Blog Archives

Walter's Blog

Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument.

"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review

17/2/2020 2 Comments

An Ode to Two Cities.

My old friend Alan Bennett agreed to present this piece on the BBC. In case you missed it.

2 Comments

15/2/2020 0 Comments

A Victory for Free Speech

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

With the above-unpublished introduction to George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the Honourable Mr Justice Julian Knowles opened his judgement in Harry Miller vs the Humberside Police. The police must have known a judicial kicking was coming.

Then Justice Knowles puts the boot in “We have never had a Gestapo or a Stasi in Great Britain, but the actions of Humberside Police came way too close”. With that statement he cuts to the bone to expose everything that’s gone wrong with policing in Britain.

Once an international benchmark for excellence, a woke-driven mission drift, means in several aspects of policing they’ve lost their way.

I saw seeds of this in the mid-1990s. Attending command courses in the UK, I’m introduced to a move away from action on crime towards consultation with ‘the community’. Nothing wrong with that, except when a ‘community’ has an agenda outside of policing. The signs were there of less crime-fighting and more massaging sentiments to assuage ‘stake-holders’.

Here senior police commanders is a valuable lesson. When you drift away from your core law-bound duties to start dabbling in ‘thought-crimes’ the whole ship can run aground. Further, the Police College, a private company, is dictating policy without broad public consultation or proper political oversight.

This approach gives leverage to the crazies. After all, it’s the radicals who will spare the time and energy to drive their message home. Meanwhile, the silent majority don’t get a look in.

The evidence is compelling. UK policing priorities are hostage to a minority of grievance warriors and a cohort of the intersectional-woke. Thus, the police embarked down a road that takes them away from enforcing the letter of the law. Along the way, they’ve become the bully boys of radicals. And, in the process, they’ve adopted the symbols and tropes of these groups.

Some of this nonsense comes attributed to an over-correction for past failings. The Stephen Lawrence case and other instances of willful police blindness prompted much soul-searching. Humberside Police cited the Lawrence case in this matter.

They feared, wrong in the Judge’s view, that by debating whether someone with a penis can be a woman, Mr Miller may incite a murder. Of course, Humberside Police’s position is utter bilge-water and exposes their irrational thinking.

The judgement is well worth a read. Justice Knowles addresses many issues that arise in the freedom of speech debate. But a bit of background first.

Harry Miller is an ex-police officer, who now runs a business in Lincolnshire. In January 2019, Constable Mansoor Gul, a community cohesion officer from Humberside Police called at Mr Miller’s place of work. Mr Miller was absent. Later, the two had a telephone conversation.

Constable Gul cited 30 tweets from Mr Miller, asserting these are potentially offensive. He singled out a retweeted limerick, which questioned whether transgender women are biological women. It included the lines: “Your breasts are made of silicone, your vagina goes nowhere.”

Acting on a complaint, and even though no crime took place, Constable Gul allegedly stated: “We need to check your thinking”. Let that sink in for a moment. When Mr Miller expressed shock that Constable Gul would be making such utterances, matters got worse.

“I’ve been on a course and what you need to understand is that you can have a foetus with a female brain that grows male body parts and that’s what a transgender person is.” offered Gul. Something has gone wrong with police training if this is true.

Thus, although no crime took place, nor charges laid or without giving Mr Miller a day in court, sharing the limerick went down as a ‘hate incident’. In the process, Mr Millar is labelled ‘a suspect’ in police records for a crime that didn’t happen.

Now, this process has potential consequences for his future employment, vetting and background checks. Therefore, Mr Miller is de-facto guilty of a crime without a crime occurring nor a court hearing. The comparisons to the Gestapo are apt.

Mr Millar fought back, making the matter public through the media. This earned him a rebuke from an Assistant Chief Constable, who described Mr Miller’s tweets as ‘transphobic’. He mentioned possible escalation. These points are all thrown out by the court.

The Judge was far from impressed with Constable Gul. He didn’t understand his powers plus gave confusing evidence. Although, he accepted the view that Gul could act under common law to prevent escalation to a crime.

That the perception was wrong and unsustainable, points to Constable Gul’s manifest failings. Instead of courses in pseudo-biology, Gul should attend ‘critical thinking’ classes.

In the end, the Judge asserted the public are free to debate issues, even fraught subjects such as transgenderism. In summing up, he affirmed that ‘what Mr Miller wrote was lawful’. Further, and I paraphrase, ‘that someone may take offence is neither here or there, and certainly not a matter for the police. Thus, Humberside Police disproportionally interfered with Mr Miller’s right to freedom of speech.

