This bibliographic essay introduces three concepts to the historiography of epidemics and pandemics: coinfection, comorbidity, and syndemics. All three of these concepts have seen considerable popularity in the social sciences—and to some extent in epidemiology—but have not been used much in historical scholarship. The essay attributes this to the continued prevalence of disease specificity and its accompanying historical genre, the disease biography, in the history of science, medicine, and public health. Through the introduction of some of the important literature on each of the three concepts this essay seeks to raise conceptual and methodological questions on the boundaries between the social sciences and historical scholarship on epidemics and pandemics. Introducing this scholarship aims at increasing the capacity for transdisciplinary collaboration and to further integrate the reflection on epidemics of the past with the contemporary analysis of epidemics in their social, cultural, and environmental situatedness.
{"title":"Coinfection, Comorbidity, and Syndemics: On the Edges of Epidemic Historiography","authors":"Lukas Engelmann","doi":"10.1086/726981","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726981","url":null,"abstract":"This bibliographic essay introduces three concepts to the historiography of epidemics and pandemics: coinfection, comorbidity, and syndemics. All three of these concepts have seen considerable popularity in the social sciences—and to some extent in epidemiology—but have not been used much in historical scholarship. The essay attributes this to the continued prevalence of disease specificity and its accompanying historical genre, the disease biography, in the history of science, medicine, and public health. Through the introduction of some of the important literature on each of the three concepts this essay seeks to raise conceptual and methodological questions on the boundaries between the social sciences and historical scholarship on epidemics and pandemics. Introducing this scholarship aims at increasing the capacity for transdisciplinary collaboration and to further integrate the reflection on epidemics of the past with the contemporary analysis of epidemics in their social, cultural, and environmental situatedness.","PeriodicalId":14667,"journal":{"name":"Isis","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134969447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper provides an overview of recent literature on the history of epidemics in East Asia, with a primary focus on modern and contemporary China, but including some discussion of the scholarship in English on epidemics in Korea and Japan. Key research strands are identified within the field: local and regional histories, disease biographies, histories of public health campaigns, global connections, and cultural representations. The paper argues that studies of epidemic disease have been central to debates about East Asian modernity, transformations of the state, the formation of a post-imperial citizenry, postcolonial science and technology studies, and East Asia’s role in globalizing processes. The paper concludes by reflecting on the COVID-19 pandemic and the issues it raises for future research.
{"title":"Epidemic Histories in East Asia","authors":"Robert Peckham, Mei Li","doi":"10.1086/726990","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726990","url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides an overview of recent literature on the history of epidemics in East Asia, with a primary focus on modern and contemporary China, but including some discussion of the scholarship in English on epidemics in Korea and Japan. Key research strands are identified within the field: local and regional histories, disease biographies, histories of public health campaigns, global connections, and cultural representations. The paper argues that studies of epidemic disease have been central to debates about East Asian modernity, transformations of the state, the formation of a post-imperial citizenry, postcolonial science and technology studies, and East Asia’s role in globalizing processes. The paper concludes by reflecting on the COVID-19 pandemic and the issues it raises for future research.","PeriodicalId":14667,"journal":{"name":"Isis","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134969448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This very short introduction to the bibliography of modern epidemiology aims to achieve two modest goals. First, the works presented will be separated into two bodies of historical scholarship, to distinguish the history of the field as told by epidemiological practitioners from the work developed in the history of science, medicine, and public health. Second, this essay focuses on a modern history of epidemiology spanning the later nineteenth and twentieth century. These distinctions aim to capture the contours of the history of epidemiology as it became a field of knowledge production and to some extent an academic discipline, a history told in part by those involved in the field themselves. The enclosed bibliography further distinguishes between geographic contributions to this historiography to capture the historical distribution of the scientific field and its associated histories.
