Charles Ng says that good decision-making steeped in health policy is what is needed to unite people against the novel coronavirus

New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most authoritative medical journals, published a review “COVID-19 — Navigating the Uncharted” on Feb 28, written by Dr Anthony Fauci, a renowned American immunologist and the incumbent head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Against a backdrop of 87,508 confirmed cases, 2,990 deaths and 42,670 recoveries around the world, he highlighted the high viral transmissibility with a reproductive rate, named R, of 2.2 and a lower mortality rate (2 percent) compared with SARS (10 percent) and MERS (30 percent). 

R represents the number of cases each new case will further give rise to, and it can be graphed as a curve that is plotted on the number of infections against time. Epidemiologists busy modeling the viral outbreak believe by bringing R down to 1 or below, the outbreak will die down. On this principle, extensive “social distancing” measures have been employed. That means reducing mingling with people and physical contact to minimize the chances of getting the disease. Flattening the R curve allows us to buy time for policies and resources to be put into place.

In an era awash with social media updates, it is not difficult to drift along with a tide of information detritus. A meme quipped how poorly substantiated claims on social media hold as much weight as journal publications two decades ago by professors who assiduously contributed to the rigor of science

Both the author, Dr Fauci, and director of the center for health security at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Dr Tom Inglesby, discoursed on various occasions about shifting the frame from containment to mitigation. This entails acknowledging the extent to which it has spread and instead devoting more resources to health systems in preparation for a large-scale infection worldwide. To this end, we will require bold leadership steeped in health policy to unite people against the virus. This is unlikely in Hong Kong, not least because rife misinformation has fractured people’s trust in the government and public health experts. We can recall that two centuries ago, John Snow mapped out the cholera outbreak to disprove the common belief that it was caused by “bad air”, then dubbed as miasma theory, only to be met with vehement political opposition. A water pump with its handle removed now stands on Broadwick Street to remind people of the struggles of public health advancement. During the SARS pandemic, solidarity in the face of a public health crisis was formed organically under the aegis of good science. 

About two decades later, COVID-19 emerged at an ominous moment amid young, radical populists calling for the separation of Hong Kong from its own country, China. A minority of workers who belong to the same clique further capitalized on the social cracks by taking Hong Kong people’s health hostage — they embarrassed Hong Kong by being the first in the world to blatantly shun work during the call to arms to fight the deadly virus. Some 300 doctors, 5 percent of those who work for the Hospital Authority, unabashedly joined an entire working week of collective absenteeism. 

As of today, at least three patients have filed legal complaints to their respective doctors who forsook them, alleging irreversibility of their health conditions because of the cut in manpower during the movement. But after crossing the picket lines, not realizing they have stumbled into an unforgivable ethical crisis, the warriors of health have doubled down on their exculpatory language under the veneer of “a lawful strike” when it is anything but. “Strike” under the Trade Unions Ordinance only pertains to “terms or conditions of or affecting employment”. The movement wants the Hong Kong government to close all borders, a policy beyond the purview of the chief executive of their employer. Never mind the legal controversy; the cause of absenteeism is also scientifically unsound.

 Dr Inglesby has discussed the dire consequences of a complete shutdown. That COVID-19 moves beyond borders is irrevocable. Human efforts to contain the virus cannot keep up with the temerity of the virus to expand. Severing all human interactions likely results in a backlash stemming from the fragmentation of global medical supply chains. These include masks, protective gear, realistic drugs-to-come, vaccines, and much laboratory equipment on which further research depends.

It is unfathomable how the “strikers” who take pride in higher education could conceive of such an ill proposal to the detriment of the well-being of Hong Kong citizens and themselves. Discussions about financial disruptions should carry a similar gravitas. A complete shutdown has been modeled after SARS to shave off 2.6 percent of Hong Kong’s GDP on top of the 2.9 percent drop in October due to the social unrest a few months ago.

Were the government to indiscriminately lock down Hong Kong, the precipitous plunge in our economy that ensued would shackle whatever financial capacity is left to mitigate the epidemic. Inciting fear and clamoring for a citywide lockdown is easy rhetoric to stir emotions among the crowd. This was an artful maneuver by populists to stoke dissent against Chinese mainland compatriots through social media.

In an era awash with social media updates, it is not difficult to drift along with a tide of information detritus. A meme quipped how poorly substantiated claims on social media hold as much weight as journal publications two decades ago by professors who assiduously contributed to the rigor of science. Radicals organized around social media shares, so did callow physicians. They fall prey to their own parochial world views which are often biased toward their affinity groups. And so their nonchalance to global developments, as seen by a recent spate of critical comments against the face mask guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO), is a grave disappointment.

What concerns our society more is their ignorance of such bias, their sanctimonious talk of reinventing Hong Kong, and their obstinance to listen to other people who also have a stake in the city. Their complacency bolsters fervent determination to grind society to a halt with no lack of bitter opprobrium against any authority. Granted, they launch hollow diatribes yet fail to replace them with concrete, feasible proposals that could comprise good scientific evidence, circumstantial execution plans, and demonstrable efforts in harmonizing societal factions.

Some doctors cower under the union from the licit repercussions they so deserve, and some are offered a 20 percent pay increase on top of their unmatched income to fulfill their raison d’etre. There are carrots and sticks. Perhaps if one doesn’t work well, someone would compel.

The author is a licensed doctor in Hong Kong, and a Master of Public Health candidate at Johns Hopkins University. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.