We must applaud Mr Miller; his brave conduct exposed the Orwellian behaviour of Humberside Police. Unfortunately, it’s the tip of the iceberg. Over the past five years, police in England and Wales have investigated 120,000 ‘non-crime hate incidents’.

This is a scandalous waste of police resources when crime is rampant. Also, it begs the question, how many careers blunted or jobs denied because of these irregular practices?

Humberside Police are not some rogue example. Don’t forget Glasgow Police telling people to avoid being unkind on Twitter, lest they risk getting a ‘visit from us this weekend’. Or South Gwent Police warning people that mocking a drug dealer’s unfortunate haircut might be illegal.

And while Mr Miller failed in his bid to bring scrutiny to the Police College guidelines, that matter is far from over. He now goes to appeal. Anyone wishing to support this may do so through this website.

British policing, once the hallmark of excellence, has fallen a long way. I remember with warmth, my exceptional instructors and the many dedicated sensible front-line officers I met. I remain in contact with a few. They are horrified by the diktats of their woke leaders, yet afriad to speak out. Any non-conformist opinions are unwelcome and speaking the truth is career destroying.

British policing at its best, when operating within the law, with rationality, fair-mindedness and good humour, excels. Regrettably, as this case has shown, rationality falters, and the law is forfeit when bonkers agendas dominate. Harry Miller, in his press statement, made the point well.

“This is a watershed moment for liberty. The police were wrong to visit my workplace, wrong to check my thinking, wrong in their attempt force feed me the Stonewall - now the Labour Party - Trans rights pledge.

Humberside said they were following the Guidelines and The College of Police agreed. None of that matters. The College of Policing is a private company that issues guidance with all the legal weight of a Delia Smith Cook Book or an Owen Jones rant. Miller versus Humberside serves as a rallying cry: Women, comedians, students... even you politicians. Rediscover what it’s like to think, then, go forth and tweet without fear.

0 Comments

10/2/2020 0 Comments

This was no Black Swan!

"After SARS in 2003, we heard a great deal of fine rhetoric about preparedness. The refrain ‘we will be ready next time’ echoed everywhere."

Do we have enough body bags ready? Where do we keep the bodies, have we enough refrigeration? What is our capacity for cremation or burial? Can we mandate cremation instead if burial? That’s a small sample of the robust, somewhat unpalatable questions emergency planners should be asking.

I’m not suggesting that the current crisis is heading to mass deaths, but we’ve had a glimpse of what happens when preparedness is inadequate. How many masks and sets of ‘personal protective equipment’ did Hong Kong hold in reserve? Any idea? Well, the latest estimates suggest the hospitals run out within a week.

With a population of about seven million and assuming each person uses two a day, that’s 14 million masks a day or 98 million masks a week. Is it realistic to hold such stocks?

These are issues that need addressing. Because it’s embarrassing, to say the least when the government has to ask citizens for details of suppliers.

After SARS in 2003, we heard a great deal of fine rhetoric about preparedness. The refrain ‘we will be ready next time’ echoed everywhere. And, in truth, we learnt some lessons as SARS triggered policy and operational changes. Significantly, the government created the Center for Health Protection.

Yet, as recent events prove, there is abundant evidence of gaps in our response. But, while politicians grab headlines with claims that Hong Kong’s emergency planning has failed, the reality is more sanguine.

On the other hand, when the history of Hong Kong and the Wuhan Virus is written, no one can claim a ‘black swan’ event. Although, the charge of a collective failure of imagination is possible despite the warning of SARS 2003.

Hong Kong’s geographical position puts us at risk from typhoons, flooding and infectious diseases. Add to that our dense urban area, the sheer numbers of people here, and all those risks multiple. In recent decades high profile emergencies included the SARS outbreak, landslides, the Lamma Island Ferry sinking, and the Lan Kwai Fong stampede.

During my 35 years of service, I experienced many emergencies first-hand. That includes SARS, four plane crashes and riots. Believe me when I say ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’. Besides, no single drill nor exercise fully prepares you for the real thing.

Although, if done well, these get pretty close at times. And yet, without contingency plans and drills, the response could be much worse because flying by the ‘seat of your pants’ is a recipe for disaster.

