코로나19가 동시에 유행할 것으로 예상되기 때문이다. 코로나19의 주요 전파원은 성인이지만, 독감의 주요 전파원들은 아이들이다. 동시에 두 가지 감염병의 전파 특성을 고려해야 하는 것이다."

- 코로나19 때문에 마스크도 잘 쓰고, 방역도 철저히 하니 독감 유행은 크게 줄어들지 않을까.

"예년보다 좀 줄 수는 있어도, 유행이 안 될 수는 없다. 독감에서 중요한 것은 전체 환자 규모가 아니라 중환자가 발생한다는 것이다. 매년 독감철이 되면 호흡기내과 쪽에서는 중환자실을 미리 비워두고 대비를 했다. 지금은 코로나19 때문에 중환자실이 거의 다 차 있다는 이야기가 나오는데, 독감까지 유행하면 문제다. 중환자실은 늘리고 싶어도 빨리 늘릴 수 없다. 중환자실에 투입할 수 있는 간호인력은 매우 전문적인 인력이라서 당장 충원이 불가능하다."

- 그럼 당장 할 수 있는 것은 무엇일까.

"최근에는 코로나19와 계절성 독감을 한꺼번에 확인할 수 있는 진단키트 개발이 진행 중에 있다. 똑같이 열이 나는 호흡기 질환인데 코로나인지 독감인지를 모르면 원내 감염 가능성도 높아지고, 환자 치료도 늦어지기 때문에 우선 이를 구별할 수 있는 진단키트가 개발돼야 한다."

- 장기적으로는 우리 사회가 코로나19에 어떤 대응체계를 갖춰야 할까.

"감염이 확산되지 않도록 환경 자체를 개선하고, 사회구조를 바꿔 나가야 한다. 대구지역 확진자 3671명의 건강보험공단 데이터를 바탕으로 소득과 코로나19에 걸릴 확률을 분석한 국내 연구 결과를 보니, 직장가입자와 지역가입자 가릴 것 없이 소득이 높아 보험료를 많이 낼수록 코로나19에 걸릴 확률이 낮아졌다. 고소득자는 일반적으로 한 사람이 차지하는 근무공간 자체가 넓고 쾌적하기 때문에 물리적 거리 두기를 잘 유지할 수 있고, 코로나19에 감염될 위험도가 낮아질 수밖에 없다. 감염병은 결코 평등하지 않다. 지금 환자가 터져나오고 있는 곳만 봐도 물류센터, 콜센터, 노인복지시설 등 1인당 차지하는 공간이 작은 곳이나 저소득층이 있는 곳이다. 실내 공기를 빨아들이고 신선한 공기를 주입해주는 공조 시스템이 없는 곳은 코로나19 감염 위험이 높을 수밖에 없다. 저는 코로나19가 우리 사회에 해결해야 하는 난제를 던진 것이라고 생각한다."

이혜인 기자 hyein@kyunghyang.com

©경향신문(www.khan.co.kr), 무단전재 및 재배포 금지

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'민간 역학조사관' 김종헌 교수 "백신·치료제 나와도 '종식' 불가능···코로나·독감 동시 유행 대비해야"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
경향신문] 민간 역학조사관인 김종헌 성균관대 의대 사회의학교실 연구교수는 지난 24일 경향신문과 인터뷰하면서 "백신이 개발되더라도 코로나19의 종식은 오지 않을 것"이라며 "장기적으로 코로나19에 대응하기 위해 사회구조를 바꿔야 하는 난제가 주어졌다"고 말했다. 권호욱 선임기자 biggun@kyunghyang.com 지난 1월20일 국내에서 첫 코로나19 확진자가 나온 후 5개월여 흘렀다. 그간 국내에서는 1만2000여명, 전 세계적으로는 무려 1000만명 넘는 확진자가 발생했다.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mask Exemption Cards From the 'Freedom to Breathe Agency'? They're Fake

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The group, which is selling the cards online, is not a real government organization, federal officials said.

# data[].attributes.body
코로나 경제위기 vs. 2008 금융위기

# data[].attributes.body
Coronavirus and the new words

# data[].attributes.body
Pandemic vs. Epidemic vs.
Endemic

# data[].attributes.body
Political correctness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
▲ 당신이 politically correct (정치적으로 옳다)고 해서 당신이 반드시 correct(옳은) 것은 아니다.

