Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@scmp.com or filling in this Google form . Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification. Early this year, the Hong Kong government advised people to surrender their pet hamsters to be euthanised after several hamsters tested positive for coronavirus, due to the possibility of animal-to-human transmission. The decision was met with immense public outrage. Upset pet owners and animal welfare groups condemned the government for not taking animal welfare and the human-animal bond into consideration. Culling animals as a Covid prevention measure is controversial. In Denmark, the prime minister apologised and dropped plans for a mass cull of mink to curb the spread of coronavirus. In one city in China, the authorities recently axed a plan to kill all pets belonging to Covid-19 patients following an outcry. Recently, the Hong Kong government introduced amendments to the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance (Cap 599) and Prevention and Control of Disease Regulation (Cap 599A), making it compulsory for owners to surrender “an article”, which includes an animal, upon direction by a health officer, and enhancing the penalty for non-compliance, which would now attract a fine up to HK$10,000 and imprisonment not exceeding six months. While it is right to legislate to prevent a public health hazard, the Hong Kong government should do more work to balance different interests before arriving at a proportionate and prudent decision. To reassure the public, the government must be slow to invoke its power to kill, and base its decision on scientific evidence . If there is no evidence of pet-to-human transition, the government should avoid ordering a kill. Moreover, the government should respect life, and reflect on whether the word “article” is an appropriate noun for animals. Also, it needs to consider the closeness of the bond between animal and owner. Some people treat domestic animals like family members, so when it comes to these animals, the government should be particularly careful. Even if it is proven that animals play a role in transmission of a virus to human beings, the government must still properly balance different interests and consider other humane alternatives, rather than rush to the extreme decision to kill. For example, if quarantining animals is viable and the risk to human beings is minimal, then that option must prevail over the decision to kill. Dragon Lo Koon-kit, Sha Tin Greater clarity needed on Covid deaths The purported high number of deaths from Covid-19 in Hong Kong is causing a great deal of fright. That fright is causing the government to pursue a policy to stamp out Covid-19 at all costs. People are starving in Shanghai . But when you look at how the conclusion was drawn that Hong Kong has the highest percentage of Covid deaths in the world, the situation is confusing and absurd. Hong Kong seems to have recorded anyone who was Covid-positive at the time of death as having died from Covid-19. This is an absurd equivocation between causality and correlation. According to some reports, 24.7 per cent of men in Hong Kong suffer from hair loss. That means almost a quarter of the men who die each year in Hong Kong are going to be balding. By our current Covid logic, 24.7 per cent of those deaths were from balding. It seems we should start pursuing a zero-balding strategy. Given the policy ramifications of Covid death data, it is imperative for the Hong Kong authorities to clarify their data. They must tell us exactly how many deaths were actually caused by Covid and how that number compares to the rest of the world before we starve people to death. Huan Liu, Sham Tseng Banning flights unnecessary and unfair The Hong Kong government recently ended the flight ban on nine countries but insists on arbitrarily banning individual flights, causing lots of heartache, stress, complications and unnecessary costs. I flew to Britain in February for a family funeral and to visit sick relatives. In March, the Hong Kong government extended the flight ban which forced me to book a “washout” period in a third country, complete with additional costs and complications. The ban was finally revoked and I was able to book another flight to Hong Kong. The other day, I was booked on an Emirates flight to Hong Kong and at 6am received a message saying the flight was cancelled. I had already paid for train tickets to London, one night at a hotel and an early morning PCR test and a taxi ride to the centre at some considerable cost. Since flights are banned for a week, I need to rebook the flights and the quarantine hotel in Hong Kong, which is next to impossible or extremely expensive. If only the government would let us isolate at home. Now I am forced to buy another expensive train ticket, find somewhere to stay and pay for another PCR test. I am also missing important deadlines and family matters. Other people I have talked to said this was the fourth time it had happened to them. One friend has been stuck in the UK since November as her flight has been cancelled multiple times. Why does the Hong Kong government insist on causing hardship and stress to Hongkongers? Keeping citizens overseas for extended periods is simply unfair. It is time to adopt a more flexible policy and let Hongkongers return home. Cecilia Li, Fanling