{"title":"A Short Introduction into the English-Language Historiography of Epidemiology","authors":"Lukas Engelmann","doi":"10.1086/726978","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726978","url":null,"abstract":"This very short introduction to the bibliography of modern epidemiology aims to achieve two modest goals. First, the works presented will be separated into two bodies of historical scholarship, to distinguish the history of the field as told by epidemiological practitioners from the work developed in the history of science, medicine, and public health. Second, this essay focuses on a modern history of epidemiology spanning the later nineteenth and twentieth century. These distinctions aim to capture the contours of the history of epidemiology as it became a field of knowledge production and to some extent an academic discipline, a history told in part by those involved in the field themselves. The enclosed bibliography further distinguishes between geographic contributions to this historiography to capture the historical distribution of the scientific field and its associated histories.","PeriodicalId":14667,"journal":{"name":"Isis","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134969444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Italian medical history in the age of positivism showed a strong interest in epidemics. This can be seen in Alfonso Corradi’s monumental Annali (1865-1895) and in works of other 19th-century historians who addressed major public health issues in the newly unified country. Local history was also widely practiced in Italy, and it was instrumental in discovering and publishing a wealth of documentation on past epidemic and endemic diseases, as well as on measures such as quarantines that were invented or introduced in the peninsula as early as the late Middle Ages. The way Italian historians looked at epidemics in the 20th century was shaped by politics, religion and literature more than by demography, epidemiology, or technical knowledge in the medical field. This article and its accompanying bibliography will focus on regional historiography and deal with the history of plague, smallpox, cholera and malaria, and other diseases addressed in works published after the 1980s.
{"title":"History of Epidemics: A Bibliographical Essay on Secondary Sources in Italian and on Italy","authors":"Maria Conforti","doi":"10.1086/726995","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726995","url":null,"abstract":"Italian medical history in the age of positivism showed a strong interest in epidemics. This can be seen in Alfonso Corradi’s monumental Annali (1865-1895) and in works of other 19th-century historians who addressed major public health issues in the newly unified country. Local history was also widely practiced in Italy, and it was instrumental in discovering and publishing a wealth of documentation on past epidemic and endemic diseases, as well as on measures such as quarantines that were invented or introduced in the peninsula as early as the late Middle Ages. The way Italian historians looked at epidemics in the 20th century was shaped by politics, religion and literature more than by demography, epidemiology, or technical knowledge in the medical field. This article and its accompanying bibliography will focus on regional historiography and deal with the history of plague, smallpox, cholera and malaria, and other diseases addressed in works published after the 1980s.","PeriodicalId":14667,"journal":{"name":"Isis","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134969457","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Writing about the history and politics of epidemics and pandemics requires stepping into a historiography that is expansive, transnational, and slotted into specific historical periods. This essay considers the main debates in this expansive historiography and highlights the strengths and limitations of dominant historiographical approaches to the study of epidemics and pandemics. This essay also interrogates the framing of three thematic periods, or categories, commonly identified by historians and social scientists in analyses of epidemics and pandemics: categories of “colonial health,” “international health,” and “global health.” As this essay underscores, scholarship often analyzes epidemics and pandemics through overlapping and complex historical temporalities involving colonization, decolonization, and globalization. However, this approach is often constrained by the limitations of existing archives and the overwhelming focus of published scholarship on dominant institutions, scientific and political figures, and specific disease outbreaks that are commonly associated with categories of “colonial health,” “international health,” and “global health” from the late nineteenth to the present. As a result, scholarship may include linear narratives that flatten or generalize the legacies of epidemics and pandemics. The links between pathogens and pathologies are not linear, however, and colonial structures of power, disease tropes, and surveillance doctrines often persist across time and space. This essay ultimately seeks to challenge and complicate these dominant framings and categories from within. This approach highlights the connectedness—and complex continuities and discontinuities—in the political, economic, social, and scientific perceptions of and approaches to epidemic and pandemic risks.