The Security Bureau anchors Hong Kong’s emergency preparedness, encompassing all the major government agencies. Also, it takes in a range of volunteer and private organisations that provide expertise, equipment or manpower. This network aims to protect people from physical, psychosocial, and financial harm.

According to the Security Bureau, a disaster is ‘a serious disruption of life, probably arising with little or no warning, that causes or threatens death or injury on a scale exceeding the normal response required of the public emergency services’.

I know all these agencies maintain comprehensive plans that cover responses, training and drills. Moreover, the skills of the frontline staff are commensurate with expected duties. In short, Hong Kong has robust plans, excellent people and thus a strong capacity to respond. But it’s not enough.

That Hong Kong didn’t stock-pile enough masks and ‘personal protection equipment’ is an indication of a weakness in the system. While these deficiencies are visible to the public, prompting panic buying, less obvious are the cracks elsewhere. Short drills, unrealistic exercises, weak planning and poor leadership, are also factors.

Contingency plans need teaching and then simulation at regular intervals. Further, these simulations — drills and exercises — need to be realistic.

Only then can people and processes face exact scrutiny. That includes all aspects of leadership, organisational capacity and decision-making.

A 2016 study and survey on ‘Disaster Preparedness in Hong Kong’, funded by the Jockey Club, threw up concerns. The study cited a pressing need for field-based training and practice in inter-agency coordination. It also noted a lack of multi-hazard drills, planning for prolonged disasters and low-probability, high-stakes events.

What’s more, in recent times, I saw a creeping reluctance to conduct drills and exercises. At times managers adopted a ‘going through the motions’ attitude. Distracted by the ‘day-to-day’ fire-fighting of their roles, some lapsed into seeing such exercises as an unwelcome distraction.

Likewise, I agree a dearth in inter-agency training covering multi-hazard drills is an issue. Most exercises are single-issue based scenarios with a limited time-frame. I never saw an activity run beyond three days. Without a drawn-out plot, we fail to stress-test systems and decision-making when people are tired.

Essential to success is effective public communication during emergencies. This daunting task is made much tougher these days by the spread of fake news and social media chatter shaping people’s perceptions. On this front, as with the recent protests, the government is sub-par.

In a crowded field of misinformation from social media, a slick, agile PR machine is a must. Yet, the Hong Kong government is still running analogue while the world has gone digital. Dull press conferences and written press releases count for nothing in the cyber age.

Yet active community engagement is essential to raise awareness. People need to understand risks, improve preparedness, and receive guidance. Such a pro-active approach can counter misleading social-media chatter that prompts people to take rash actions.

Crucially, drills and exercises must simulate real events as near as possible. A suite of options is available that may train, test and prepare people. These include:

Walkthrough drills and briefings. These are an ideal introduction, but far from enough.
Computer-based simulations. Again, a useful training tool with limitations.
Table-top exercises. These are excellent for testing senior decision-makers.
Partial Exercise. These test one element of a contingency plan. If these are run real-time, on the ground, the opportunities to improve are excellent.
Full exercise. These stimulate all aspects of a contingency plan across many agencies. Such practices are the best option to stress-test systems and people.

In support of this are many excellent tried and tested tools. Red-teaming is superb at finding weaknesses in plans, then helping to shape drills to achieve near-realistic conditions. Likewise, scenario planning will take preparations to a new level of sophistication.

Both red-teaming and scenario planning overcome the ‘group-think’ that can dog the process of risk assessment. Most importantly, these processes can throw in an element of surprise that brings out learning points.

Regular audits of equipment, including stocks of back-up supplies, are also essential. In a crisis, suppliers, especially from overseas, have their priorities and aren’t reliable. We’ve seen that.

Last but not least, thorough ‘after-action reviews’ are crucial — an honest assessment with specific recommendations that drive the changes that bring improvements.

Unfortunately, drills and contingency planning cannot overcome the shortfall in leadership we’ve seen from Carrie Lam. Contrast her dismal lacklustre performance to that of the Singapore government leaders. Her inability to project confidence, seeds doubt in the public’s mind.

All I’d say is that competent leadership below her, adequately trained and tested, will offset manifest failings at the top. At the very least, she needs to recognise that and ask the tough questions of her subordinates.

Amid the current crisis, with minds distracted and energy focused elsewhere, it’s not appropriate to kick off a review. Doubtless in time matters will settle. Then the opportunity will arise for careful reflection because the threats aren’t going away.