ⓒ 조화유

관련사진보기

한국에서는 영어가 잘못 번역돼 사용되는 경우가 많다. 최근엔 'politically correct'(폴리티컬리 코렉트) 또는 'political correctness'(폴리티컬 코렉트니스)라는 영어 표현이 한국에서도 사용되기 시작했는데 그 뜻을 정확히 모르고 "정치적으로 올바른"이라고 번역해 쓰고 있는 듯하다. <뉴시스>는 지난 4월 24일 다음과 같은 기사를 내보냈다.

"미국 재무부가 20달러 지폐 인물로 흑인 여성 인권운동가 해리엇 터브먼을 선정한 데 대해 도널드 트럼프 공화당 대선 경선후보가 '진짜 정치적 올바름(pure political correctness)'이라고 비판했다. '정치적 올바름'이란 일체의 차별과 탄압, 편견에 저항해 바로 잡으려는 것을 말한다. 트럼프는 '앤드류 잭슨 전 대통령은 미국에 엄청난 역사를 이룬 사람'이라면서 '20달러 지폐 인물 교체는 무지한 조치'라고 비난했다. 그는 특히 '20달러 지폐의 앞면 인물 교체는 순전히 정치적 올바름에 따른 결정'이라고 비판했다."

이렇게 기사를 쓴 <뉴시스>의 기자는 'pure political correctness'를 "진짜 정치적 올바름"이라고 번역하고는 이게 "일체의 차별과 탄압, 편견에 저항해 바로 잡으려는 것"이라는 해석을 달았다. 만일 그게 그런 좋은 뜻이라면 20불 지폐의 초상화 교체를 트럼프가 'political correctness'라고 비난할 이유가 없지 않을까? 'political correctness'는 <뉴시스>에서 보도한 그런 뜻이 아니라 "정치적 이득을 노린 약삭 빠른 행위이지만, 그게 나쁜 짓은 아니기 때문에 누구도 그것을 공개적으로 비난할 수는 없다"라는 뜻이다.

트럼프가 이 말을 쓴 이유는 이렇다고 본다. 즉, 20달러 지폐의 초상화를 하필 이때 흑인 얼굴로 바꾸려는 것은 흑인인 오바마 대통령이 퇴임 전 한 건 하겠다는 의도일 뿐 아니라, 민주당 대선후보를 위해 흑인표를 몰아주려는 정치적 행위로 봤기 때문이다. 따라서 트럼프의 말, 'pure political correctness'는 "순전히 정치적 이득을 노린 약삭빠른 짓"이라는 뜻이다.

트럼프는 지난 5월 27일에도 한 집회에서 "Do you think Hillary looks presidential?"(힐러리가 대통령답게 보입니까?)라고 묻자 청중은 일제하 "아니오!"라고 대답했다. 그러자 그는 "I'm not going to say it because I want to be politically correct"라고 말했다. 번역하자면 "(나도 아니요!라고 말하고 싶지만) 그렇게 말하지 않겠습니다, 그래야 내가 정치적으로 유리하기 때문이지요" 정도가 된다. 즉, 힐러리가 여성이니까 대통령이 돼서는 안 된다고 내가 말한 것으로 오해 받기 싫다는 뜻이다.

<중앙일보>의 한 기자는 5월 27일 치 '분수대'에 "정치적 올바름이 불편하신가요?"라는 제목의 글을 썼다. 이 기자는 "강남역 10번 출구 사건 여파가 큰 건 지금껏 여성들이 체감해온 '정치적으로 올바르지 못한' 대한민국에 대한 분노가 표출됐기 때문이다. (중략) 이 사건을 남녀 모두를 위해 정치적으로 올바른 대한민국을 만들 계기로 만들 수 있을 지는 우리 손에 달렸다"라고 언급했다.

