Why is the fifth wave of COVID-19 still occurring in Hong Kong despite the “zero out” policy?
In the face of the fifth wave of COVID-19 outbreak, the controversy over “zero out” or “live with the virus” has entered Hong Kong.Many experts and opinion leaders believe that the situation in Hong Kong is out of control and the government can no longer stop the spread of the virus. Instead, it has to accept the reality and choose to “live with the virus” instead of “zero out”.Unfortunately, the debate between “dynamic zero” and “live with the virus” has already become an international political issue.Western media have repeatedly questioned China’s dynamic zero-out policy, citing its high economic and social costs, and whether it is successful and sustainable.The dispute has become a struggle over the merits and demerits of the system, the merits and demerits of the Chinese model and the western model of liberal democracy.From this background, it can be understood that the central media quickly spoke out against this controversy in Hong Kong, and the CHIEF Executive immediately expressed his firm position to maintain the “zero clearance” policy.In fact, for its own survival, Hong Kong must resume customs clearance with the mainland as soon as possible, and “zero clearance” is a basic requirement for customs clearance from the mainland.Hong Kong has no choice in this matter.Hong Kong needs to clear customs with the mainland as soon as possible by Feb 15. The first thing we need to know is what “zero clearance” and “coexistence” mean.”Coexistence” means to “lie down” and ignore the spread of the virus.Of course, “lying down” does not mean doing nothing, but other than encouraging vaccination, it basically stops active quarantine and other preventive measures to try to stop the spread of the virus as quickly as possible and accepts the consequences of its indiscriminate spread, including higher mortality rates.”Zero out” does not mean there will be no cases under the policy.To avoid this misunderstanding, “clearing” has been renamed “dynamic clearing”.In contrast to “lying down”, the dynamic zero-out strategy is to take active and strict measures to prevent the spread of the virus when there are cases.The two approaches of “zero clearance” and “coexistence” are completely different and there is no common ground. Unlike what Executive Council member Lam Cheng Choy said, we can seek “a balance point between ‘dynamic zero clearance’ and ‘coexistence'”.Any suggestion that confuses the difference between these two concepts does not contribute to an effective approach to the epidemic.Hong Kong officials do not understand some basic principles of dynamic zero clearance in Hong Kong, the controversy occurred in Hong Kong, Hong Kong’s unique political background and motivation, but also to a certain extent caused the failure of dynamic zero clearance policy in Hong Kong.Some social elites, such as former President of the Legislative Council Tsang Yok-sing, have unilaterally highlighted the differences and differences between Hong Kong and the mainland in their systems, people’s conditions and social conditions as reasons why some of the mainland’s epidemic prevention measures cannot or are not appropriate to be applied in Hong Kong.These sentiments were embodied in the refusal to introduce universal testing and the introduction of health codes that track individuals’ journeys and outbreaks to quickly identify cases, leaving a major hole in Hong Kong’s quarantine measures.Such thinking led to a rejection of some effective measures in the mainland, which led to Hong Kong’s substandard, half-assed and flawed approach to the outbreak.Staff register the subject for testing in Yuen Long.(File photo/Information Services Department of the Hong Kong Government) Another reason for the inaccuracy of the Hong Kong-style dynamic quarantine is that Hong Kong officials are basically unaware of some basic principles of the dynamic quarantine approach.Dynamic zero first requires fast response, to go in front of the virus, heavy hand, in order to stop its spread.Hong Kong, on the other hand, took the opposite attitude to minimize the scope and time of the impact. For example, due to the lack of cooperation of the Housing Department, it took more than half a day to seal off the infected buildings for testing. The testing scope was very limited and the methods were not rigorous, and failure was inevitable.For similar reasons, some officials misunderstand the epidemic prevention measures on the mainland. For example, they believe that the nationwide testing must be carried out together with the ban.Comparing the effectiveness of limited containment testing with voluntary testing has become a joke in the city, reflecting that they do not really understand the efficacy of these measures.Is more serious is that, in the current severe situation, the government has for detecting ability is insufficient, not for handling this problem quickly, but change the enclosed test conditions, relax over a case for a short time, to the building of performing enclosed test, it need to tighten the opposite with the current epidemic prevention measures, the outbreak is not further proliferation was surprising.The red dot refers to buildings that have been visited or lived in for the past 14 days. It is not a violation of the “one country, two systems” government’s quarantine efforts.The author does not agree with some conspiracy theories, and believes that the government’s dynamic zero clearance is an act of duplicity and duplicity, deliberately causing the epidemic situation in Hong Kong to get out of control. In the end, it has to follow the western approach, coexist with the virus, resume customs clearance with the West, and give up customs clearance with the mainland.I do not agree that epidemic prevention is a “one country” issue and the central government must intervene.By this logic, infectious diseases are a human problem, not just a “one nation” problem.The Hong Kong SAR government should be responsible for epidemic prevention, but there is nothing wrong with asking the central government for help when needed, and it does not violate one country, two systems.Executive Council member Tong Ka-wah said “it would be more likely to undermine one country, two systems if the mainland sent officers to Hong Kong to deal with the issue”.This means that seeking help from the central government undermines the superiority of Hong Kong’s “one system”.This baseless sense of superiority is also one of the causes of Hong Kong’s exhaustion.In addition to one-sided emphasis on the fact that Hong Kong’s civil and social conditions are different from those of the mainland and the promotion of the principle of “one country, two systems” to resist the serious implementation of epidemic prevention measures, the failure to maintain the “zero clearance” in Hong Kong is also due to the “gradualism” pursued by the government officials for a long time.This spirit of dealing with affairs may be a good tradition in a stable society and a peaceful world, but it is a fatal flaw in the face of major social unrest and shocks that require drastic action.Moreover, the government was complacent that the moderation of the first seven or eight months of last year would continue indefinitely on its own.This outbreak reflects the government’s utter lack of thought and preparation. Not only is there a serious lack of detection capacity, but the government’s lack of preparation in handling the surge in cases is also a major failure in governance.Hong Kong has entered a new stage of epidemic prevention and control, where the virus has spread throughout the territory. The existing dynamic zero-out approach of Hong Kong has become completely ineffective.How to identify all cases as soon as possible, and give effective isolation and management, is an urgent problem at present.There is no doubt that the Central Government will give full support to this. The key is whether Hong Kong can correct its attitude and thinking in dealing with epidemic prevention, effectively and timely use the assistance, so as to restore the “zero clearance” status as soon as possible, resume customs clearance with the mainland without isolation, and discuss how to relax the measures of customs clearance with the mainland.Hong Kong must not lose faith in itself that it can.Source | in this paper, starting the Ming pao, net release authorization observer.