{"title":"The Limits of Linearity: Recasting Histories of Epidemics in the Global South","authors":"Valentina Parisi, Kavita Sivaramakrishnan","doi":"10.1086/726987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726987","url":null,"abstract":"Writing about the history and politics of epidemics and pandemics requires stepping into a historiography that is expansive, transnational, and slotted into specific historical periods. This essay considers the main debates in this expansive historiography and highlights the strengths and limitations of dominant historiographical approaches to the study of epidemics and pandemics. This essay also interrogates the framing of three thematic periods, or categories, commonly identified by historians and social scientists in analyses of epidemics and pandemics: categories of “colonial health,” “international health,” and “global health.” As this essay underscores, scholarship often analyzes epidemics and pandemics through overlapping and complex historical temporalities involving colonization, decolonization, and globalization. However, this approach is often constrained by the limitations of existing archives and the overwhelming focus of published scholarship on dominant institutions, scientific and political figures, and specific disease outbreaks that are commonly associated with categories of “colonial health,” “international health,” and “global health” from the late nineteenth to the present. As a result, scholarship may include linear narratives that flatten or generalize the legacies of epidemics and pandemics. The links between pathogens and pathologies are not linear, however, and colonial structures of power, disease tropes, and surveillance doctrines often persist across time and space. This essay ultimately seeks to challenge and complicate these dominant framings and categories from within. This approach highlights the connectedness—and complex continuities and discontinuities—in the political, economic, social, and scientific perceptions of and approaches to epidemic and pandemic risks.","PeriodicalId":14667,"journal":{"name":"Isis","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134969458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Vaccines and vaccination are richly explored areas of study within the history of science and medicine, connecting related fields of the history of science and technology, and spanning across subfields such as biomedical sciences, animal studies, colonial and postcolonial history, and the history of global health. Vaccination is a thoroughly political act that is at once an intimate and local issue and a transnational one, with its particular set of politics connecting stakes for the individual and the community. Vaccination also maps on narratives and temporal frameworks of disease with an ultimate goal of ending epidemics. Therefore, the essay takes these three analytical entry points to discuss the historiography of vaccination: the geographical, the political, and the temporal. We argue that through these lenses we can gain a more nuanced understanding of historical narratives we privilege, and in return, this understanding can enable us to explore past and current questions of health inequalities, validation practices, power relations and resistance and vaccine diplomacy.
{"title":"Vaccination and Pandemics","authors":"Dora Vargha, Imogen Wilkins","doi":"10.1086/726980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726980","url":null,"abstract":"Vaccines and vaccination are richly explored areas of study within the history of science and medicine, connecting related fields of the history of science and technology, and spanning across subfields such as biomedical sciences, animal studies, colonial and postcolonial history, and the history of global health. Vaccination is a thoroughly political act that is at once an intimate and local issue and a transnational one, with its particular set of politics connecting stakes for the individual and the community. Vaccination also maps on narratives and temporal frameworks of disease with an ultimate goal of ending epidemics. Therefore, the essay takes these three analytical entry points to discuss the historiography of vaccination: the geographical, the political, and the temporal. We argue that through these lenses we can gain a more nuanced understanding of historical narratives we privilege, and in return, this understanding can enable us to explore past and current questions of health inequalities, validation practices, power relations and resistance and vaccine diplomacy.","PeriodicalId":14667,"journal":{"name":"Isis","volume":"216 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134969460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper surveys the historiography of the global response to HIV/AIDS. Since 1981, when the disease was first identified, there have been great strides in the medical and biological sciences in understanding the impact of the new virus on the human immune system. Although there is still no successful vaccine, antiretroviral (ART) treatment continues to improve the likelihood of HIV-positive people living long and healthy lives. We have also seen a few exciting cases of full recovery, which will allow scientists to explore new avenues towards a cure. Yet the AIDS pandemic is by no means over: 40 million have died and over 35 million individuals still live with HIV. More importantly, as historians and scholars in the humanities and social sciences have been pointing out since the early 1980s, HIV brought to light how non-medical factors play a critical role in a successful disease response. As the global community faces the aftermath of a new pandemic, it is timely to examine how broader social, economic, political, and cultural factors influence individual experiences of disease at local, national, international, and global scales. This essay examines how scholars have written historically about the HIV pandemic, using a variety of methods and approaches: from traditional histories of medicine to anthropologies of development. While HIV has sparked a massive corpus of historical reflection from a variety of disciplines, its contemporaneity means that “global AIDS historiography” cannot yet be described as a cohesive academic conversation. Yet what unites the scholarship, this essay argues, is its use of HIV to examine how and why post-war social and economic systems have achieved health objectives for some populations and not others.
