A billboard sharing COVID-19 prevention measures on a street in Hanoi (Photo: VNA) Hanoi (VNA) – While theinternational community recognises and highly values the COVID-19 preventionand control outcomes in Vietnam, as well as the Government’s efforts to minimisethe pandemic’s impact on vulnerable groups, guarantee people’s right to medicaltreatment, and ensure no one is left behind, the story of the 17th patientinfected with SARS-CoV-2 in Vietnam published on The New Yorker on September 21has encountered public backlash due to its lack of objectivity.
In an article entitled “The Public-ShamingPandemic” of The New Yorker, Patient 17 and her sister were portrayed as victimsof public humiliation.
The article wrote about those who accidentallyspread the coronavirus and thus faced strong attacks and smearing in theinternet.
Commenting on this article, most of Vietnameseinternet users expressed their indignation at the wrong and insufficient informationabout Patient 17 provided in the article.
The so-called “the Vietnamese government, whichregularly uses newspaper leaks to persuade or frighten its citizens…” in thisarticle is inaccurate.
On the night of March 6, when learning about thefirst COVID-19 case in Hanoi, many people became anxious and frightened. At10pm on that day, the city’s steering committee for COVID-19 prevention andcontrol convened an urgent meeting to provide information about this case.
At the meeting, a 26-year-old woman living inTruc Bach ward of Hanoi’s Ba Dinh district was declared the 17th patientpositive for the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. The administration also announced thatnecessary measures had been carried out to cope with the situation and calledon all people to stay calm and not panic. It also made public information aboutthe outbreak’s developments to local residents.
The New Yorker’s report that “Within an hour ofarticles about the meeting being published, people on the Internet had figuredout who Nhung (Patient 17) was and found her social-media accounts” is also nottrue.
Prior to the urgent meeting at 10pm of March 6,netizens had shared every personal information as well as social-media accountsof Patient 17 though such information had yet to be verified. Even many peoplehaving the same name with this woman also suffered from internet users’criticism as they were mistaken for Patient 17.
Additionally, the article of The New Yorkerlacked many important details.
While noting that “One user came across aphotograph of a woman who looked like Nhung at the grand opening of a Uniqlo,and reposted the image on Instagram, announcing to her followers that Nhung waspartying while sick,” it did not mention that then Chairman of the HanoiPeople’s Committee Nguyen Duc Chung told the press after the urgent meeting on March6 that Patient 17 had not attended the opening of the Uniqlo shop in Hanoi asrumoured.
In addition, Secretary of the municipal Party Committee Vuong Dinh Huealso corrected fake news saying that Patient 17 had visited a bar on March 3falling ill.
Huealso requested the police force to strictly punish those spreading fake news onthe disease. “Cyber security should be controlled more closely. People should followofficial information sources from the city, not fake news,” he suggested.
TheNew Yorker’s article also contained another incorrect detail when saying that“The Vietnamese government, clearly committed to making an example of Nhung,let it be known that when she flew home from London she did not mention hervisit to Italy”.
Accordingto the Noi Bai border gate police, Patient 17 had used a British passport totravel to European countries, but she used a Vietnamese passport to enterVietnam on March 2.
TheNoi Bai border gate police checked each page of her passport carefully, but didnot detect any Italian entry-exit stamp. Along with making a false medicaldeclaration, this woman was allowed to enter Vietnam without quarantine.
Inaddition, the article only mentioned that her aunt had been infected with thecoronavirus from her, without providing additional information that her auntmay not survive if not receiving wholehearted treatment from Vietnamesedoctors.
Amidstthe dangerous COVID-19 pandemic, Patient 17 still concealed the fact that shehad travelled to disease-hit areas in Europe to avoid being quarantined. Theconsequence of this act is that an entire street with more than 100 residentswere quarantined for 14 days and had to receive supplies from the Government,and a private hospital which she came for check-ups was forced to close itsdoor to ensure safety.
Althoughthe right to privacy of each individual needs to be respected, it is not thereason for an individual to cause danger to the entire community. The right toprivacy does not mean that social responsibility can be ignored. In addition,in this case, she also violated the law on infectious disease prevention andcontrol.
Nomatter what the sisters said, the fact is they had been infected with thedangerous virus. Patient 17 was treated successfully by Vietnamese doctors, andshe also acknowledged this fact and her family also showed their gratitude.
Withan article which reported on Vietnam’s disease control process in anunconstructive way, The New Yorker ignored a fact that Vietnam – amiddle-income country - has been fighting the disease efficiently despite alack of resources. The newspaper also forgot differences in culture amongnations./.
VNA
