2024 RT Amination Banner.gif

China Daily

HongKong> Opinion> Content
Thursday, February 06, 2020, 02:10
A lockdown will hurt HK's efforts to combat the virus
By Chow Pak-chin
Thursday, February 06, 2020, 02:10 By Chow Pak-chin

The accelerated coronavirus outbreak has exposed not only problems such as inadequacies of the city’s medical preparedness and medical supplies, but sadly, also the true colors of some segments of the community.

As a doctor, I sincerely hope that everyone can be more vigilant by stepping up their personal hygiene for the sake of both self-protection and prevention. People should also minimize physical contact with others, and if they are in crowded areas, then they must wear face masks and eyeglasses to cut down the risk of contracting the virus.

Another good practice is to blink more frequently because blinking can cleanse and protect the eyes. Most important is not to touch your face unless you have washed and cleaned your hands.

But one disturbing outcome so far is the escalated citywide strike by thousands of public doctors and nurses. The strike, which began this week with about 2,700 personnel, was put into effect to force the government to agree to a total border shutdown.

Shutting out large numbers of people and encouraging a discriminatory response would backfire such as forcing people into hiding and refusing quarantine or treatment

The weeklong strike, which started on Monday, will continue and escalate despite the government expanding the border closure of all crossings except for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, Shenzhen Bay Port, and Hong Kong International Airport.

The group that launched the strike, the Hospital Authority Employees Alliance, came into being about two months ago amid the then-6-month-old social unrest, before the coronavirus outbreak on the Chinese mainland. They already had industrial action on their minds and were ready to join other unions to call for general strikes at work, shops, and schools, to fight against the government.

It’s unclear how representative they are of the public medical sector. They claim to have 12,000 members, but it has yet to be confirmed how many of them are Hospital Authority (HA) staff, and among those who are HA staff, how many are actually medical personnel.

I am skeptical, based on the alliance members that were present at Monday’s joint press conference with HA senior management. Some of the members who appeared at that press conference seemed in fact not to be HA staff; two members present were actually former flight attendants.

The HA said of the 2,700 staff on strike, about 300 are doctors and 900 are nurses. Whatever the number, medical personnel should not go on strike because their primary duty is the care and safety of patients, especially at a time as critical as this.

For the striking HA staff, let them be reminded of the Nightingale pledge, which is about honoring the ethics and principles of the nursing profession and upholding a vow to seek to nurse those who are ill without prejudice. And it is the same with doctors, who are to uphold the same ethical standards and to be dedicated to the advancement of human welfare.

They escalated the strike as their demand to close all border crossings have yet to be met. But let me explain the intricate nature in fighting an epidemic. There are three necessary steps to take.

First, the isolation of patients and the place or places of infection, followed by the segregation of those who might be potentially sick or infected, and finally, the closing of all border crossings.

If the government were to close off all border crossings, the strictest and most proper way is to block not only all human traffic, but also products and goods, including the food supply.

This is easier said than done though, as about 90 percent of those crossing the border are Hong Kong residents, including Hong Kong drivers who operate the fleet of 9,000 trucks that bring essential supplies to Hong Kong.

At present, about 300,000 Hong Kong people reside, work or have retired on the mainland and travel frequently to the city. Under Article 31 of the Basic Law, their freedom of movement is guaranteed, and no exceptions ought to be made.

Therefore, the focus should be on how we deal with the tens of thousands of Hong Kong residents who make return trips to Hong Kong daily, and not on the mainlanders. Is it politics, or worse, discrimination?

And we should not forget that mainland health authorities’ responses have been in line with the strategies of global epidemic measures such as the isolation of infected areas (such as Wuhan), social segregation through protracted holidays or use of home offices, and the closure of schools, malls, cinemas, mass transport systems, etc.

If the government were to close all crossings, the mass panic and chaos it would create when announced would be unimaginable. Could Hong Kong handle hundreds of thousands of desperate people storming its border checkpoints?

The World Health Organization has not recommended or requested any full border closure at this point, and such a drastic move was not even considered during SARS, the bird flu and African swine fever.

Implementing a public policy is similar to administering medication to a patient. It needs to satisfy three questions. First, whether it is useful and effective. So far, most experts would agree that an entire border closure would not be 100 percent effective. Second, we must also consider the side effects, as panic and chaos and the stoppage of food supplies would only exacerbate the situation and tension.

Third, we have to see whether the action is feasible and implementable. And the answer is a definite “no”. Even if all crossings between the two places were to be shut, people could circumvent and evade detection by entering Hong Kong from a third location.

So one cannot help but wonder whether the entire border closure option is a non-starter that serves no effective function. Could it be proposed to satisfy a political demand by some who have ulterior motives that could ruin relations between the city and the mainland?

The bilateral relationship is a delicate issue that requires us to tread carefully so as not to hurt mutual feelings and relationship. Banning mainlanders from Hong Kong would only drive a wedge between both sides and make things worse on many levels.

The present situation is more than just medical — it is about dealing with mass psychology and stopping mass public panic as a result of unwarranted fear and overreaction orchestrated by the political forces in the community and people who might have hidden agendas. 2019-nCoV has now spread to at least 16 countries. There have been more than 20,000 confirmed infections and over 400 deaths, almost all on the Chinese mainland.

It is not yet completely clear how the virus is transmitted; decisions and actions on how to stop the virus should be based on reliable data.

The threat of this potential global pandemic will not only put to the test the medical and social preparedness that cities and countries have in place, but also the way it is handled in communities, cities, and the world over.

In Hong Kong, the theatrics of a total border lockdown would only suit politicians and those with ulterior motives but would do nothing to help anxious citizens. Efforts should be focused on boosting infection prevention measures at hospitals to protect patients, health personnel and the community at large.

Shutting out large numbers of people and encouraging a discriminatory response would backfire such as forcing people into hiding and refusing quarantine or treatment.

And that would make matters worse because in an outbreak, it is crucial to know who is infected so that we can extract as much information as possible. Any heavy-handed attempts would only create resistance and would be extremely dangerous or even fatal.

The author is president of Wisdom Hong Kong, a local think tank. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Share this story

CHINA DAILY
HONG KONG NEWS
OPEN
Please click in the upper right corner to open it in your browser !