Back

Note: This article represents the view of the author and not the University of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has already been wrecked havoc by atypical pneumonia for over a month. The general public is now desperately scared and helpless, because its mysterious transmission allows no full-proof precaution. After the outbreak at Amoy Garden, people started to fear that the virus would spread across housing estates. In avoidance of an immense public panic overwhelming the community, some academic proclaimed that the crisis would be under control in 2 weeks, whereas some believed that the epidemic would last for months, and the number of infected cases could climb to two to three thousand. We citizens are left in a muddle, not knowing what to believe. Besides, there is also a saying that atypical pneumonia is not even as deadly as common pneumonia, citing the death toll of the latter in 2001 being 2,991, with a mortality rate of 12%, and predominated by the elderly of age over 65. Atypical pneumonia, it said, has only a mortality rate of 3%. The author understands the good intention behind this theory, yet could not agree with such an assertion. For instance, as of April 16, there were a total of 1,268 infected cases accumulated, of which 257 recovered and have been discharged from the hospitals, whilst 61 died. Dividing 61 by 1,268, the death rate would have been 4.8%, which is close to 3%. However, a majority of the 1,268 patients are still under treatment, which means some of them could end up incurable and die from the disease. On the other hand, if the death rate is calculated as 61 divided by 318 (257 plus 61), the outcome would be 19%. Nevertheless, it could still be problematic because the treatment takes time, and some of the deceased patients might have been admitted later than those recovered ones. In other words, the 61 deaths and the 257 recovered patients might not have come from the same infected group. Should we wait for the 1,268 infected patients to recover, or die, in order to work out the death rate? But then, it would be not responsive enough to the pressing situation.

Fundamentally speaking, the problem stems from the insufficiency of relevant statistics and our limited knowledge of the disease's mode of transmission, such that the biasness of the figures could not be assessed, and the time factor of the infected group mentioned above could not be adjusted. Making a rigid comparison between the death rates of atypical pneumonia and common pneumonia, or with that of traffic accidents, is rather meaningless, because figures of the latter are fairly stable, whereas those of the former are not. For example, it would not make sense to compare the annual death toll of traffic accidents with that of atypical pneumonia simply because we do not have one year's data for the latter. It is highly risky to predict any future development based on the ups and downs obtained in just a few days, since the changes within these figures could be somewhat random in nature. The core issue lies in our understanding of the disease, which is not yet comprehensive enough. For instance, knowing that the elderly and people with chronic diseases are the highly endangered ones among the infected group, and taking into consideration the very packed living environment in Hong Kong, do they have a higher chance to be infected? The incident of Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate clearly revealed this potential hazard. It could be anticipated that, should more of these people be infected, the death rate would certainly be pushed up. Besides, recent figures have suggested that younger people without chronic diseases are also under certain fatality risk. This is particularly so for the residents of Amoy Garden, some said the virus spreading over the area might have already mutated into an abnormally furious kind. It thus seems that the calculation of mortality rate is still subject to many undecided factors, and it seems impossible for us to draw a reliable conclusion at this stage.

For now, the future development of the epidemic is unpredictable, and the author would not discuss here on how much Long Yongtu, Secretary-General of Boao Forum for Asia (former Vice Minister of Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation), treasures human life. According to Long, the 300 odd infected cases are merely a minority among the population of 6 millions or more. Has he overlooked the fact that these cases could probably be the starting point of a geometric growth? Surrounded by such diverse versions of the figures and predications, we would understandably be more alert and watchful; nonetheless, we must remain rational. Thus, when Dr Tse Lai-yin, Consultant of the Department of Health, declared that she was willing to move into Block E of Amoy Garden, people could not help but cast doubt on whether such a remark was made out of policy line. She failed to convince people that Amoy Garden was safe. Objective poof is what people ask for. On the other hand, we must also rationally accept the limitations of the objective situation and avoid being misled by biased figures. What we can do now is to follow the professional advice of experts, and put our trust in the local medical system. After all, the average life span of Hong Kong people is among the highest in the world, and our risk of getting sick has been gradually declining over the years. However, owing to pollutions and a stressful lifestyle, new risks have emerged. We have no alternative but to face the truth.

Finally, let us hope that the professionals and health-care workers could successfully find the remedy to defeat the virus soon, and the government would heighten its transparency in order to let people perform their own risk assessments in different aspects. What's more, we ardently hope that our government would strike a right balance between taking disturbing or scaring measures to combat the disease, bearing in mind that scaring people entails higher a social cost than merely disturbing them. Confronted by the vulnerability of life, have we also questioned ourselves the true merits and meaning of life itself?