여기서 전 기자가 말하는 "정치적으로 올바른"은 영어 'politically correct'와는 거리가 멀다. 'politically correct'는 상대방 기분을 고려해서 자기가 정말 하고 싶은 말이나 행동을 억지로 참고 점잖게 말을 하거나 행동하는 것, 또 어떤 행동을 꼭 취하고 싶지는 않지만, 그 행동이 자기한테 유리하다고 판단되면 그 행동을 취한다는 뜻이기도 하다. 그러니까 'politically correct'는 다분히 위선적 언행을 가리킨다.

이 기자는 'political correctness'를 'euphemism'(유피미즘, 완곡어법), 즉 "같은 말이라도 듣기좋게 표현하는 것"과 동의어로 쓰기도 했다. 예를 들면 "비만" 대신 "수평적으로 문제가 있다"고 말하는 것을 'politically correct'라고 했다. 전혀 틀린 말은 아니지만 그런 것은 'euphemism'이라 하고, 'political correctness'는 위에서 필자가 설명한 것처럼 "정치적 또는 사교상 이득을 노린 약삭빠른 언행"이란 뜻이다.

'correct'를 글자 그대로 직역하여 'politically correct'를 "정치적으로 올바른"이라고 번역하면 "옳은 정치, 바른 정치"와 혼동될 수 있기 때문에 좋은 번역이 아니다. <중앙일보> 기자가 위에 인용한 글에서 쓴 "정치적으로 올바른 대한민국 운운"한 것이 바로 그런 혼동이다.

결론적으로 'politically correct'나 'political correctness'를 "정치적으로 올바른 것" 그리고 'politically incorrect'와 'political incorrectness'를 "정치적으로 올바르지 못한 것"으로 번역하는 것은 정확한 번역이 아니다. 그러므로 차라리 "정치적으로 유리한" 또는 "정치적으로 불리한"이라고 번역하는 게 더 좋겠다.

한국에서는 누군가가 먼저 어떤 외국어를 잘못 번역해도 모두들 그게 옳은 줄 알고 모두들 따라가는 경향이 있다. 가장 대표적인 오역은 'Heaven helps those who help themselves'를 "하늘은 스스로 돕는 자를 돕는다"라고 번역한 것이다. 'help oneself'는 "스스로 무엇을 한다"는 뜻이므로 "하늘은 스스로 노력하는 자를 돕는다"라고 해야 정확하다.

이밖에도 좋고 합법적인 환불 'rebate'(리베이트)를 '뇌물성 환불'이란 뜻으로 오랫동안 잘못 써온 것, 'PTSD'(큰 육체적 부상 또는 큰 정신적 충격을 받은 후 겪는 병적 스트레스)를 '외상후스트레스장애'라고 반쪽만 번역해 쓰는 것, 'moral hazards'를 '도덕적 해이'라고 번역하는 것, 'quantitative easing(QE)'를 '양적 완화'로 번역하는 것 등이 그런 예다. 'QE'는 '통화량 확대'라고 의역을 해야 누구나 그 뜻을 금방 알 수 있을 것이다.

번역이 아니라 영어 사용국 사람들도 모르는 엉터리 영어를 만들어 쓰는 것도 문제다. 가장 전형적인 것이 바로 '스킨십'이다. 애정이나 친근의 표시로 포옹하거나 악수하는 것 등을 가리키는 모양인데 아건 영어 원어민도 모르는 엉터리 영어일 뿐 아니라 매우 상스럽게 들릴 때도 있다.

어느 신문이 "박 대통령은 스킨십이 더 필요하다"고 보도한 것을 봤다. 이때 스킨십은 사람들과 직접 만나 얘기하는 것을 뜻하는 모양이지만, 듣기가 아주 거북하다. 또 일본인들이 만든 '코스프레'도 엉터리 영어다. 'costume play'(과거 어느 시대에 맞는 의상을 입고 하는 연극)을 일본인들이 '코스프레'라고 줄여 쓴 것을 한국서 그대로 받아 쓰고 있다, 언론인들의 글은 많은 사람들이 보기 때문에 번역을 매우 조심스럽게 해야 한다.

