Is ‘zero’ infection a myth or achievable for Hong Kong’s fight against Covid-19?
- Questions linger over whether city’s high-profile testing scheme has reassured nervous residents or provided a clearer timeline for a return to normalcy
- Neighbouring Guangdong province is among destinations adopting a ‘zero-case’ policy for potential travel bubble partnerships
Setting a goal or KPI (Key Performance Indicator) tops the must-do list at any private company, because it serves as a critical measurement to justify an employee’s promotion or demotion.
To be fair, the government did set a goal earlier: containing infections to keep them “at a low level”, a decision endorsed by Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and her cabinet after taking various factors into consideration, including the city’s anti-pandemic resources. But this approach also came bundled with controversies and debate over whether a “low level” strategy could effectively tame the contagion.
One vocal critic is top Chinese expert Dr Zhang Wenhong, head of the infectious disease department in Huashan Hospital at Shanghai’s Fudan University, who is dubbed the “No 2 Zhong Nanshan”. Zhong is a national hero and the country’s most respected respiratory expert.
Hong Kong’s mass testing scheme ends with at least 32 Covid-19 carriers identified
Frankly speaking, how Hong Kong should tackle the pandemic is not decided by Zhang’s advice only, but he is not alone – some local experts have echoed similar views. However, Lam and her team are not yet ready for an open commitment.
The recent universal community coronavirus testing programme, a major step to identify and tackle asymptomatic cases, was thus both a public health challenge and a test of the government’s crisis management capability.
Launched with fanfare but also the cause of political bickering because Lam had asked for Beijing’s help, the two-week screening scheme ended with a bill of HK$530 million (US$68.4 million) for taxpayers. The figure does not include unrevealed costs borne by the mainland side, which sent across hundreds of medical staff and provided the facilities to make such a large-scale exercise possible.
More than 1.7 million out of a population of 7.5 million took part in the voluntary scheme, which eventually identified only 32 hidden Covid-19 cases. Authorities nevertheless hailed it as a success, insisting that the critical mass threshold was met for valid tracking of the virus, and the spending was well justified because a price could not be put on life.
But one basic question remains unanswered: can the public now expect hidden cases to be eliminated?
Underemployment rate hits 17-year high in Hong Kong amid pandemic crisis
That’s where the policy ambiguity emerges. By putting in so much effort, plus help from up north, has the government been able to reassure troubled Hongkongers and provide a clearer timeline for a return to normalcy? And with more tests extending to designated “high-risk” groups, is the government aiming for a “zero-case” scenario or merely getting back to the “low-level” standard, with uncertainties still lingering?
Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po last week openly addressed the need to pursue “zero” untraceable local cases for an overall relaunch of business, at crunch time for the city’s economy.
Hong Kong, meanwhile, is in talks with different governments, including authorities in neighbouring Guangdong, which has adopted a “zero-case” requirement as its hard target for travel-bubble arrangements.
But before that, Hong Kong was already warned of another, potentially worse outbreak with winter around the corner.
Hong Kong and the rest of the world now have to live with the pandemic, so the government owes the public a clearer goal, a KPI, of good governance. Is “zero case” a myth or an achievable aim? Why?
