2024 年 10 月 8 日線上發布 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00663-7
病毒時代：對 COVID-19 和 HIV 大流行的反思，探討了 COVID-19 大流行如何影響我們對 HIV 大流行的理解，反之亦然。該書匯集了 28 位作者撰寫的 16 篇論文，並包括來自 11 個不同國家的案例研究。該書由 Jaime García-Iglesias、Maurice Naginton 和 Peter Aggleton 編輯，專為各種專業背景以及一般讀者而設。
第一章由編輯們撰寫，很好地解釋了本書的主題：雖然HIV 和COVID-19 大流行之間在症狀和傳播方面存在明顯差異，但在對人際關係和社區的影響方面卻有一些相似之處。編輯們解釋說，這本書是為長期參與而設計的，儘管它是在 COVID-19 大流行仍處於高峰期時編寫的，並且是有關該主題的個人和經驗證據的跨學科融合。這是一個不尋常但有趣的比較：如果成功，他們的提議對於為情感上之原始對話提供細緻入微的觀點將非常有價值。
本書分為三個部分：「親密關係」、「生物醫學化」和「專業、實踐者和社區的視角」。第一部分的主題非常廣泛：有些章節則著重於流行病如何直接影響人際關係，而有些章節則透過媒體的視角探討這個主題。黛博拉·勒普頓 (Deborah Lupton) 的《大流行生活的敘述》是這個主題的一個特別有創意的角度，它深入探討了悲傷和恐懼是如何普遍存在於「瘟疫」文學小說的作品中，克里斯·阿什福德 (Chris Ashford) 和加雷斯·朗斯塔夫 (Gareth Longstaff) 對 COVID-19 大流行期間流行病風險和酷兒慾望的文化和法律緊張局勢的變化進行了分析。
第二部分「生物醫學化」則聚焦在 HIV 和 COVID-19 大流行所揭示的系統性問題，以及我們如何在這種背景下應對未來的疫情。主題範圍仍然很廣泛，包括「瘟疫」的概念化以及政治的暗流如何在危機的暗流中無處可藏。傅柯的「生物權力」是貫穿全文的一個突出主題，所有作者都對國家參與這兩種流行病表達了擔憂。基蘭·皮納爾 (Kiran Pienaar) 和迪恩·墨菲 (Dean Murphy) 撰寫的《在大流行時期思考愛滋病毒》是一篇關於污名化的特別有力的文章：這裡提出，我們在大流行期間可能污衊某些群體的一個原因是使疾病實體化並處理其威脅。
第三部分，「專業人士、從業者和社區的觀點」，重點是描述來自不同地點的各種故事的案例研究（第 11 章和第 12 章隱含地涉及英國和北美）。這一部分是政府回應中最關鍵的部分，可能是因為許多作者在寫作中藉鑒了這兩種流行病的豐富生活經驗。例如，伯納德·凱利 (Bernard Kelly) 的章節是對英國醫療保健虛偽的嚴厲控訴，那些在COVID-19 大流行期間「為照護人員鼓掌」的人卻允許同樣的照護人員忍受種族主義虐待、停滯的工資和危險的工作條件。由於第三部分始終以區域為重點，因此這是最具凝聚力的部分之一：以特定地點為重點的結尾對本書有利，因為這允許在早期提出的抽象概念的基礎上建立具體的示例。
即便如此，本書的「章節」結構有時與各章主題的多樣性發生衝突。一方面，如果目標是探索廣泛的主題，那麼一本擁有這麼多作者的書就不能（也許不應該）完全具有凝聚力，就像這裡的情況一樣。然而，章節分組有時會變得令人困惑：丹尼斯·奧爾特曼（Dennis Altman）的第一部分「流行病政治」一章強有力且極具個人色彩；然而，它關注的是系統性特權和污名化，這感覺更符合第二部分的社會主題。同樣，第 13 章（第三部分）討論了需要優先考慮批判性的希望而不是憤世嫉俗，並且寫得非常精彩；這是本部分中唯一不關注區域問題的章節。它強調需要認識到大流行應對措施的缺點並做出讓社會因它們而變得更好，考慮到它如何總結關鍵論點，本可以做出令人信服的最終聲明：相反，它被夾在區域章節的中間。
有人還可能會爭辯說，我們尚無法知道這本書是否會永恆：例如，許多作者對處理這兩次大流行的明顯蔑視有一天可能會被視為時代的產物。但這並不是一件壞事：對於理解我們與病毒間的關係上這本書的時間膠囊元素與其客觀性一樣重要，這也許是這個系列最強大的特徵之一。
本書在個人觀點和數據驅動的觀點之間取得了重要的平衡，考慮到所討論問題的普遍性和敏感性，編輯們正確地認識到了雙方的必要性。他們精心挑選了一系列尖銳、細緻的觀點和研究。涵蓋了廣泛的主題，聽到了大量不同的聲音：所有貢獻者都應該為他們在這裡的工作感到自豪。
艾瑪·斯塔巴克
Books :Two pandemics, a shared lesson
Published Online October 8, 2024 https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1473-3099(24)00663-7
Viral times: reflections on the COVID-19 and HIV pandemics explores how the COVID-19 pandemic can shape our understanding of the HIV pandemic, and vice versa. The book is a compilation of 16 papers written by 28 authors, and includes case studies from eleven different countries. The book was edited by Jaime García-Iglesias, Maurice Nagington, and Peter Aggleton, and it is targeted towards a range of specialist backgrounds, as well as the general reader.