0 Comments

5/2/2020 0 Comments

The Cure May Kill

"Never forget that Hong Kong’s economic lifeblood is the constant flow of people, services and capital to the Mainland."

Is Hong Kong in the grip of collective madness? People are feigning death on public transport, in an attempt to pressure the government. As if we don’t have enough hyperventilating with queues for face-masks and a run on hand disinfectant.

Hysteria is the real virus. The infection soon evolves into an epidemic of xenophobia, racist stereotyping and discrimination.

To add to the fun, some medical staff are on strike. Members of a new union want a complete border shutdown. Dropping any sense of common decency, they are using the sick as a weapon. This strike has nothing to do with genuine concerns over public health. Instead, it’s a naked political initiative, an adjunct to the rioting and unrest we’ve experienced.

Seizing the opportunity of the virus outbreak, the Pan-Dems are causing the most considerable embarrassment to Carrie Lam. On the back of their district council election success, they’ve formed federations in various trades aimed at platforms for activism.

This approach mimics the ‘united front’ tactics of the pro-government lobby. It’s telling that commanding the new medical union is an ex-Cathay Pacific stewardess, who faced dismissal last year for her militant behaviour.

Whether this ethically dubious strike action will succeed is doubtful. The strikers are in the minority as the bulk of decent civic-minded doctors and nurses are reporting for duty. To them leveraging the suffering of the old and the sick to a political end is despicable.

On a more sinister note, a bombing campaign is underway. Last night (February 4) a bomb detonated in a public library toilet. Over the weekend, similar devices at Lo Wu station caused rail disruptions. Fortunately, we’ve had no injuries.
What is clear from all this is the deep well of mistrust, bordering on hatred, of the government.

At this time, no doubt, some are keen to exploit the unfolding crisis to drive a deeper wedge between Hong Kong and Beijing. In the process, they’re stoking xenophobia that in any other society would be found unconscionable.

Yet, in the bizarre context of modern Hong Kong, such blind prejudice is the norm. It’s as if people here, with self-assigned victimhood, wrap themselves in bitterness and faux suffering. Plus, all their woes are attributed to the Mainland.

But, very few overseas people make the distinction between Hong Kongers and the Mainlanders. Right now, with people of Chinese race suffering isolation and prejudice abroad, locals are feeding a beast that will, in turn, bite them. Before long, those disagreeable sentiments must come home. See how you like it then.

The xenophobia sits at odds with the story of Hong Kong’s economic rise and success. The hard truth is that Hong Kong and the Mainland are in a symbiotic relationship. No China, no prosperous Hong Kong — simple as that.

Never forget that Hong Kong’s economic lifeblood is the constant flow of people, services and capital to the Mainland. Thus the closure of the border — partial or otherwise — must have a severe economic impact.

The tourist industry is already in dire straits. Reports suggest as many of 40% in that sector face redundancy, with a knock-on impact across support industries to follow. Cathay Pacific is sending staff on unpaid leave.

With a panicked public staying at home, our vast food and beverage industry is next to take a hit. This industry has one outlet for every 300 people, one of the highest ratios in the world. Closures with layoffs are inevitable.

It’s striking that the people demanding a total border closure operate under the misconception that Hong Kong can stand alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. As 90% of our food supply gets imported, we are, in the parlance of the emergency planners — ‘food-vulnerable’.

Sixty-five years ago, we could provide two-thirds of our consumed vegetables. Today the figure is 2%. China produces the bulk of our meat and vegetables, while most fruit arrives from Thailand or the Philippines. This dependence exposes us to existential threats, such as price fluctuations or drops in supply.

No less important, we rely on the Mainland for a good part of our electricity and water supply. In a good year, with substantial rainfall, Hong Kong could survive on local capacity. That’s assuming rationing and supply controls. The easy access to freshwater would evaporate.

On the power front, Hong Kong’s electric grid interlinks with Shenzhen, with supplies moving either way as demand dictates. At certain times of the day and year, Hong Kong relies on the Mainland for about half of its electricity.

We take natural gas piped in from Hainan to fire up generators that provide about a quarter of our electricity supply. Another quarter comes from the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station. The rest is from imported coal.

In 2014, during Occupy, resentment circulated online in China over the treatment of Mainlanders here. Calls to cut off the water and power enjoyed some support. To be clear, Beijing has never threatened to pull the plug on water, food, or electricity. The leaders in Beijing are too politically astute.