덧붙이는 글 | 조화유 기자는 미국 거주 작가이며 영어교재 저술가 입니다.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
'politically correct'의 정확한 뜻은 무엇일까 - 오마이뉴스

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
▲ 당신이 politically correct (정치적으로 옳다)고 해서 당신이 반드시 correct(옳은) 것은 아니다. ⓒ 조화유 관련사진보기 한국에서는 영어가 잘못 번역돼 사용되는 경우가 많다. 최근엔 'politically correct'(폴리티컬리 코렉트) 또는 'political correctness'(폴리티컬 코렉트니스)라는 영어 표현이 한국에서도 사용되기 시작했는데 그 뜻을 정확히 모르고 "정치적으로 올바른"이라고 번역해 쓰고 있는 듯하다. 는 지난 4월 24일 다음과 같은 기사를 내보냈다.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A fake letter purporting to share Bill Gates' thoughts on the coronavirus crisis has been widely shared on the internet, prompting concerns about the spread of fake news surrounding the pandemic.

The bogus message entitled "What is the Corona/Covid-19 Really Teaching us?" is believed to have begun circulating via email and WhatsApp groups on Monday, and was also shared on social media.

The "open letter" claimed to show the Microsoft founder believes there is "a spiritual purpose behind everything that happens" - including the disease.

Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

It describes the virus as "the great corrector ... sent to remind us of the important lessons that we seem to have forgotten".

A number of celebrities shared the post, including Naomi Campbell, and The Sun newspaper ran a story about it.

Once it became clear it was a spoof, The Sun removed the story and apologised for the incident.

A spokesperson for The Sun said: "In the heat of events yesterday, The Sun online mistakenly published a spoof story which was doing the rounds on email. The story has now been removed. Every day The Sun chooses not to publish hundreds of stories and we apologise for this error.

The model Naomi Campbell posted the message falsely claiming to contain Mr Gates' words on Twitter and Instagram, alongside her own message: "I hope you may find some solace in these words."

It is not yet clear who began circulating the false information online.

Ministers, the NHS and social media firms have all warned the public about rumours, conspiracy theories and fake news spreading online during the pandemic.

Some have distributed misleading health tips about the coronavirus, including a widely-shared post dubbed the "uncle with master's degree" post because of one alleged source of the advice.

Rumours that NHS staff have been mugged for their ID badges for priority treatment in supermarkets have circulated on Twitter and WhatsApp groups in recent days, but the Metropolitan Police said it had received no reports of such muggings.

Last week Twitter said tweets which promote fake treatments for the coronavirus or deny expert guidance will be marked as harmful and removed.

Facebook announced it was also trying to remove hoaxes and other falsehoods that could cause harm to public health, and is setting up a portal that aims to be a one-stop-shop for users to find news and resources about the virus.

Russian state media and news outlets supporting are waging a fake news campaign aimed at undermining public confidence in the ability of European health care systems to cope with the virus, according to a report by the EU's Strategic Communications division.

Earlier this month the government set up a counter disinformation unit in Whitehall to work with social media firms to remove disinformation and conspiracy theories linked to the virus.

Mr Gates warned in a TED Talk five years ago that societies around the world were "not ready for the next epidemic."

Widely shared again in recent days, the billionaire said: "If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it's most likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war - not missiles, but microbes."

Representatives for Ms Campbell and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have been contacted for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fake Bill Gates 'letter' shared as coronavirus misinformation circulates online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A fake letter purporting to share Bill Gates' thoughts on the coronavirus crisis has been widely shared on the internet, prompting concerns about the spread of fake news surrounding the pandemic. The bogus message entitled "What is the Corona/Covid-19 Really Teaching us?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to foreign media reports, on the afternoon of March 24 Bill Gates donated £ 85m last month to prevent the virus. Although this confusion is spreading, "there is something behind it," he said.

In an open letter entitled "What can we learn from the spread of the new Coronavirus", he wrote:

"It has its own meaning"

"I firmly believe that everything is deeper behind us, for better or worse."

"As I think more deeply about this, I want to share my experiences with you: What does the new coronavirus mean for us?"

1. It reminds us that we are all equal regardless of culture, religion, profession, wealth or reputation. Compared to viruses, we are all equal. Maybe we should treat everyone the same.

If you don't believe it, ask Tom Hanks.

2. It reminds us that we all have a deep connection. Individuals also have an impact on everyone.

It reminds us that the high walls of error that we have built do not matter because the virus is still running.

