The Hong Kong government has asked pet owners and shops to hand over around 2,000 hamsters to be culled after 11 animals at a pet shop were categorised as preliminary positive for Covid-19. Two people connected to the shop had tested positive for Covid-19 at the time. The decision immediately sparked public outrage. Animal welfare groups are furious at what they call the Hong Kong government’s “drastic action”. This is not the first time the government has treated animals inhumanely. A few months ago, the government decided to cull wild boars that venture into urban areas. The mass cull of hamsters has gone down particularly badly with the public because the authorities admitted that the evidence that the hamsters are to blame is not clear, that there is no scientific literature confirming pets can transmit the virus to humans, and that the measure was a precautionary one. The Hong Kong government is not a pioneer here. In 2020, Denmark culled 17 million minks after a large number of cases were reported among people associated with the farms they are bred on. The country’s prime minister apologised and its agriculture minister resigned over the issue. It is difficult to understand why the Hong Kong government hasn’t learned from Denmark and is courting a public outcry. While the government’s hasty reaction could help protect Hongkongers’ health, officials must take into account the human-animal bond. Why not quarantine and test these animals? The government ought to reflect on its extreme policy towards animals. Dragon Lo Koon-kit, Sha Tin Covid-19 policymaking must factor in impact on poor It must be nice to be a government health adviser. You’re highly paid, in a secure job, and safe in the knowledge that your wealth will protect you from the worst impacts of strict pandemic measures. If research shows that plastic dividers being used in eateries could block ventilation, you can go on television and recommend that restaurants keep tables 1.5 metres apart instead. You don’t need to worry too much about small family-owned businesses built through blood, sweat and tears over the years, or the thousands whose livelihoods depend on these establishments. During school closures , the children of our health advisers and policymakers can study in their own bedrooms with the latest devices. What about the children living in subdivided flats without computers or even mobile phones for online learning? When playgrounds are roped off, where do these children play? What happens when their parents, who work in the small businesses affected by pandemic measures, lose their jobs? Our government health advisers look at epidemiology, but what about the mental health impact of rounding up swathes of the population and isolating them in hospital and quarantine centres. Fortunately for our policymakers, these impacts are harder to quantify statistically. Our city has 1.65 million people living below the poverty line before government intervention. Are our policymakers and health advisers thinking about them? David Brown, Discovery Bay Under zero-Covid, vaccination rate doesn’t seem to matter Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor recently asked, ‘Don’t we all want to see over 90 per cent of people getting vaccinated, which would help resume normal life, and create better conditions for reopening borders in the future?” However, with our present zero-Covid strategy, no matter how much of the population is vaccinated , a single untraceable case will bring the city to its knees. Does this sound like a new normal anyone wants to live in? There has been considerable discussion over whether opening the border with the mainland or the rest of the world is the right strategy. Any doubts regarding Hong Kong’s strategic priorities were clarified by health minister Sophia Chan Siu-chee on Sunday; even if infection rates are brought under control, social distancing measures will still not be fully lifted in early February to avoid jeopardising the mainland border opening. This is something which history and the current Covid-19 situation on the mainland shows is unlikely. Chan also made it clear that restrictions would be tightened in the future if cases re-emerged. There is no indication that a hypothetical 100 per cent vaccination rate would change this strategy one iota. Who knew a ‘dim sum ban’ was all it would take to get elderly vaccinated? Regardless of border openings, the right strategy for Hong Kong is certainly one where vaccinated residents who have done their civic duty can live their lives and send their children to school without fear of getting sent to quarantine, many simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If Hong Kong businesses cannot be assured of their future operations, particularly in those businesses where all patrons must be vaccinated, there is little light at the end of the tunnel. The government must concretely outline a way out of our present predicament, otherwise many businesses will never reopen, and countless people may soon leave the city. Liam Reeve, Central