In the wake of the sweeping omicron outbreak, some have suggested that Hong Kong might need to shift its anti-pandemic strategy from “dynamic zero tolerance” to “living with the virus”. Such a viewpoint is not shared by Liang Wannian, head of the National Health Commission’s COVID-19 leading task force, who stressed the urgent need for Hong Kong to expand its COVID-19 testing program to locate all virus carriers. He rebuffed the idea of coexisting with the virus, stressing it would be premature for Hong Kong to live with the virus until an effective cure is available to minimize its public health threat.
Liang’s views are based on scientific research as well as the successful experience of the Chinese mainland in containing the coronavirus, which serves as a valuable lesson for all places heavily stricken by the virus. In contrast, the pandemic situation has spiraled out of control in many countries where the “living with the virus” approach is adopted, threatening their public health systems aside from already victimizing a huge number of citizens.
It would be unimaginable that a densely populated Hong Kong shifts to the coexistence tactic, when the exponential increase in new infections has put tremendous pressure on the city’s public health system, stoking worries about a collapse. Such an approach would only aggravate the already severe situation, and it would be too late to make rectification when the virus runs out of control as it has elsewhere. Obviously, there is no alternative to the “dynamic zero tolerance” strategy for Hong Kong at this moment.
It is imperative that the HKSAR government enforces compulsory measures by invoking the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to contain the virus when the health and safety of residents is at risk
“Dynamic zero tolerance” does not mean to achieve “zero infections” but aims at stamping out any new outbreak to contain the spread of the virus, which entails rapid discovery, quick handling, precise management and effective treatment, as Liang suggested.
Liang’s explanation has clarified some of the misconceptions about the mainland’s “dynamic zero tolerance” strategy, which has been enforced over the past two years. Thanks to this strategy, local authorities were able to stamp out dozens of local outbreaks by identifying most cases while they were still in the incubation period. Such effectiveness demonstrates the hard work of the authorities and medical personnel in keeping COVID-19 under control. Meanwhile, those local officials who made blunders and contributed to the spread of the virus were held accountable.
With the death rate of COVID-19 patients remaining high as the development of vaccines and cures still lags behind the speed of the coronavirus’ mutation, the “dynamic zero tolerance” strategy is still the best alternative in the absence of an effective way to eradicate the virus altogether.
Conceivably, “dynamic zero tolerance” is a transitional strategy before the arrival of an effective drug or cure. By then, the threat of COVID-19 will be reduced to that of a common cold, meeting the fundamental condition for coexisting with the virus.
Critics argued that “dynamic zero tolerance” is an impractical and unsustainable strategy in the face of the highly infectious but low-mortality omicron variant. It is true that the mortality rate from omicron is lower than that of the delta variant, but medical research shows that it is still much higher than that from a common cold.
An extrapolation of the scenario for Hong Kong shifting to the “living with the virus” approach with reference to the United States’ statistics is terribly worrisome. According to the data released by Johns Hopkins University on Feb 4, the US had reported a cumulative 76.2 million COVID-19 infections, or 23 percent of its total population, and more than 900,000 deaths, which translates into a mortality rate of about 1.2 percent among the infected. Applying the US’ statistics to Hong Kong’s population of 7.5 million, the city may have 1.725 million infections and a death toll of 20,000. Is Hong Kong ready to face such a calamity? Even if the death rate is cut by half, Hong Kong still cannot afford to have some 10,000 patients die from the coronavirus. And don’t forget, we are dealing with two variants — omicron and delta.
Apart from the risk of mortality, it is still a big unknown as to what sequelae COVID-19 patients may be dealing with. It is simply reckless and irresponsible on the part of those who advocate “living with the virus” without taking into account the possible consequences.
Achieving efficiency in epidemiological investigation and identifying close contacts is crucial to the success of the “dynamic zero tolerance” strategy, which requires residents to give up some of their privacy. Unfortunately, there are always selfish individuals who prefer their right to privacy over the greater good for society; their intransigence will hinder efforts to swiftly stamp out the raging outbreaks.
Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. It is imperative that the HKSAR government enforces compulsory measures by invoking the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to contain the virus when the health and safety of residents is at risk. The government must act boldly and swiftly when needed, lest a delay in response results in catastrophic consequences.
The author is a Hong Kong member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and chairman of the Hong Kong New Era Development Thinktank.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.