It also reminds us that although we are currently experiencing difficulties, more and more people will face life-long problems.

3. It reminds us that health is invaluable, but our lifestyle lags behind, eating unprocessed processed foods and drinking contaminated water.

If we continue to neglect health, the disease will eventually trap us.

4. It reminds us that life is short, mutual help is truly meaningful and helping the elderly and the patients we really should do.

Don't waste your life buying toilet paper.

5. It reminds us of how materialistic our society is. When it comes to problems, we only know its needs (food, water, medicine, and what we really need), and tens of thousands of luxury goods can't help us.

6. It reminds us of the importance of being with family members and reminding us of how much time we have wasted.

It forces us to return home, reunite with our families and strengthen family ties.

"what should we do"

7. It reminds us that work is not everything. Although we live for work, we do not live for work.

We really have to support each other, protect each other and take advantage of each other.

8. It always reminds us of self-realization.

It reminds us that whether you think you are great or really great, viruses can paralyze our world.

9. It reminds us that the power of free will is in our hands.

We can choose to cooperate, support, share, give and help each other. We can also choose to be interested in ourselves and only care about ourselves behind closed doors.

In fact, if you're in trouble, you can tell the truth.

10. It reminds us that we can wait patiently and nervously.

We can be sensible and understand that there have been times like these and disasters will eventually pass. Or we may panic and preach to the end of the world, but this is ultimately harmful.

11. It reminds us that this is both the end and the beginning of a new point.

It can be a period of reflection and understanding, and we can learn from our mistakes. It can also be the starting point of a cycle, and we can only break this cycle if we can actually take it from it.

12. It reminds us that our planet is sick.

It reminds us that we should face the seriousness of deforestation, as well as when we value the speed at which toilet paper disappears. We are sick in our home because of inequality.

13. It reminds us that after dark the dawn will rise.

Life is cyclical, a phase in the cycle of human history that we go through. We don't need to panic. Everything will be a thing of the past.

14. People think the New coronaVirus is a huge catastrophe, but I think it's a "great fixer".

The appearance of the new coronavirus epidemic reminds us of the important lessons we have apparently forgotten. It is still up to us to learn from the lessons.

Also, Read
Gates Foundation: Bill Gates Open Letter Equal to New Coronavirus Is Fake WHO warns of new coronavirus pandemic accelerating U.S. New Coronavirus Pneumonia Patients Break 46,000! Musk China purchases 1255 ventilators: sent to Los Angeles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill Gates open letter: The new Coronavirus epidemic reminds us that everyone is equal - Task Boot

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to foreign media reports, on the afternoon of March 24 Bill Gates donated £ 85m last month to prevent the virus. Although this confusion is spreading, "there is something behind it," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humankind is now facing a global crisis. Perhaps the biggest crisis of our generation. The decisions people and governments take in the next few weeks will probably shape the world for years to come. They will shape not just our healthcare systems but also our economy, politics and culture. We must act quickly and decisively. We should also take into account the long-term consequences of our actions. When choosing between alternatives, we should ask ourselves not only how to overcome the immediate threat, but also what kind of world we will inhabit once the storm passes. Yes, the storm will pass, humankind will survive, most of us will still be alive - but we will inhabit a different world.

Many short-term emergency measures will become a fixture of life. That is the nature of emergencies. They fast-forward historical processes. Decisions that in normal times could take years of deliberation are passed in a matter of hours. Immature and even dangerous technologies are pressed into service, because the risks of doing nothing are bigger. Entire countries serve as guinea-pigs in large-scale social experiments. What happens when everybody works from home and communicates only at a distance? What happens when entire schools and universities go online? In normal times, governments, businesses and educational boards would never agree to conduct such experiments. But these aren't normal times.

In this time of crisis, we face two particularly important choices. The first is between totalitarian surveillance and citizen empowerment. The second is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity.

Under-the-skin surveillance

In order to stop the epidemic, entire populations need to comply with certain guidelines. There are two main ways of achieving this. One method is for the government to monitor people, and punish those who break the rules. Today, for the first time in human history, technology makes it possible to monitor everyone all the time. Fifty years ago, the KGB couldn't follow 240m Soviet citizens 24 hours a day, nor could the KGB hope to effectively process all the information gathered. The KGB relied on human agents and analysts, and it just couldn't place a human agent to follow every citizen. But now governments can rely on ubiquitous sensors and powerful algorithms instead of flesh-and-blood spooks.