{"title":"Pandemic Responses and the Strengths of Health Systems: A Review of Global AIDS Historiography in Light of COVID-19","authors":"Reiko Kanazawa","doi":"10.1086/726985","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726985","url":null,"abstract":"This paper surveys the historiography of the global response to HIV/AIDS. Since 1981, when the disease was first identified, there have been great strides in the medical and biological sciences in understanding the impact of the new virus on the human immune system. Although there is still no successful vaccine, antiretroviral (ART) treatment continues to improve the likelihood of HIV-positive people living long and healthy lives. We have also seen a few exciting cases of full recovery, which will allow scientists to explore new avenues towards a cure. Yet the AIDS pandemic is by no means over: 40 million have died and over 35 million individuals still live with HIV. More importantly, as historians and scholars in the humanities and social sciences have been pointing out since the early 1980s, HIV brought to light how non-medical factors play a critical role in a successful disease response. As the global community faces the aftermath of a new pandemic, it is timely to examine how broader social, economic, political, and cultural factors influence individual experiences of disease at local, national, international, and global scales. This essay examines how scholars have written historically about the HIV pandemic, using a variety of methods and approaches: from traditional histories of medicine to anthropologies of development. While HIV has sparked a massive corpus of historical reflection from a variety of disciplines, its contemporaneity means that “global AIDS historiography” cannot yet be described as a cohesive academic conversation. Yet what unites the scholarship, this essay argues, is its use of HIV to examine how and why post-war social and economic systems have achieved health objectives for some populations and not others.","PeriodicalId":14667,"journal":{"name":"Isis","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134969453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay outlines the kinds of evidence available (and not available) for studies of ancient Mediterranean pandemics, the scholarship on the subject so far, and some reflections on the relationship between the two. The focus is on the three largescale epidemic episodes that have attracted the most scholarly attention: the “Plague of Athens” in the fifth century BCE; the “Antonine Plague,” which spread across the Roman Empire in the late second century CE; and the “Justinianic Plague,” which first engulfed the Mediterranean in the sixth century CE. All present considerable evidential challenges. There are traditional resources and the rich remains of ancient medical writings, but we also now have at our disposal new archaeological and genetic evidence. The research questions on these pandemics must be expanded beyond asking what disease was implicated and what political and economic impact its Mediterranean outbreaks had, sometimes within quite a restricted geographical area. Interdisciplinary research will be required to answer these wider enquiries fully. All the salient disciplines need to be involved, with due attention to their methodologies, if the field is to move forward and make the most of its resources.
{"title":"Pandemics in the Ancient Mediterranean World","authors":"Rebecca Flemming","doi":"10.1086/726988","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726988","url":null,"abstract":"This essay outlines the kinds of evidence available (and not available) for studies of ancient Mediterranean pandemics, the scholarship on the subject so far, and some reflections on the relationship between the two. The focus is on the three largescale epidemic episodes that have attracted the most scholarly attention: the “Plague of Athens” in the fifth century BCE; the “Antonine Plague,” which spread across the Roman Empire in the late second century CE; and the “Justinianic Plague,” which first engulfed the Mediterranean in the sixth century CE. All present considerable evidential challenges. There are traditional resources and the rich remains of ancient medical writings, but we also now have at our disposal new archaeological and genetic evidence. The research questions on these pandemics must be expanded beyond asking what disease was implicated and what political and economic impact its Mediterranean outbreaks had, sometimes within quite a restricted geographical area. Interdisciplinary research will be required to answer these wider enquiries fully. All the salient disciplines need to be involved, with due attention to their methodologies, if the field is to move forward and make the most of its resources.","PeriodicalId":14667,"journal":{"name":"Isis","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134969455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Between 1983 and 2006 there were two distinct sorts of historical writings on Southeast Asian medical history, with quite different emphases. Some historians focused on the history of medicine in national contexts—a practice that resulted in the neglect of larger socioeconomic factors such as migration—that affected the trajectory of pandemics. At the same time, pursuing a different line of thinking, another group of historians focused on the history of specific diseases from a demographic perspective. These two approaches led to very different conclusions about the nature of epidemic disease and pandemics that have beset the region since the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, regional histories of health are neglected in Southeast Asian medical history in favor of either local, national, or global histories. In this essay, I argue that if historians of global health have forsaken the region in favor of the wider world, Southeast Asian historians have neglected the region in favor of the nation. What is missing in Southeast Asian medical history is a regional perspective that would help understand the ways in which pandemic responses are shaped by colonial, Cold War, or national concerns. Beginning 2019, some historians and political analysts trying to understand global pandemics have adopted a regional approach by treating, as a monolithic group, the ASEAN—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which is a regional grouping of Southeast Asian member states, established in 1967. By contrast, others explore specific geographic, political, or economic issues that have contributed to either the spread or containment of disease. In this regard, the COVID-19 crisis in Southeast Asia merits historical attention to comprehend the strengths and weaknesses of a regional approach.
