-
Advertisement
Coronavirus pandemic
OpinionLetters

Letters | Coronavirus outbreak needs Hong Kong to take decisive action, face masks included

  • Despite the absence of binding WHO norms, the Hong Kong government should coordinate the supply and distribution of masks centrally and take further steps to control the spread of the virus

Reading Time:2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
People wearing protective face masks stand in front of a screen broadcasting a speech by Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam on January 31. Photo: AP
Letters

The epidemiological triangle of host, agent and environment could help people understand how to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. An infectious agent must be capable of infecting a host, who then develops an infection. This also depends on whether the environment is favourable for its survival and transmission, and the susceptibility of the host.

Wearing a mask can protect the host from being infected. Controlling the movement of the population to and from areas which have had serious outbreaks would halt the spread of the infectious agent. And the environment would then be less conducive to the transmission of infection (“Coronavirus: Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam declares further border shutdowns to keep out infection”, February 3).
As Hong Kong is facing a shortage of face masks, the government should coordinate the supply and distribution of masks centrally during the period of emergency. This would alleviate public panic and ensure more equitable distribution.

The biggest challenge for public health practice is that some of the most important public health measures have to be taken outside the health sector by those responsible for economic and social policy, such as politicians, educators, industrialists and economists. Ensuring an adequate supply of face masks is a good example of this. Therefore, the government needs to take on a decisive role at this critical moment.

The World Health Organisation has declared an international public health emergency but has not issued a travel ban. One ought to understand that the WHO constitution sets out separate processes for the negotiation of agreements or treaties on one hand and regulations on the other. Over the last six decades, only three internationally binding treaties have been adopted.

Under most circumstances, the WHO tends to make use of scientific evidence and professional solutions relating to many deep-seated global health problems by adopting “soft” laws in the forms of guidelines or recommendations, instead of hard, binding international agreements involving interstate negotiation. This allows member states to adopt and adapt according to local circumstances.

Some scholars have criticised the WHO’s reluctance to create binding norms. Soft law leaves application of the recommendations to the discretion of policymakers. Decision-makers should adopt fair procedures that are reasonable and appropriate to the particular circumstances, so any fair-minded person informed of the circumstances would arrive at a similar decision.

Advertisement

Facing the serious threat of potential massive outbreaks of infectious diseases, and before a breakthrough in treatment and vaccine development, all effective measures should be given adequate consideration notwithstanding cost-effectiveness.

Albert Lee, professor in Public Health and Primary Care; director, Centre for Health Education and Health Promotion; Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin

Advertisement
Advertisement
Select Voice
Choose your listening speed
Get through articles 2x faster
1.25x
250 WPM
Slow
Average
Fast
1.25x