The first chapter, written by the editors, explains the book’s thesis well: while there are clear symptomatic and transmission differences between the HIV and COVID-19 pandemics, there are some similarities in the effects on relationships and communities. The editors explain that the book is designed for longer term engagement, even though it was written as the COVID-19 pandemic was still at its height, and is an interdisciplinary blend of personal and empirical evidence on the subject. This is an unusual but intriguing comparison to make: and if successful, their proposal would be incredibly valuable for providing nuanced perspectives on emotionally raw conversations.
This book is divided into three sections: ‘Intimate Relationships’, ‘Biomedicalisation’, and ‘Professional, practitioner, and community perspectives’. The topics in Part I are very wide-ranging: some chapters focus on how the pandemics directly affected relationships, while others explored the theme through the lens of media. ‘Narratives of pandemic lives’ by Deborah Lupton was a particularly creative angle on the subject, which delved into how grief and fear are pervasive across ‘plague’ literary fiction works, as was Chris Ashford and Gareth Longstaff’s analysis of change to cultural and legal tensions of pandemic risk and queer desire during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Part II, ‘Biomedicalisation’, focuses on systemic issues that the HIV and COVID-19 pandemics revealed, and how we might tackle future pandemics in this context. The subject range remains wide, and includes the conceptualisation of a ‘plague’ and how political undercurrents have nowhere to hide within a crisis. Foucault’s ‘biopower’ is a prominent theme throughout, and all authors have concerns regarding state involvement in both pandemics. ‘Thinking with HIV in pandemic times’, by Kiran Pienaar and Dean Murphy, is a particularly powerful piece on stigmatisation: here it is suggested that one reason we might stigmatise groups during pandemics is to corporealise disease and process the threat.
Part III, ‘Professional, practitioner, and community perspectives’, focuses on case studies describing a diverse range of stories from different locations (chapters 11 and 12 are implicitly about the UK and North America). This section is the most critical of government responses, possibly because many authors draw on a wealth of lived experience from both pandemics in their writing. Bernard Kelly’s chapter, for instance, is a damning indictment of healthcare hypocrisy in the UK, where those who ‘clapped for carers’ during the COVID-19 pandemic have allowed the same carers to endure racist abuse, stagnating wages, and dangerous working conditions. Because of the consistent regional focus of Part III, this is one of the most cohesive sections: and ending with a focus on specific locations works in the book’s favour, because of how this allows for specific examples to build upon the earlier abstract concepts proposed.
Even so, the book’s ‘section’ structure sometimes clashes with the diversity of topics across chapters. On the one hand, a book with this many authors cannot (and perhaps should not) be entirely cohesive if the goal is to explore a wide range of topics, as is the case here. However, the section grouping occasionally became confusing: Dennis Altman’s Part I chapter, ‘The politics of epidemics’, is powerful and deeply personal; however, it had a focus on systemic privilege and stigmatisation which felt more in keeping with the societal themes of Part II. Likewise, Chapter 13 (part III) is on the need to prioritise critical hope over cynicism, and is brilliantly written; it is the only chapter that doesn’t focus on regional issues within this part. It emphasises the need to recognise shortcomings in pandemic responses and make society better because of them, and could have made for a compelling final statement given how it summarises key arguments: instead, it is sandwiched in the middle of regional chapters.
One could also argue that we cannot yet know whether this book will remain timeless: for example, the clear disdain from many authors for the handling of both pandemics may someday be viewed as a product of its time. But this isn’t a bad thing: the time-capsule element of this book is just as important as objectivity for understanding our relationship with viruses, and perhaps is one of this collection’s strongest traits.
This book contains an important balance of personal and data-driven arguments, and the editors correctly identified how necessary both sides are given the prevalence and sensitivity of the issues discussed. They have carefully curated a selection of sharp, nuanced viewpoints and research. A wide range of topics are covered, with an important amount of diverse voices being heard: all contributors should be proud of their work here.
Emma Starbuck