1983年至2006年间，有两种截然不同的关于东南亚医学史的历史著作，侧重点各不相同。一些历史学家关注的是国家背景下的医学史——这种做法导致了对影响流行病轨迹的更大的社会经济因素(如移民)的忽视。与此同时，另一组历史学家追求不同的思路，从人口统计学的角度关注特定疾病的历史。这两种方法对自19世纪以来困扰该地区的流行病和大流行的性质得出了截然不同的结论。然而，在东南亚的医学史中，区域健康史被忽视，而更倾向于当地、国家或全球的病史。在这篇文章中，我认为，如果全球健康历史学家为了更广阔的世界而抛弃了该地区，那么东南亚历史学家为了国家而忽视了该地区。东南亚医学史中缺少的是一种区域视角，这种视角将有助于理解流行病应对是如何受到殖民、冷战或国家关切的影响的。从2019年开始，一些试图理解全球流行病的历史学家和政治分析人士采取了一种区域方法，将东盟(asean)——东南亚国家联盟(Association of Southeast Asian Nations，简称东盟)视为一个整体组织，该组织成立于1967年，由东南亚成员国组成。相比之下，其他人则探讨了具体的地理、政治或经济问题，这些问题有助于疾病的传播或遏制。在这方面，东南亚的COVID-19危机值得历史关注，以了解区域方法的优缺点。
{"title":"History of Pandemics in Southeast Asia: A Return of National Anxieties?","authors":"Vivek Neelakantan","doi":"10.1086/726991","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726991","url":null,"abstract":"Between 1983 and 2006 there were two distinct sorts of historical writings on Southeast Asian medical history, with quite different emphases. Some historians focused on the history of medicine in national contexts—a practice that resulted in the neglect of larger socioeconomic factors such as migration—that affected the trajectory of pandemics. At the same time, pursuing a different line of thinking, another group of historians focused on the history of specific diseases from a demographic perspective. These two approaches led to very different conclusions about the nature of epidemic disease and pandemics that have beset the region since the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, regional histories of health are neglected in Southeast Asian medical history in favor of either local, national, or global histories. In this essay, I argue that if historians of global health have forsaken the region in favor of the wider world, Southeast Asian historians have neglected the region in favor of the nation. What is missing in Southeast Asian medical history is a regional perspective that would help understand the ways in which pandemic responses are shaped by colonial, Cold War, or national concerns. Beginning 2019, some historians and political analysts trying to understand global pandemics have adopted a regional approach by treating, as a monolithic group, the ASEAN—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which is a regional grouping of Southeast Asian member states, established in 1967. By contrast, others explore specific geographic, political, or economic issues that have contributed to either the spread or containment of disease. In this regard, the COVID-19 crisis in Southeast Asia merits historical attention to comprehend the strengths and weaknesses of a regional approach.","PeriodicalId":14667,"journal":{"name":"Isis","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134969456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：