Two years on since Hong Kong first took a beating from the COVID-19 pandemic, it has recorded a cumulative 60,636 confirmed cases and 300 deaths as of Feb 22. Judging by figures, the special administrative region certainly is no match for the Chinese mainland in terms of effectively reining in the virus spread, but its performance is not too bad when compared with many other places around the world. Take Singapore, with which Hong Kong is often compared. The city-state has registered nearly 600,000 confirmed cases and 952 deaths. In fact, Hong Kong had enjoyed an 80-day streak of zero local infections before omicron struck.
The underlying reason behind Hong Kong’s hitherto failure to contain the raging omicron outbreak has to do with the city’s porous, inefficient “dynamic zero infection” strategy, which has failed to achieve the desired results as the Chinese mainland has attained. A desired goal does not necessarily translate into reality, as is the case in Hong Kong, which, like almost every country and region other than the Chinese mainland, lacks both the necessary social foundation and capability for effectively implementing the “dynamic zero infection” strategy.
Hong Kong’s colonial legacy has engendered a widespread obsession with Western culture and ideologies, with many residents still blindly resisting the mainland’s anti-pandemic model despite its resounding success
He that would perfect his work must first sharpen his tools. The “dynamic zero infection” strategy has to be underpinned by mighty digital infrastructure and digital governance/management, meaning the use of information technology and big data to precisely and expeditiously track the sources and transmission chains. The core elements involve the real-name registration of SIM cards and the mandatory collection of personal data necessary for ensuring public health, like travel/itinerary information. The mighty contact tracing capability achieved by information technology is the key to the unparalleled anti-pandemic success on the Chinese mainland with its “dynamic zero infection” strategy.
There has been rarely any country or region that could have achieved this, not least Hong Kong and the Western world, where overriding importance is attached to “privacy” and “individual rights” even at the expense of public health or the well-being of the majority. Such an unjustifiable emphasis on “privacy” and “individual rights”, of course, is the product of narrow individualism and self-centered ideology championed by their supporters in the name of “human rights”, “freedom” or “constraining the power of the authority”. In a nutshell, Western individualism and Eastern collectivism have made a difference in the fight against COVID-19.
Hong Kong as a capitalist city unfortunately also bears the brunt of the overrated “individual rights” and “freedom”. Driven by their ideological bigotry, members of the so-called “yellow camp” have pulled out all stops to oppose every government initiative. Not only have they exaggerated the risks of vaccination through social media platforms and other channels, causing stagnation in vaccinations, particularly among the elderly, but they have also instigated opposition to anti-pandemic measures that require minimal concession of privacy or personal freedom. The exclusion of the contact-tracing function in the LeaveHomeSafe app, therefore, has thwarted the attempt to effectively trace all close contacts.
The arrival of the omicron strain, which is many times more contagious than the previous variants, has finally walloped Hong Kong’s half-baked contact-tracing system, resulting in a colossal volume of untraceable sources and transmission chains within the community.
The massive outbreak could have been averted if the SAR government had decisively imposed a citywide shutdown and mandatory universal testing to identify all carriers and cut off transmission chains within a short period of time. The SAR government had been reluctant to implement both measures, probably for fear of the impact on the economy and people’s livelihoods, the lack of capacity, and social opposition. And we are now left with even greater disruption and havoc.
The rampant spread of omicron in the community has left Hong Kong no option but the implementation of a mandatory universal virus-testing program or even the more-drastic citywide lockdown, or else the odds are slim for the city to locate all infection sources and effectively break the transmission chains. The collapse of the public health care system is a wake-up call for health experts and the local administration that extraordinary measures must be in place to combat the virulent strain. Hence, the government’s Tuesday decision to implement universal screening next month. Any strategy excluding citywide screening and effective isolation is tantamount to “living with the virus passively”.
If the mainland’s successful experience in fighting the virus is anything to go by, the odds that Hong Kong will contain the fifth-wave outbreak are still high if the SAR takes a leaf out of the mainland’s anti-pandemic book and puts into full use the mainland’s strong backing in various areas. A mandatory universal testing, or a citywide shutdown, may not be within Hong Kong’s capability.
The success of a mandatory testing program, along with a citywide lockdown, in some mainland cities is primarily attributed to the mobilization of resources from all sides, be they from nearby provinces or central authorities, to come to the rescue of the pandemic-stricken locality. This explains why President Xi Jinping did not take any chances when he saw the situation in Hong Kong spiraling out of control, but promptly instructed the central government and Guangdong province to aid Hong Kong in achieving “dynamic zero infection” within a short time.
Hong Kong now can only choose between two paths: the Chinese mainland model of “dynamic zero infection”, or the “living with the virus” model adopted by most other countries. The former demands strong political determination, mobilization of resources, public support, and robust digitalized governance. The latter is to continue to boost the vaccination rate in the hope that the vulnerable will eventually acquire immunity. The conditions for achieving herd immunity will be met when the vaccinated and natural-immunity groups reach a certain proportion of the population.
Hong Kong’s colonial legacy has engendered a widespread obsession with Western culture and ideologies, with many residents still blindly resisting the mainland’s anti-pandemic model despite its resounding success. Nonetheless, Hong Kong is an Oriental city dominated by Confucian culture, which attaches great emphasis to respect for human life and values every single life. The “living with the virus” approach, which sacrifices the vulnerable to achieve “herd immunity”, is obviously incongruent with the local cultural setting.
The author is a current-affairs commentator.