Unfortunately, the activists in Hong Kong, who appear hellbent on isolation, don’t have that savvy. Listening to them, the consequences are irrelevant. It reinforces my long-held view that the often predicted ‘end of Hong Kong’ would not come at the hands of Beijing.

Instead, the local people will ring the death-knell as they claim to protect this place. With judgement clouded by deep-seated anxieties, they see the Mainland in the most sinister light. This fear has plausible roots, given the scars of SARS and China’s recent history, but it is overblown.

Nobody should doubt that Beijing wishes for Hong Kong to succeed. There is no upside for them if this place goes under. Conversely, the inconvenient truth remains that in seeking to wrest some control from Beijing, people face an opponent who only acts on its terms.

Having said that, Hong Kong holds some cards. These advantages stand true even as Hong Kong’s importance in the national GDP figures slips from about 20% in 1997 to some 2% today. This raw data only tells a partial story. Beneath the surface, the skills, knowledge and hard-earned capital of Hong Kong entrepreneurs drove China’s advance.

Even so, events on the Mainland will dictate Hong Kong’s future. A harsh reality of geography and resources dependency mandate this outcome.

Nonetheless, it is my firm belief that the freedoms that Hong Kong takes for granted can be held secure against the systems and mindset that prevails on the Mainland.

If rational minds prevail, accommodation is possible within the ‘one-country, two-systems’ concept. After, all, the shadow of the future is long, and it arrives in 2047.

Finally, can someone cut Hong Kong some slack? If we survive the triple whammy of a US/China trade war, social unrest and the Wuhan virus, even a rationalist like me may burn a joss stick or two.

Walter's Plank of the Week

On a lighter note, I announce Walter’s inaugural ‘Plank of the Week’ award. This week it is a toss-up between the Hong Kong Labour Department and Metallicman.

Contender One :

A Labour Department advisory stated domestic helpers should spend their rest day at home to help contain the Wuhan virus. Odd that no similar condition gets imposed on their employers. Moreover, this amounts to a de-facto cancelling of the Amah’s rest day. Sitting around a home, most will be obliged to work. But the Labour Department still thought it acceptable to send the Amah to the market or to have them line-up for face-masks. Plus, this advice contradicts the guidance of the Centre for Disease Control. Another example of government buffoons not thinking or communicating.

Contender Two:

Metallicman in a blog has written a lengthy piece on the Wuhan virus. Let me summarise; the US is using drones to spread the virus across China. Before reading it, please fit your tinfoil hat and play the theme from the X-Files.

The Winner:

Metallicman for the sheer audacity of his blog. His liberal use of stills from disaster movies and abundant ‘facts’ lend the piece some authentic qualities. That is until you scratch the surface. He can collect his award at the top of Violet Hill on Friday, February 7, at 1500 hours. I’ll post pictures next week.

0 Comments

2/2/2020 2 Comments

Fear is the path to the dark side.

"There is no point arguing the facts with people who’ve dug their trench in a field of falsehoods."

In the words of Carl Sagan: “Wherever we have strong emotions, we are liable to fool ourselves.” Thus it seems to me, in the blind rush not to die coughing up our guts, have we abandoned rationality?

Because it looks like the ongoing coronavirus saga has, once again, exposed our human foibles and irrational behaviour. They’ve even shut-down the Mark Six lottery!

Meanwhile, in the process, the coronavirus is seeding a new set of conspiracy theories. Amongst my favourites is the claim that 5G caused the virus, that the beverage Red Bull is a vector, and drinking bleach is a cure. Please don’t drink bleach; it may kill you. Neither is a potion of cow urine recommended.

This nonsense is all part of the same process that generates the ‘flat-earthers’, a belief in spoon-benders and gay frogs — check that out. At times it’s entertaining; thus, we tolerate it. Then, when this craziness feeds into anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, we must confront it.

To illustrate the issue, the HPV vaccine prevents five per cent of cancers worldwide. That’s a lot of cancer stopped in its tracks. In the USA, estimates suggest that the vaccine could prevent 92 % of HPV related diseases. That’s hundreds of thousands of young people spared, with massive emotional and financial benefits for the community.

Then come along a few influential opinion-leaders — either ill-informed or conspiracy nut-jobs asserting the vaccine is dangerous. Next, people hesitate to vaccinate.

The World Health Organisation identified this ‘hesitancy’ amongst the top 10 threats to public health. Moreover, this is not taking place in backward places with uneducated populations.

This behaviour comes from wealthy middle-class communities feeding off a few repeated falsehoods recycled through social media.

