There is a controversy over a paper recently published by Chung Eun-kyung, head of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDA).
In a paper he recently participated as a co-author, Chung emphasized the necessity of attending school, saying, as a result of a survey of confirmed cases of children and adolescents aged 3-18 from May to July last year, only 2.4% of cases were infected in school. Chung’s thesis is being used by some as a basis to prove the necessity of starting school.
Rep. Yoon Hee-sook posted a post on Facebook on the 24th, saying, “It is only now known that the quarantine officer insisted on a shift in quarantine policy from academic papers to school classes.” “What happened in the quarantine decision process?” Asked.
He said, “Chief Chung has published several papers in domestic and international academic journals as corresponding authors since last April. Many wondered how the quarantine officer would have had the mental space and time to continue writing academic papers. It was a severe situation where the dead were lined up and many self-employed people were perishing, so the person in charge of quarantine would not have been able to stand on the edge of the blade.”
He said, “However, the thesis that has become a hot topic this time has a different level of seriousness as it represents a defect in the quarantine policy decision structure itself.” “The conclusion of the thesis is,’As well-known in other countries, there are very few cases of school infection in Korea. Therefore, as the advantage of closing the school is small, it contains a claim that the direction of quarantine should be turned to school classes.”
“As you know, the degree to which guaranteeing children’s educational opportunities should be prioritized is one of the most difficult and important decisions of quarantine policy. He said, “The problem is that the Korean people have analyzed the arguments and data of the quarantine officer through academic dissertations on these key issues. It means that you have encountered the results. The fact that the paper was received at the end of October means that data analysis results came out long before that. Then, in the second half of last year, we should have disclosed these results and sought wisdom widely, and if not, we should have informed the public about the basis of the decision and sought understanding for any concerns about whether to expand the class.”
Rep. Yoon said, “It is hard to think that the quarantine officer would have only made an argument in an academic journal without giving such an opinion in the policy-making process. If so, why, despite the concerns and burdens of parents, this opinion It was ignored and I don’t understand if it’s been unknown so far.”
He said, “In the process of establishing quarantine prevention measures, what kind of opinion Chief Chung expressed about the expansion of school classes, and the grounds for which it was dismissed, the authorities will have to shed light.” “That is, parents and students who have been silently following the online class policy. It is the responsibility that should be borne by you.”