In their battle against the coronavirus epidemic several governments have already deployed the new surveillance tools. The most notable case is China. By closely monitoring people's smartphones, making use of hundreds of millions of face-recognising cameras, and obliging people to check and report their body temperature and medical condition, the Chinese authorities can not only quickly identify suspected coronavirus carriers, but also track their movements and identify anyone they came into contact with. A range of mobile apps warn citizens about their proximity to infected patients.

This kind of technology is not limited to east Asia. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel recently authorised the Israel Security Agency to deploy surveillance technology normally reserved for battling terrorists to track coronavirus patients. When the relevant parliamentary subcommittee refused to authorise the measure, Netanyahu rammed it through with an "emergency decree".

You might argue that there is nothing new about all this. In recent years both governments and corporations have been using ever more sophisticated technologies to track, monitor and manipulate people. Yet if we are not careful, the epidemic might nevertheless mark an important watershed in the history of surveillance. Not only because it might normalise the deployment of mass surveillance tools in countries that have so far rejected them, but even more so because it signifies a dramatic transition from "over the skin" to "under the skin" surveillance.

Hitherto, when your finger touched the screen of your smartphone and clicked on a link, the government wanted to know what exactly your finger was clicking on. But with coronavirus, the focus of interest shifts. Now the government wants to know the temperature of your finger and the blood-pressure under its skin.

The emergency pudding

One of the problems we face in working out where we stand on surveillance is that none of us know exactly how we are being surveilled, and what the coming years might bring. Surveillance technology is developing at breakneck speed, and what seemed science-fiction 10 years ago is today old news. As a thought experiment, consider a hypothetical government that demands that every citizen wears a biometric bracelet that monitors body temperature and heart-rate 24 hours a day. The resulting data is hoarded and analysed by government algorithms. The algorithms will know that you are sick even before you know it, and they will also know where you have been, and who you have met. The chains of infection could be drastically shortened, and even cut altogether. Such a system could arguably stop the epidemic in its tracks within days. Sounds wonderful, right?

The downside is, of course, that this would give legitimacy to a terrifying new surveillance system. If you know, for example, that I clicked on a Fox News link rather than a CNN link, that can teach you something about my political views and perhaps even my personality. But if you can monitor what happens to my body temperature, blood pressure and heart-rate as I watch the video clip, you can learn what makes me laugh, what makes me cry, and what makes me really, really angry.

It is crucial to remember that anger, joy, boredom and love are biological phenomena just like fever and a cough. The same technology that identifies coughs could also identify laughs. If corporations and governments start harvesting our biometric data en masse, they can get to know us far better than we know ourselves, and they can then not just predict our feelings but also manipulate our feelings and sell us anything they want - be it a product or a politician. Biometric monitoring would make Cambridge Analytica's data hacking tactics look like something from the Stone Age. Imagine North Korea in 2030, when every citizen has to wear a biometric bracelet 24 hours a day. If you listen to a speech by the Great Leader and the bracelet picks up the tell-tale signs of anger, you are done for.

You could, of course, make the case for biometric surveillance as a temporary measure taken during a state of emergency. It would go away once the emergency is over. But temporary measures have a nasty habit of outlasting emergencies, especially as there is always a new emergency lurking on the horizon. My home country of Israel, for example, declared a state of emergency during its 1948 War of Independence, which justified a range of temporary measures from press censorship and land confiscation to special regulations for making pudding (I kid you not). The War of Independence has long been won, but Israel never declared the emergency over, and has failed to abolish many of the "temporary" measures of 1948 (the emergency pudding decree was mercifully abolished in 2011).

Even when infections from coronavirus are down to zero, some data-hungry governments could argue they needed to keep the biometric surveillance systems in place because they fear a second wave of coronavirus, or because there is a new Ebola strain evolving in central Africa, or because . . . you get the idea. A big battle has been raging in recent years over our privacy. The coronavirus crisis could be the battle's tipping point. For when people are given a choice between privacy and health, they will usually choose health.