All of a sudden people feel empowered enough to argue with experts. The fact that a medical doctor spends decades studying an issue gets dismissed. When the experts fight back with facts, the other side has two options; either change their opinion or deny. And guess what happens in most instances? Yep, people deny the evidence.

They’ll trawl the Internet searching for information to affirm their belief. Without a doubt, people tend to gravitate towards and accept claims that support their pre-existing ideas. This ‘motivated reasoning’ is well documented.

People hold an opinion and want it to be accurate; thus, when confronted with contrary evidence, they’ll gather more stuff to affirm the belief. Next, repudiate anything to the opposite.

Even a burnished partial truth may face extrapolation to suit a belief. This psychological process, driven by our narcissistic traits, is intoxicating at times. The mantra is ‘I know something that others don’t know’.

To no one’s surprise, research shows a correlation between religious cults and adherence to conspiracy theories. Furthermore, in the modern world, as religion retreats from prominence, some people hook into conspiracy theories as a substitute. Yet, this anchor won’t hold in the soft soil of misleading information.

Further complicating matters for those seeking to untangle these falsehoods, is the idea that a ‘web of belief’ shapes our thinking. All our beliefs come interconnected, acting in mutual support.

If you believe China is an evil empire, then you are more likely to agree the coronavirus is man-made in a secret military lab.

The process is especially intriguing when significant events take place. Those that hold the belief that 9/11 was an inside job, will shape everything they perceive to support that argument.

They’ll give credence to people of the same views while questioning in a disparaging tone the reasoning of others citing opposing evidence. Often, when the facts are robust and hard to refute, they’ll then attack motives. ‘I know what I know, why are you questioning me?’

Likewise, people reject mundane explanations because complicated and exotic theories enjoy more traction. For instance, the disparity in official reports for the number of people injured at the Prince Edward Station on August 31, 2019, gets spun as evidence of secret trains and deaths.

People mistrusting the authorities, immediately buy into the idea of killings despite a lack of proof. Their distorted frame of reference takes them there with ease.

Generally, it’s people with low analytical and critical thinking skills that tend to accept these wild conspiracies. Studies of this phenomena have identified a cohort educated in the ‘soft subjects’ as susceptible. The grievance studies courses are examples.

These qualify people without attaining critical thinking skills. Also, their work gets waved through without robust peer review. Facts are irrelevant to them because opinions trump any evidence. No surprise then that anecdotal evidence points towards students from those places leading the troubles this summer.

Pushing all this along are the silos created by social media. Allied to this is the ‘Big Lie’ theory boosted by the ability of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to repeat a falsehood.

If you hear a story repeated often enough, you start according it some weight. A fair number of people may believe it: “Well something happened” is the refrain.

There is no point arguing the facts with people who’ve dug their trench in a field of falsehoods. For starters, they don’t want to hear the truth. And second, anyone presenting it has a suspicious motive; on a positive note, ridicule and humour blunt the impact of these types.

Wanting to be seen as a serious-thinking person, taking the piss out of their silly ideas unsettles them. Recently, I saw this approach in action. A young man was rattling on: “The police used a secret train to convey protesters over the border”. As quick as a flash, a friend asked: “Did it leave from Platform 9¾?”

As a flood of Harry Potter references followed, the kid reddened up and then sulked away. A small victory, but a victory nonetheless.

Once again, I’m giving unabashed advocacy for objective truths. Rumours, ill-founded opinions and misplaced emotion must face a challenge. I don’t wish to be a fact-based Gradgrind because there is a very human dimension to this outbreak; after all, every death is a tragedy.

And yet the antidote to fear and uncertainty is transparency supported by timely, accurate information from reliable sources.

The problem with this approach is that we are living in an age of government and media distrust. In Hong Kong, trust in our officials is at an all-time low. Carrie Lam is as popular as a bowl of Bat soup.

So below are reliable information sources run by scientists or presenting objective information.

Lastly, you can test yourself here. How many conspiracy theories can you identify?

(I’ve attached more links in this blog following a suggestion from a reader)

John Hopkins - Mapping the Outbreak.
How Bad Will the Outbreak Get?
World Health Organisation.
World Heath Organisation - advice to public
Healthy Matters - simple common sense guide to precautions.

2 Comments

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

An Ode to Two Cities.

A Victory for Free Speech

This was no Black Swan!

The Cure May Kill

Fear is the path to the dark side.

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter