The threat to public health posed by antibiotic-resistant superbug infections is one of the most serious facing the world today. It has already killed hundreds of patients in our city's hospitals. Figures revealed by this newspaper show that Hong Kong has a problem which requires urgent attention.
Later this week, the Hospital Authority will make these statistics public for the first time. This is a belated but significant step forward, as transparency is the key to curbing the number of infections. But it is only part of the answer. A more intensive campaign is needed to drastically reduce infection rates. The figures show that last year the city's public hospitals reported 651 cases of bloodstream infections of the most common of these bugs - methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The figure is described as alarming by Professor Ho Pak-leung, head of the University of Hong Kong's Centre of Infection, who called for a swift response to the problem.
The authority needs to be more open about the number of deaths from MRSA. Ho says that assuming a fatality rate of one third - which is not inconsistent with a figure for 2008 found in a document on the authority website - more than 200 died last year. Not only is that a lot, Ho said, but 'these deaths were potentially preventable'. If this is so, it is not acceptable in a city that prides itself on its health system.
Hong Kong is not alone in facing this problem. It can draw favourable comparisons with many other countries in its attempts to combat it. The benefits of full exposure - and a stronger response to the threat - are also to be found overseas. Before 2005 British officials and health professionals were resigned to drug-resistant infections being so common there was not much to be done about them. Then a series of scathing reports on hospital infection rates forced them to launch an intensive campaign to combat them, resulting in MRSA bloodstream infections falling 70 per cent in five years.
So what has gone wrong in Hong Kong, which has been unable to sustain an initial drop of 10 per cent in infections in the 15 hospitals that handle acute cases after they were first tracked in 2007? Officials cite competing priorities like staffing, infrastructure and swine flu. It sounds more like a failure to prioritise and the lack of sense of urgency. It can't, surely, be due to a lack of money.
If the authority is to achieve its target of a 34 per cent reduction on 2007 drug-resistant infection levels, it should start by being more open about the figures. Concerns that people might then be afraid to go into hospitals underestimate the public's intelligence. Ignorance and misconceptions are greater worries. If officials still need convincing, full transparency would help drive home the dangers of overuse and abuse of antibiotics, the root cause of drug resistance.