The soap police

Asking people to choose between privacy and health is, in fact, the very root of the problem. Because this is a false choice. We can and should enjoy both privacy and health. We can choose to protect our health and stop the coronavirus epidemic not by instituting totalitarian surveillance regimes, but rather by empowering citizens. In recent weeks, some of the most successful efforts to contain the coronavirus epidemic were orchestrated by South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. While these countries have made some use of tracking applications, they have relied far more on extensive testing, on honest reporting, and on the willing co-operation of a well-informed public.

Centralised monitoring and harsh punishments aren't the only way to make people comply with beneficial guidelines. When people are told the scientific facts, and when people trust public authorities to tell them these facts, citizens can do the right thing even without a Big Brother watching over their shoulders. A self-motivated and well-informed population is usually far more powerful and effective than a policed, ignorant population.

Consider, for example, washing your hands with soap. This has been one of the greatest advances ever in human hygiene. This simple action saves millions of lives every year. While we take it for granted, it was only in the 19th century that scientists discovered the importance of washing hands with soap. Previously, even doctors and nurses proceeded from one surgical operation to the next without washing their hands. Today billions of people daily wash their hands, not because they are afraid of the soap police, but rather because they understand the facts. I wash my hands with soap because I have heard of viruses and bacteria, I understand that these tiny organisms cause diseases, and I know that soap can remove them.

But to achieve such a level of compliance and co-operation, you need trust. People need to trust science, to trust public authorities, and to trust the media. Over the past few years, irresponsible politicians have deliberately undermined trust in science, in public authorities and in the media. Now these same irresponsible politicians might be tempted to take the high road to authoritarianism, arguing that you just cannot trust the public to do the right thing.

Normally, trust that has been eroded for years cannot be rebuilt overnight. But these are not normal times. In a moment of crisis, minds too can change quickly. You can have bitter arguments with your siblings for years, but when some emergency occurs, you suddenly discover a hidden reservoir of trust and amity, and you rush to help one another. Instead of building a surveillance regime, it is not too late to rebuild people's trust in science, in public authorities and in the media. We should definitely make use of new technologies too, but these technologies should empower citizens. I am all in favour of monitoring my body temperature and blood pressure, but that data should not be used to create an all-powerful government. Rather, that data should enable me to make more informed personal choices, and also to hold government accountable for its decisions.

If I could track my own medical condition 24 hours a day, I would learn not only whether I have become a health hazard to other people, but also which habits contribute to my health. And if I could access and analyse reliable statistics on the spread of coronavirus, I would be able to judge whether the government is telling me the truth and whether it is adopting the right policies to combat the epidemic. Whenever people talk about surveillance, remember that the same surveillance technology can usually be used not only by governments to monitor individuals - but also by individuals to monitor governments.

The coronavirus epidemic is thus a major test of citizenship. In the days ahead, each one of us should choose to trust scientific data and healthcare experts over unfounded conspiracy theories and self-serving politicians. If we fail to make the right choice, we might find ourselves signing away our most precious freedoms, thinking that this is the only way to safeguard our health.

We need a global plan

The second important choice we confront is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity. Both the epidemic itself and the resulting economic crisis are global problems. They can be solved effectively only by global co-operation.

First and foremost, in order to defeat the virus we need to share information globally. That's the big advantage of humans over viruses. A coronavirus in China and a coronavirus in the US cannot swap tips about how to infect humans. But China can teach the US many valuable lessons about coronavirus and how to deal with it. What an Italian doctor discovers in Milan in the early morning might well save lives in Tehran by evening. When the UK government hesitates between several policies, it can get advice from the Koreans who have already faced a similar dilemma a month ago. But for this to happen, we need a spirit of global co-operation and trust.

In the days ahead, each one of us should choose to trust scientific data and healthcare experts over unfounded conspiracy theories and self-serving politicians

Countries should be willing to share information openly and humbly seek advice, and should be able to trust the data and the insights they receive. We also need a global effort to produce and distribute medical equipment, most notably testing kits and respiratory machines. Instead of every country trying to do it locally and hoarding whatever equipment it can get, a co-ordinated global effort could greatly accelerate production and make sure life-saving equipment is distributed more fairly. Just as countries nationalise key industries during a war, the human war against coronavirus may require us to "humanise" the crucial production lines. A rich country with few coronavirus cases should be willing to send precious equipment to a poorer country with many cases, trusting that if and when it subsequently needs help, other countries will come to its assistance.

We might consider a similar global effort to pool medical personnel. Countries currently less affected could send medical staff to the worst-hit regions of the world, both in order to help them in their hour of need, and in order to gain valuable experience. If later on the focus of the epidemic shifts, help could start flowing in the opposite direction.

Global co-operation is vitally needed on the economic front too. Given the global nature of the economy and of supply chains, if each government does its own thing in complete disregard of the others, the result will be chaos and a deepening crisis. We need a global plan of action, and we need it fast.

Another requirement is reaching a global agreement on travel. Suspending all international travel for months will cause tremendous hardships, and hamper the war against coronavirus. Countries need to co-operate in order to allow at least a trickle of essential travellers to continue crossing borders: scientists, doctors, journalists, politicians, businesspeople. This can be done by reaching a global agreement on the pre-screening of travellers by their home country. If you know that only carefully screened travellers were allowed on a plane, you would be more willing to accept them into your country.

Unfortunately, at present countries hardly do any of these things. A collective paralysis has gripped the international community. There seem to be no adults in the room. One would have expected to see already weeks ago an emergency meeting of global leaders to come up with a common plan of action. The G7 leaders managed to organise a videoconference only this week, and it did not result in any such plan.

In previous global crises - such as the 2008 financial crisis and the 2014 Ebola epidemic - the US assumed the role of global leader. But the current US administration has abdicated the job of leader. It has made it very clear that it cares about the greatness of America far more than about the future of humanity.

This administration has abandoned even its closest allies. When it banned all travel from the EU, it didn't bother to give the EU so much as an advance notice - let alone consult with the EU about that drastic measure. It has scandalised Germany by allegedly offering $1bn to a German pharmaceutical company to buy monopoly rights to a new Covid-19 vaccine. Even if the current administration eventually changes tack and comes up with a global plan of action, few would follow a leader who never takes responsibility, who never admits mistakes, and who routinely takes all the credit for himself while leaving all the blame to others.

If the void left by the US isn't filled by other countries, not only will it be much harder to stop the current epidemic, but its legacy will continue to poison international relations for years to come. Yet every crisis is also an opportunity. We must hope that the current epidemic will help humankind realise the acute danger posed by global disunity.

Humanity needs to make a choice. Will we travel down the route of disunity, or will we adopt the path of global solidarity? If we choose disunity, this will not only prolong the crisis, but will probably result in even worse catastrophes in the future. If we choose global solidarity, it will be a victory not only against the coronavirus, but against all future epidemics and crises that might assail humankind in the 21st century.
Yuval Noah Harari is author of 'Sapiens', 'Homo Deus' and '21 Lessons for the 21st Century' Copyright © Yuval Noah Harari 2020 Follow @FTLifeArts on Twitter to find out about our latest stories first. Listen to our culture podcast, Culture Call, where editors Gris and Lilah dig into the trends shaping life in the 2020s, interview the people breaking new ground and bring you behind the scenes of FT Life & Arts journalism. Subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
Letters in response to this article:
So, Prof Harari, who am I supposed to trust? / From Justin Evans Let's be the good ancestors our descendants deserve / From Lord Bird (Crossbench) and others
Copyright The Financial Times Limited . All rights reserved. Please don't copy articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yuval Noah Harari: the world after coronavirus | Free to read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Humankind is now facing a global crisis. Perhaps the biggest crisis of our generation. The decisions people and governments take in the next few weeks will probably shape the world for years to come. They will shape not just our healthcare systems but also our economy, politics and culture.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why the statewide order to stay at home is crucial 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why the statewide order to stay at home is crucial 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Emily Landon at the Illinois Governor's COVID-19 Press Conference

# data[].attributes.headline
Robert Reich 
Opinion from The Guardian 

# data[].attributes.subject
Robert Reich 
Opinion from The Guardian 